Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

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. President, is the chairman aware of an ongoing study, due December 2003, by the National Academy's Board on Radioactive Waste Management regarding waste characterization requirements for contact handled transuranic waste to be disposed of at the WIPP facility?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to withhold that request.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, The National Mall is more than just an expanse of grass or an undeveloped field. It is a national treasure. By the National Park Service's own account, it is the single most significant public park and open space in our Nation's Capital. It is visited by millions of citizens and visitors from abroad each year. It provides a formal work of landscape architecture of monumental proportions and provides the unifying element for the carefully placed, diverse architectural symbols, repositories and shrines of the heritage of our democracy on and along its length. There has been broad public agreement both in Washington and around the country that allowing the type of activity that occurred at these commercial events is a new low point in the storied history of The Mall. Perhaps this will only be remembered as an unfortunate incident, but we need to make sure that this is not the model for future events on The Mall. We need to act to prohibit increased commercialization in our national parks, and a good place to start is acting to protect The Mall. When we do get to the actual voting on the issue, I hope my colleagues will support the effort to protect The Mall from further commercial exploitation. Exhibit 1 [From the Hill, September 10, 2003] Desecration of the Mall (By Albert Eisele) An older colleague who wrote a daily column in the St. Paul Pioneer Press when I worked there many years ago once told me his best columns were those generated by a sense of outrage. If so, this should be one of my best columns, as few things have offended me more than the disgraceful display of mindless patriotism, insatiable commercialism and sheer bad taste perpetrated last week by the National Football League with its $10 million rock concert extravaganza on the Mall. I wasn't there and didn't watch it on ABC-TV--thank God-- but one photograph in Friday's Washington Post convinced me that aside from the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon and subsequent anthrax attacks, last fall's sniper shootings or the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan, this was the worst thing that's happened here during my nearly 40 years in the nation's capital. The spectacle of pop singer Britney Spears being stripped to her black bikini bottoms to just above pubic level by a pair of male dancers wearing Washington Redskins jerseys, with the Capitol shining in the background, was so jarring that it made me want to cringe. Spear's display of erotic gyrations and lip-synched lyrics may have a place in our appalling, vulgarized popular culture but definitely not in the middle of the nation's most hallowed public space. It was bad enough that this dreadful promotion designed to kick off the 2003 pro football season--and sell Pepsi Vanilla, AOL and Reeboks--took place just a week after the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's immortal ``I Have a Dream'' speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Or that it took place just before the second anniversary of the awful day when Islamic terrorists crashed a jetliner into the Pentagon and were barely prevented from flying over the Mall to crash another into the White House or the Capitol. But it was even worse that President Bush and Interior Secretary Gale Norton were persuaded to serve as cheerleaders for a so-called game that celebrates violence--as if we don't have enough already--and that has owners who personify rapacious greed. This was nothing more than the desecration of a sacred space and an insult to the men and women of the U.S. military whom the event's promoters professed to honor. The president perhaps can be excused from accepting bad advice but not those who persuaded him to lend the dignity of his office to an event that left the rain-soaked Mall trampled and garbage-strewn, both physically and symbolically. Somebody, ideally the congressman whose committees oversee the Department of Interior and the National Park Service, should demand an explanation of who was responsible for allowing this travesty to happen. If they don't, what can we expect to see next? An ad for Viagra on the Washington Monument? A pitch for McDonald's at the Lincoln Memorial or Toyota at the Jefferson Memorial? Or maybe even a banner on the Capitol Dome offering low-interest loans from Citibank to ease the federal deficit? I have nothing against pro football, and I'm glad the Redskins won their opener, even as I despair of Major League Baseball ever returning to Washington. Nor do I disagree that many in the crowd that the NFL generously estimated at 125,000 thought it was wonderful that Britney and her fellow entertainers were invited to do their thing on the Mall. Nevertheless, I'm outraged and saddened. This was a low point for a special space that stands for so much in America.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post editorial entitled ``Marketing the Mall,'' and an article by Tom Shales in the Washington Post entitled ``America, Brought To You by . . . '' be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I take a few minutes today to speak about recent events on The National Mall. The Mall, as Judge Buckley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has written, ``is an area of particular significance in the life of the Capital and the Nation.'' It is a 2-mile green area that stretches from the Capitol in the east to the Lincoln Memorial in the west. It is, as another judge noted, ``the site of monuments marking great figures and events in our Nation's history.'' But it is more than home to these enduring symbols of our nationhood. This judge went on to say: ``Its grassy expanse provides areas for any number of recreational activities. . . .'' The National Mall has also been used, of course, for large-scale events. It is used for the Fourth of July festivities each year and for the Cherry Blossom Festival. Every 4 years, it is used for our inaugural celebrations. It has been the site of national observances and protests--some of the most famous in our Nation's history. ``It is here,'' as Judge Buckley went on to say, ``that the constitutional right of speech and peaceful assembly find their fullest expression.'' Mr. President, Congress has entrusted the Department of the Interior, and particularly the National Park Service within the Department of the Interior, with preserving and regulating the use of this important part of our national heritage. It has, according to the statute, charged the National Park Service with regulating the use of The Mall so as to ``conform'' such use ``to the fundamental purpose'' of ``conserving the scenery and natural and historic objects . . . and providing for the enjoyment of the same in such manner . . . as will leave them unimpaired for their enjoyment by future generations.'' The Mall, as I have said, serves many purposes. None of those purposes that have been identified by the Congress or in regulation are commercial purposes. Accordingly, the National Park Service regulations provide that demonstrations and special events on The Mall may be held only pursuant to permit issued by the Park Service. The rules prohibit the commercial use of The Mall and specifically provide that ``no sales shall be made . . . and no article may be exposed for sale without a permit. . . .'' Despite the clear prohibitions in its own regulations, the Park Service has now sanctioned a new use for this area. That use, unfortunately, can only be called commercial exploitation. Earlier this month, to promote the start of the new football season, the National Football League held what the Department of the Interior described as a music and football festival entitled the ``NFL Kickoff Live From The National Mall Presented by Pepsi Vanilla.'' That was the official title of the event. To allow for the setup and removal of infrastructure associated with this concert, the Park Service gave the NFL a permit to use The Mall for 17 days--the period between August 25 and September 10. The main event occurred on September 4. For many of those days, much of The Mall was fenced off and the public was prevented from using it, although it obviously is one of the most popular spaces in our Nation's Capital. I have spent a great deal of time on The Mall, as I am sure my colleagues have, and I can tell you that currently, even without this kind of extravaganza, it is difficult to walk the length of The Mall from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial. Large areas are closed because of construction of the World War II Memorial and also construction of new security features at the Washington Monument. Portions of The Mall are also closed periodically following events, such as the Fourth of July activities or after large public gatherings, to allow for cleanup and restoration of the grassy areas. In this case--the case of this NFL extravaganza--a large segment of The Mall was essentially closed to the public to allow for what, in my opinion, can only be characterized as commercial use and as advertising by private corporations. Let me start with this photograph and show that corporate sponsors of the concert that occurred on September 4 were allowed to put up a large fence covered with advertising. This advertising talks about the kickoff of 2003 NFL, live from Washington, DC; AOL for broadband; Pepsi Vanilla; Coors Light, and Verizon. This is advertising, in my view. This is clearly commercial activity. Apart from keeping the public off The Mall, the clear message to the public was that The Mall had been turned over to these companies for commercial purposes. The National Park Service has published guidelines to help organizations that want to hold events on The Mall to know what is required. The guidelines state: The theme of a special event must be consistent with the mission of the park-- In this case, we are talking about The Mall. These guidelines apply to all of our national parks in the capital region. They go on to say: and appropriate to the park area in which it is to be held, including consideration for possible damage and/or impairment to park property, facilities, plantings and landscape features . . . and park values. Our Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, whose agency approved the permit for this event, maintains today that this was an appropriate use of The Mall because it was undertaken in partnership with the Department's ``Take Pride in America'' slogan promoting voluntarism on public lands and because it was an event honoring members of our Armed Forces. Clearly, nobody objects to an event celebrating public volunteers or honoring military personnel. However, Secretary Norton's stated rationale for approving the event is simply not consistent with what actually took place on The Mall. It is not consistent, when you look at the banner surrounding The Mall, to say this has anything to do with voluntarism or recognizing the military. This is a photograph of the event. Let me show another photograph which I think makes the case rather convincingly. This is a photograph of the event which was published in the Washington Post. This, evidently, is Secretary Norton's vision of an appropriate use of The Mall. It is impossible to miss the advertisements for Pepsi Vanilla or for Verizon, for Coors, and for its other sponsors, and you certainly cannot miss the huge football promoting the National Football League. It is almost impossible, I suggest, to the untrained eye to find references to the supposed reasons for the event. The ``Take Pride in America'' slogan does appear at the bottom of the advertising banners, and in the other photo it appears at the top of the fence, but I am certain that nobody from any distance--I can barely read it from here-- I am sure nobody can read it from any reasonable distance. This photograph makes the point that the overwhelming image is turning over The Mall for commercial advertising. The event was used as the basis for a commercial television production. Commercials were broadcast to the crowd over large televisions that were located on The Mall itself. The Secretary of the Interior may view this as business as usual, but, in my view, allowing this type of commercial activity with blatant product advertising is contrary to what the policy is for our national parks, including The Mall. It is also contrary to what responsible public policy should be in this area. During her confirmation hearing, I expressed concern to Secretary Norton that as Secretary of the Interior she would hold one of the highest positions of public trust in our Nation's Government. The Secretary of the Interior is the principal guardian of our national parks and our most revered historic sites. Certainly, The National Mall is among the most important symbolic spaces in our country. I was concerned that based on her previous public statements and writings, she had a long record of having championed the interests of corporations in opposition to the Federal Government. At her confirmation hearing, Secretary Norton assured me she would enforce the laws as written, and it is my understanding that in this case the laws and regulations of the Park Service made very clear The National Mall is not to be used as a venue for commercial purposes. It is not to be used as a venue for advertising. I do not see how anyone can look at these photos and believe the Secretary carried out her responsibilities in this instance. Earlier this year, the Senate passed legislation to authorize construction of an education center near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, very much along the lines of a similar bill we passed in the Senate during the last Congress. I was involved in negotiating the language for that bill and tried to ensure that the National Park Service retained its ability to approve the site and the design of the center, and at the request of the Park Service we included language stating the center should be built ``consistent with the special nature and sanctity of The Mall.'' If these photographs reflect Secretary Norton's definition of ``the special nature and sanctity of The Mall,'' I have great concern about what, in fact, we are going to wind up protecting with regard to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. What can we reasonably tell those who intend to operate the educational center for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is not permitted if, in fact, all of this is permitted? The National Park Service regulations generally prohibit commercial advertising on public lands. In addition, the specific permit that was issued related to this event stated no commercial activity was to be conducted. Nevertheless, the Department of the Interior decided the activity we see in this photograph was not commercial activity; that these banners were not advertisements. In the view of the Park Service, these were ``sponsor recognition.'' That is a distinction I was unaware of, between advertising and sponsor recognition. But clearly, the National Park Service believes that distinction needs to be maintained. Even though the National Football League was the organization that sponsored the concert, it was permitted to solicit other companies to underwrite the event's expenses, and those other companies in turn were permitted to advertise on The Mall or, as the Interior Department put it, to obtain ``sponsor recognition.'' It is not clear where the authority comes from for this decision by the National Park Service to allow such ``sponsor recognition.'' The agency's regulations clearly prohibit the display of commercial notices or advertisements on National Park Service lands except where the park superintendent determines the notices relate to products at that park area and the superintendent determines the notices are ``desirable and necessary for the convenience and guidance of the public.'' I do not see how these banners, these fence advertisements fit in to that requirement. It would have been one thing if this event had occurred and following it the Interior Department and the National Park Service had admitted a mistake had been made and they would take appropriate steps to prevent this from occurring in the future. But the leadership of the Interior Department and the Park Service, from Secretary Norton on down, makes no such admission. They continue to insist this was entirely appropriate. Secretary Norton may not care whether this type of event takes place again on The Mall, but I do, and I think many of my colleagues will when they become better informed about this situation. To better understand the Secretary's reasoning that this was not, in fact, commercial activity, that there was no commercial advertising taking place, I am sending a letter to the Secretary requesting copies of the correspondence and the e-mails and the planning memos and other documents the Secretary relied on in concluding this was not commercial activity. The Secretary of the Interior and the National Park Service leadership maintain that commercial activity is not allowed on The Mall; what took place here was not commercial. Since there apparently is a disconnect between what they say and the reality of what, in fact, took place, I think the only solution is to change the law to make it clear, even to the Secretary, that this type of use is not appropriate on The Mall. When the Interior appropriations bill comes to the floor, I intend to offer an amendment to make it clear that future permits to hold special events on The Mall may not include commercial advertising, whether they couch that as ``sponsor recognition'' or not. I want to emphasize The Mall clearly should continue to be available for large-scale events. If the Secretary had approved a large concert to celebrate our troops or to promote her volunteer program, then there would not have been a public outcry such as we have seen as a result of this situation. It was her decision to allow the concert to be used for commercial purposes, to allow the commercial advertising that occurred here that, in my view, crossed the line. If the Department of the Interior and National Park Service officials had made any effort to advocate the protection of the resource with which they are charged to manage, then this would not have been a problem. Since they have refused to do so, it seems to me we must change the statute. Last week, Albert Eisele of the Hill newspaper wrote an excellent article entitled ``Desecration of The Mall.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment, as I have proposed it, would increase funding in the bill for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program by $1 billion for this next fiscal year. The amendment would bring the total funding for the LIHEAP State grants up to $3 billion rather than the $2 billion that is provided in the bill. These grants are allocated at the beginning of each fiscal year to each of the 50 States and to the territories and Indian tribes on the basis of a statutory formula. Let me begin by saying, Senator Specter, the manager of this bill, and Senator Harkin, the ranking member on the subcommittee, have consistently championed the LIHEAP program in the appropriations process. But it is clear they do not have room in this budget resolution that was presented to adequately fund this program. Obviously, the question is, Why did we adopt a budget resolution that did not provide room? I certainly think that is where the mistake was made and where I disagreed with many of my colleagues. The amount of funding for LIHEAP that has been appropriated in the past has been enough to help 15 percent of the households that are eligible for that assistance. And as to those 15 percent, for the families who are covered and actually have received that help, the average grant they have received has covered about 10 to 25 percent of their home energy costs. We had an amendment earlier today by Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Collins of Maine on this very same issue--not on this exact issue but on adding funds. They proposed to add $300 million to the emergency funding available under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Now my proposal is to add $1 billion to the core program--not the emergency part of it but the core program. I point out to my colleagues that 49 Senators voted for that amendment as compared to 46 who voted against it, but the amendment failed. And just for those who have not followed our procedure that closely, why would an amendment fail when more Senators supported it than opposed it? It failed because those Senators were not able to get a full 60 votes which were needed to waive the Budget Act. Well, the question is, Why did they need to waive the Budget Act for that amendment? The amendment contained an offset so that it was not, on a net basis, going to cost more, but we are advised that the offset was not adequate to meet the Budget Act requirements. In fact, the very underlying bill we are going to vote on, presumably later this evening, violates the Budget Act as well. So we have a situation where the majority of Senators present and voting cannot prevail on an issue they believe is important because of the Budget Act provisions we imposed on ourselves and with which I strongly disagree. LIHEAP funding has remained essentially level without adjustment for inflation over the last 20 years. We all know the cost of energy to our households around the country has increased very substantially. Now 60 percent of our homes are, in fact, heated by natural gas and, in fact, cooled by that same energy source. The Department of Energy predicts an average price delivered to the consumer this year of $9.42 per thousand cubic feet for the cost of natural gas. That $9.42 compares to $6.69 that the average consumer had to pay in 1999. Compared to last winter, which was a very tough winter for gas consumers, the Energy Information Agency predicts costs will be at least 10 to 15 percent higher this year. The reason I am raising this issue and talking about it is that I believe we will regret our decision to not provide additional funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program when we get further into this winter. Forty-three of my colleagues in the Senate joined me in a bipartisan letter to Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Harkin requesting that this core Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program be funded at the level of $3 billion for this next year. They have not been able to do that. We are faced with another winter heating season in which there is a great potential for very high natural gas costs, very high heating oil prices for consumers. There will be many low-income Americans who will have great difficulty dealing with those increased prices. The obvious question that will be asked of us and should be asked of us is what is our plan to deal with the expected high costs of energy this winter? Unfortunately, our answer is, we are going to maintain level funding for LIHEAP. That is not an adequate answer. It is not an adequate answer for this administration or for this Congress. For us to say we are sorry, we couldn't do any better because the budget resolution wouldn't let us, the budget resolution was voted on by a majority of Senators, was approved by a majority of the Senators. Clearly, the Senate shares the responsibility to find a solution to the problem. Exhibit 1 American Gas Association, September 8, 2003. Dear Senator: On behalf of the 191 members of the American Gas Association who serve over 53 million consumers of natural gas, I am writing in strong support of the Bingaman and Reed-Collins amendments to increase funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) during consideration of the FY04 Labor, HHS and Education spending bill. The winter heating season is approaching and it is imperative that funding for LIHEAP is increased. The LIHEAP program is woefully under-funded, providing assistance to approximately 4 million households, or only 15 percent of the 30 million households eligible for assistance. Yet demand for energy assistance continues to grow due to high unemployment levels, high energy prices and unpredictable weather conditions. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in August remained extremely high at 6.1 percent. A total of 8.9 million people currently are unemployed across the country. Job losses were seen in the manufacturing sector, some travel-related industries, and in the retail industry. At the same time, according to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), compared to last year, this year's energy prices are 30 percent higher for natural gas, 60 percent higher for heating oil, 25 percent higher for propane and 11 percent higher for electricity. The high energy prices are due in large part to the unusually cold winter experienced in various regions of the country this year, which increased demand for home heating. Natural gas commodity prices continue to bounce between $5.00 and $5.25 per mmbtu, and natural gas storage inventories are 7.5 percent below the five-year average. The amendment proposed by Senator Bingaman would increase LIHEAP funding to $3.0 billion, representing a $1 billion increase over the $2.0 billion currently proposed in the FY04 Labor, HHS and Education spending bill. The Reed-Collins amendment would provide an additional $300 million in emergency LIHEAP assistance. Both of these amendments will be extremely helpful in protecting low and fixed-income individuals during the winter heating season, and also will make available much needed cooling assistance next summer. We urge you to recognize the impact the weak economy and the high price of energy is having on low and fixed-income energy consumers. Low-income energy assistance must be increased dramatically before we find ourselves in a crisis. We strongly urge you to support the Bingaman and Reed-Collins amendments. If you have any questions, suggestions or concerns, please contact me personally at (202) 824-7111. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, David N. Parker, President and CEO.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment is offered by myself and Senators Lautenberg, Cantwell, Baucus, Stabenow, Levin, Durbin, Pryor, Lincoln, Kennedy, Kerry, and Feinstein. This is an issue that I think deserves a little more attention before we complete action on this appropriations bill. This an amendment that relates to LIHEAP, which is an acronym we use in the Congress and in Washington to talk about the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the American Gas Association, the Campaign for Home Energy Assistance, and the Southern States Energy Board endorsing this amendment be printed in the Record following my statement.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1588 for consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in light of the fact that a 60-vote majority would be required for me to prevail on my amendment and in light of the fact that earlier amendment on a related issue by Senators Reed and Collins could not gain more than 49 votes, I will not push for a rollcall vote on my amendment at this time. I do call it to the attention of my colleagues. I hope at some stage before we adjourn this fall we are able to find a way to put additional funds into this very important program so as to head off the very real hardship that is going to be visited upon many of our citizens this winter. Madam President, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Harkin amendment related to proposed administration changes to overtime regulations, and I am pleased to be a co-sponsor. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established that--with only a few specific exceptions--American workers were entitled to overtime pay, meaning time and a half wages, for every hour worked beyond the accepted 40-hour work week. The Fair Labor Standards Act was not passed out of context. The legislation derived from the labor abuses that occurred in the early 1900s. Furthermore, it was signed into law because political and labor leaders at that time agreed that workers should not be pushed beyond their breaking point. By making every hour beyond 40 more expensive, the legislation discouraged employers from assigning longer hours and rewarded employees for sacrificing their personal or family time for their company. Workers could still work longer hours if they chose to do so, or if they needed additional income--many do so today--but they could not be required to do so by their employers, and they could not be required to do so at the same wage level they earned during their 40-hour work week. I think this was a perfectly reasonable bargain to have made then, and I think it is a perfectly reasonable bargain now. It is a form of social contract--one of many made at the time that have extended to the present because they make good rational sense. And I am strongly of the view that it should not be broken at this time. The Bush administration has recently proposed substantial regulatory changes that dramatically alter this social contract, and the underlying principles that form its foundation. Under the guise of ``flexibility'' for employees, it has decided to change the categories that will classify a worker as eligible for overtime, and in doing so, will vastly increase the number of employees that are exempt from overtime pay. The Department of Labor has estimated that the proposed changes will affect only 644,000 workers. But the Economic Policy Institute has concluded that the numbers are significantly miscalculated and the correct figure is closer to 8 million. This includes everyone from police officers, no firefighters, to registered nurses, to medical technicians, to floor supervisors in service industries, to paralegals, to journalists--any number of individuals that currently earn more than $22,100 per year. Worse, many of these individuals are currently in professions that are essential to national security or difficult to fill. In my State of New Mexico, for example, the proposed regulations would have very profound effects. According to an analysis undertaken by the New Mexico Department of Labor, over 37,000 workers will lost overtime benefits as a result of the proposed rule change. Many of these workers are in professions that we need in the State and we may lost if salaries are decreased--specialty fields like teachers, physical therapists, health care technicians, first responders, and so on. For the life of me I don't see why the Bush administration would be providing disincentives for people to work in fields where we need them the most. Why are we telling teachers, or nurses, or firefighters that we don't value the extra time you put in on the job? In my State these folks are frequently living on a shoestring as it is. How can the Bush administration justify a policy that takes money away from them? I have three specific problems with the proposed overtime regulations. First, as I have mentioned previously, it pulls back from the social contract made with American workers in the past. I don't understand what has changed over the last few years to require that overtime rules be altered, and I don't believe it is time to alter an agreement that at its core is designed to allow Americans to be rewarded for hard work and spend more time with their families. Second, I think it's the wrong time for change. We have now some of the worst economic conditions that we have seen in years in this country. Levels of unemployment continue to climb, so much so that many workers have simply given up looking for work. Why are we telling those who have work at this time that they should get less for what they do? Why are we telling these folks they have to take a pay cut? Why are we taking money out of the pockets of these folks, money that these days go to make ends meet, but can also go for mortgages, education, and savings accounts? Third, given the current record of the Bush administration on key labor issues--be it outsourcing, minimum wage, FMLA, workplace protections, or anything else--I am not convinced that it is time to give it ``flexibility'' to apply regulations of any type that will affect American workers. From what I have seen so far, I think the administration has taken a very clear stance against the low- and middle-income workers that form the very heart and soul of this country, and I think it is time that we push back on these policies. I think it is essential that we send an unequivocal message to the Bush administration that we will not allow changes on the overtime regulations to occur. I believe it is bad policy that will hurt working Americans at a time when they need our support.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my fellow Senators to support this very important amendment. This amendment would invest an additional $190 million in our Nation's future, by strengthening seven programs: The High School Equivalency Program, HEP; The College Assistance Migrant Program, CAMP; migrant education; local family information centers; bilingual education; Hispanic serving institutions, HSIs; and Head Start for children of migrant workers. If we do no pass this amendment, funding for the High School Equivalency Program will be cut by 43 percent. This program provides academic instruction, counseling, computer assisted teaching, career awareness to migrant students studying for the GED, as well as assistance with college admissions and job placement. If this amendment is not passed, 23 program slots will be eliminated due to the lack of funding. Currently, these 23 slots are filled by some of the oldest and best performing projects in the HEP program, some of which have been providing services for 30 years. As a whole, 73 percent of their students received GEDs, and no less than three of the programs have had consecutive years of 100 percent of their students receiving their GEDs. All of these programs are up for renewal as well as competition for these slots with other programs. One of the 23 programs that faces elimination is in my own State of New Mexico at the Northern New Mexico Community College. Other States in which programs are at risk of not being renewed due to the lack of funding include Pennsylvania, Texas, Idaho, Mississippi, Colorado, Florida, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and California. A second program whose funding has been cut is the College Assistance Migrant Program or CAMP. CAMP recruits talented migrant high school graduates and GED recipients, who aspire to a postsecondary education but lack adequate resources. CAMP assists students in their first year of college with personal and academic counseling, mentoring, and stipends. Before the Federal Government created CAMP programs, there was no record of a migrant child having completed college. Since their inceptions, both HEP and CAMP have achieved stunning success rates. For the projects that received 5-year grants in 1999, 72 percent of the HEP participants have received their GEDs while over 80 percent of the CAMP students have successfully completed their first year of college. Over the history of the program, nearly three-quarters of all CAMP students received baccalaureate degrees. The existing 102 HEP and CAMP programs serve approximately 15,000 students in 25 States and Puerto Rico. Many areas of the country have no access to the programs at all. Based on the Department of Education's estimate, of the over 750,000 school-aged migrant children, over the next 5 years there will be over 170,000 migrant children who will become dropouts and eligible for HEP services. CAMP programs will have approximately 140,000 students who will qualify for services. The need for services far outstrips the programs' current resources. The title I Migrant Education Program was established to provide a compensatory education program designed to deal with the difficulties encountered by children of migrant workers as a consequence of their mobility. Some of these children attend three or four schools in a single school year. They have a need for coordination of educational services among the States and local districts where they live, often for a short time. The MEP builds the support structures for migrant students so that they can achieve high levels of success both in and outside of school. The U.S. Department of Education reports that more than 750,000 students were identified as eligible for the program in fiscal year 2001. Additional funds are needed to ensure that these children are able to meet the challenges mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. This amendment will provide an additional $4,587,000 in needed funding. The Local Family Information Centers was authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act to provide parents of title I students, including English language learners, with information about their children's schools so that they can help their children to meet the high standards we have set under NCLB. The Local Family Information Centers also help parents to hold their local and state school officials accountable and become more involved in their children's education. This amendment would increase funding by $12.8 million. This amendment would increase funding to State and local education agencies in order to ensure that as many of the 4.6 million children with limited English skills as possible learn English, develop high levels of academic attainment, and meet the same challenging State academic standards as all children. Title III is a formula grant program that distributes funding to all 50 States based on the number of limited English proficient, LEP, and recent immigrant students. The funds are used for developing effective language acquisition programs; training for bilingual/ESL teachers and regular teachers and educational personnel; parent involvement; and providing services for recently arrived immigrant students. This amendment would restore the $20.5 million cut in the current legislation and increase funds by an additional $64.5 million. Currently, 35 percent of Hispanics are under the age of 18. The Educational Testing Service has projected the U.S. higher education system will grow by 3.5 million additional students by 2015 and that nearly 40 percent of these new students will be Hispanic. HSIs serve the largest concentrations of the Nation's youngest and largest ethnic population. HSIs, by definition, have a full-time student enrollment that is at least 25 percent Hispanic; further, at least one-half of their entire student enrollment is low-income. The impending emergence of more than 100 new HSIs, mostly in California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Illinois, in the next few years and the rapid growth of the Hispanic college-age population underscore the urgency for immediate, major, and sustained increases in title V funding. At a time when the current labor force is reaching retirement age in substantial numbers, Hispanics already represent one of every three new workers joining the U.S. labor force, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. By 2025, the Bureau projects that one of two new workers joining the U.S. labor force will be Hispanic. This amendment would provide an additional $6.4 million in assistance to these great institutions. Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, MSHS, programs serve nearly 32,000 migrant children and nearly 2,500 seasonal children annually, operating in 38 States in every region of the country. Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs were the first Head Start programs to serve infants and toddlers. today, two-thirds of the children in the program are infants and toddlers. Migrant and Seasonal Head Start was a response to the needs of migrant families. In most States, local childcare resources are not available when migrants come into a community, especially for infants and toddlers. When resources are not available, parents have no choice but to take the children to the fields where they are exposed to pesticides, hazardous equipment, extreme heat and other health dangers. This program is ever growing and so greater resources are needed to provide these essential services. This amendment requests an additional $69 million for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start. We must do everything we can to provide every child with the best education we can. I urge my fellow Senators to support these greatly needed programs by providing them with the proper resources.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak in favor of the amendment that Senator Reid of Nevada has offered relating to funding for various programs in this appropriations bill that are of particular importance to the Hispanic community. I strongly support Senator Reid's amendment and believe that it would be a very important step for us to take in keeping the commitment that we have made to the people of this country when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act. I have just completed spending 4 weeks in my State, most of the time in my State, and much of that time I was talking to people who were involved in education and were preparing for the new school year. It is clear that one message comes through in those discussions. That message is, What is the Federal Government going to do to keep its share of the bargain? The Federal Government has imposed all sorts of new requirements on States and school districts about how they are to reform education, how they are to improve instruction in the schools, how they are to improve student performance in the schools. Unfortunately, when those educators see that the administration, first, in its request to Congress, and then the Congress itself, does not put forward the money which was committed in the No Child Left Behind Act, the cynicism on the part of many people working in education is understandable. The amendment the Senator from Nevada has offered is an effort to correct some of that. I strongly support it. Let me talk about one particular aspect of it that I know better, perhaps, than I know some other parts. That relates to the dropout prevention program. This is a subject that has been debated and discussed and talked about in Washington and at the national level for a great many years. I remember when President Bush senior, the former President Bush--not this President Bush but this President Bush's father--convened all the Governors of the country to have a first and only, as far as I know to this day--first and only national summit on education. That was in Charlottesville, VA. It was in 1989, I believe. At that time the Governors and the President committed the country to a series of goals in education, things that we would all agree, jointly, to work on and accomplish over the coming 10 years. That was in 1989. That 10 years has come and gone. But one of those goals was that we would ensure that at least 90 percent of the students who started high school actually completed high school; that we would reduce the dropout rate very substantially in this country. That was one of the goals the President and the Governors signed onto. I should say one of those Governors was former President Bill Clinton. Of course, there were many others who are still in key positions in our Government who were part of that group. The unfortunate reality is that after we adopted that set of goals, national education goals, there was no strategy to achieve them. There was absolutely nothing done here in Washington and in many States, I fear, to actually get us to where we had committed to travel. Particularly in this area of dropout prevention, there was no Federal money committed. The first Federal money that was committed was a demonstration program in fiscal year 2001. I believe we committed $10 million to a demonstration program so that for the first time the Department of Education at the national level would have some funds available to help local school districts reduce the number of students who were leaving school without graduating, and to reduce the number of students who were dropping out. This is of particular importance in my State because in my State we have a very high dropout rate. Unfortunately for everyone involved, that dropout rate is concentrated in the Hispanic community. Over 40 percent of the students in my State are of Hispanic background, and a great many of those students--particularly young Hispanic males--leave school without graduating from high school. That is not only unfortunate for them, but it substantially reduces their ability to be productive citizens, to earn a good income, to raise a family, and to do the things we all aspire to do. But it also is an unfortunate reality for our State's economy. We do not have the ability to generate the wealth because we lack some of the skilled workforce we need, and that we could have if we keep those people in school longer. In fiscal year 2001, the Congress stepped forward. This was before the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted. We stepped forward and said, OK, we will commit $10 million nationally to try to deal with this problem. That funding can be used to help school districts that have strategies which they want to pursue to reduce the dropout rate. That was an appropriate thing to do. When we had the debate and the hearings and the markup on the No Child Left Behind Act, we talked long and hard about this problem of the dropout rate and how to come to grips with it. In the final bill, I was very pleased to see the administration agreed with the Congress, and that we authorized $125 million a year to be spent to reduce the dropout rate. That bill was signed in January of 2001. Since then, we have had two budget requests from this President. In both of those budget requests--in 2001, and again this year--in each of the budget requests we have received, there has been zero funding proposed for dropout prevention. Absolutely nothing was requested for dropout prevention at the Federal level. The Congress stepped in last year and corrected some of that. Instead of putting in $10 million, the Congress put in $10.9 million. I appreciate that. That was a step the Congress took in spite of the fact there was zero funding requested by the administration. This year, there are zero funds requested by the administration for dropout prevention. Unfortunately, this year, the bill we are considering on the Senate floor today follows the administration's recommendation and contains zero funds. The House bill follows the administration's recommendation and contains zero funds. We are going from a situation where we committed $10 million to this program before we passed the No Child Left Behind Act to a situation where we are committing zero funds now that we have passed the No Child Left Behind Act. Understandably, people in the education community doubt the sincerity of those of us in Washington who keep talking about how important it is to reduce the dropout rate. Why is this dropout rate issue relevant to a discussion, or particularly relevant to a discussion of No Child Left Behind? The main thrust of the No Child Left Behind Act was to increase accountability, raise standards, require more of teachers, and require more of students. The great concern which I heard in my State, and which I think lots of us heard, was if we are going to do that--which is a good thing because we all favor higher standards, we all favor better performance, we all favor better trained teachers and better performing students--but if we are going to do that, let us not kid ourselves and allow the students who are not keeping up to just go away and forget about it. That is the concern. That is why we also put a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act for some funding for dropout prevention. It is not a major amount. It is $125 million a year. But it was at least a commitment at the Federal level to help deal with the problem. It was a commitment that the Hispanic community--at least leaders of the Hispanic community who focus on education issues in my State, and virtually all the leaders of the Hispanic community in my State who focus on education issues because they understand the importance that education holds for their community--all of those leaders would know this was a priority and that we would be able to move ahead and begin to deal with it systematically. I hope very much we can adopt Senator Reid's amendment so we can add some funding and do something. I am not of the view that we are going to add $125 million. Senator Reid's amendment proposes to add $20 million. That is inadequate, but it certainly is much better than nothing, which is what we are now proposing. There are other provisions in Senator Reid's amendment which I think are also very meritorious. He indicated in his description of the amendment funding for the Hispanic-serving institutions. That is important funding as well. Clearly, I support the effort to add some reasonable increase to that. There are 157 Hispanic-serving institutions which have received money from title V. A third of those institutions that are eligible have received no assistance. These grants are made on a competitive basis, and there are not enough funds to award grants to each of the institutions that meet the criteria. The migrant program: Again, this is an area in which I think the Federal Government has a peculiarly important responsibility. You cannot expect each local State to have in place the kind of support system for migrant children of migrant families which is needed. We are requiring in the No Child Left Behind Act that school districts raise the performance and the achievement level of all students. That includes those students who are students of migrant families who come into that school district for a few months, perhaps, and then leave. But the school district is held accountable for the performance of those students, as it should be held accountable for the performance of those students. The number of those students is increasing. It has grown from 624,000 in fiscal year 1999 to over 800,000 this year. That growth, combined with the new mandates from this No Child Left Behind Act, will require that additional funding be made available. So I urge all Senators to support the amendment by my colleague from Nevada. These are important programs. They need to be adequately funded. We have committed to fund these programs at an adequate level and, unfortunately, the bill before us does not do that. I hope very much this amendment will be adopted. It is a very modest amendment, frankly, compared to the size of the budget we are dealing with, compared to the size of the appropriations in this bill itself. So I hope this modest amendment to assist those most in need of educational services in our country can be supported.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. My understanding is that this funding--in reference to students who have dropped out--contemplates what many States are doing, which is to use some of their title I funds for students who are in the criminal justice system. This is not dropout prevention; this is taking students who have dropped out. Maybe they have dropped out because they have been thrown in jail, but whatever the reason, they are no longer in the school system. My understanding was that essentially the administration was saying you are required to use at least 1 percent of the title I funds that we provide to you to deal with these students who have left the system and are in the criminal justice system primarily. That is what States are doing. What we were trying to do in the provision I am arguing for and Senator Reid is arguing for here in the No Child Left Behind Act is to get ahead of the problem and say we don't want these students leaving the school system. We want to help the school district to keep those students in school. That is what we wanted to see funds devoted to, dropout prevention rather than assisting students who had already left the school system. Am I confused about that? Let me ask that question.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am very pleased to yield for a question.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time is reserved for me?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me use my 3 minutes to make the point that this is a very important amendment which the Senator from Nevada put forward to provide some additional funding for the programs that are most important in assisting Hispanic students and school districts that are serving Hispanic students around our country. I believe very strongly that we need to adopt this amendment. One of the key provisions in it, which I spoke about earlier this morning, would add $20 million for dropout prevention. That is $20 million out of the $125 million that is authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act. The President asked for zero funds for that dropout prevention initiative. I believe we in Congress should add something in the current year. We are providing nearly $11 million. I believe this amendment would allow us to provide at least $20 million, which is a start and which is a help. I hope very much it will be adopted. In my home State, the Farmington public schools received a grant under the funding this last year for dropout prevention. It is funding they are using to assist students through individualized school reentry support activities, an alternative for remediation, transition-based life skills and career awareness, adult advisory and intensive mentoring services. They are working with these individual students who are at risk of dropping out. My colleague from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, said, Well, there are already funds in the bill that can be used for these purposes. The funds he is referring to are funds which are allocated on the basis of the percentage of children and youth residing in locally operated correctional facilities. This is funding which is used by school districts to deal with this element that winds up in correctional facilities or are at risk of winding up in correctional facilities. What I am advocating, and what I think the Senator from Nevada is advocating, is that we get out ahead of the problem and assist students who are at risk of leaving school. We try to help school districts keep those students in school and not wait until they get involved with the correctional system. We do not think it should be simply said, OK, if a kid gets thrown in jail or gets in trouble with the Department of Justice or the judicial system, then we will come to assist in some respects. This is a very meritorious amendment. I hope my colleagues will support the Reid amendment. I yield the floor.