Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will enhance the future economic vitality of communities in Otero, Lincoln, Torrance, Guadalupe, and Quay Counties. The purpose of this legislation is to focus attention on the need to upgrade U.S. Highway 54 to four lanes. I believe improving the transportation infrastructure will help attract good jobs to South, Central, and Eastern New Mexico. I am honored to have my good friend and colleague, Senator Roberts, as the lead cosponsor of the bill. I am also pleased to have Senators Inhofe, Hutchison, Domenici and Brownback as original cosponsors. In addition, Representatives Udall, NM, Moran, Lucas, Thornberry, Pearce, and Reyes are introducing this bill today on the House side. Our bill designates U.S. Highway 54 from the border with Mexico at El Paso, TX, through New Mexico, and Oklahoma to Wichita, KS, as the Southwest Passage Initiative for Regional and Interstate Transportation, or SPIRIT, corridor. Congress has already included Highway 54 as part of the National Highway System. This bill adds the SPIRIT Corridor in Congress's list of High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System. About half of the 700-mile-long SPIRIT corridor is in New Mexico and another 200 miles of it are in Kansas. Our goal with this designation is to promote the development of this route into a full four-lane divided highway. When completed, the route will link rural areas in the four States to major market centers. I continue to believe strongly in the importance of highway infrastructure for economic development in my State. Even in this age of the new economy and high-speed digital communications, roads continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are especially important to citizens in the rural parts of New Mexico. It is well known that regions with four-lane highways more readily attract out-of-State visitors and new jobs. Truck drivers and the traveling public prefer the safety of a four-lane divided highway. In New Mexico, US 54 is a fairly level route, bypassing New Mexico's major mountain ranges. The route also traverses some of New Mexico's most dramatic scenery, including two of the State's popular Scenic Byways. One is the Mesalands Scenic Byway in Guadalupe, San Miguel and Quay Counties, incorporating the beautiful tablelands known as El Llano Estacado. The other is the state's newest byway, La Frontera de Llano, which follows highway 39 from Logan to Abbott in Harding County, including the spectacular Canadian River Canyon and the Kiowa National Grasslands. The SPIRIT corridor passes through Alamogordo, home of the New Mexico Museum of Space History and gateway to the stunning White Sands National Monument. Highway 54 is also important to our nation from the perspective of national security. The route directly serves Fort Bliss, the White Sands Missile Range, and Holloman Air Force Base. It also passes through the Nation's breadbasket as well as some of the Nation's most important oil and gas fields. The route of the SPIRIT corridor starts at Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, home of one the largest concentrations of manufacturing in the border region. As a result of increased trade under NAFTA, commercial border traffic is now much higher at the border crossings in El Paso, Texas, and Santa Teresa, New Mexico. In New Mexico, truck traffic from the border has risen to over 1000 per day and is expected to triple in the next twenty years. The SPIRIT corridor is perfectly situated to serve international trade and promote economic development along its entire route. The route provides direct connections to four major Interstate Highways: I- 10, I-35, I-40, and I-70. SPIRIT is also the shortest route between Chicago and El Paso, shaving 137 miles off the major alternative. Though much of US 54 is currently only two lanes, traffic has been rising dramatically along the entire route since NAFTA was implemented. In New Mexico, total daily traffic levels are nearing 10,000 and are projected to rise to 30,000, with trucks making up 35 percent of the total. In Oklahoma, traffic levels are up to 6,500 per day--40 percent of which are commercial trucks. These traffic statistics clearly reflect the SPIRIT corridor's attraction to commercial and passenger drivers. New Mexicans recognize the importance of efficient roads to economic development and safety. I have long supported my state's efforts to complete the four-lane upgrade of US 54. The State Highway and Transportation Department now rates the project a high priority for New Mexico. The four-lane upgrade of the first 56-mile segment from the Texas border to Alamogordo was completed last year. Two more sections in New Mexico remain to be upgraded: 163 miles from Tularosa, north through Carrizozo, Corona, and Vaughn, to Santa Rosa and 50 miles from Tucumcari to the Texas border near Nara Visa in Quay County. The cost to four-lane these two segments is estimated at $420 million. I am committed to working to help secure the funding required to complete New Mexico's four-lane upgrade as soon as possible. I am pleased the other States are also moving quickly to four-lane their portion of the route. I hope designating SPIRIT as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System will help spur the completion of this project. Once the SPIRIT corridor is designated, New Mexico will have four high-priority corridors on the National Highway System. The other three are the Ports-to-Plains corridor, the Camino Real Corridor, and the East West Transamerica Corridor. These four trade corridors, as well as our close proximity to the border, strongly underscore the vital role New Mexico plays in our nation's interstate and international transportation network. The SPIRIT project has broad grassroots support. Most of the cities, counties, and chambers of commerce all the way from Wichita to El Paso have passed resolutions of support for the four-lane upgrade of US 54 along the entire corridor. I do believe the four-lane upgrade of Highway 54 is vital to the continued economic development for all of the communities along the SPIRIT corridor in New Mexico. I again thank Senators Roberts, Inhofe, Hutchison, Domenici and Brownback for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope all Senators will join us in support of this important legislation. It is my hope that our bill can pass quickly this year or be included when the Senate considers the reauthorization of the six-year transportation bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that letters and resolutions of support from Otero County, Lincoln County, and Alamogordo in New Mexico, and from the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the Secretary of Transportation of Kansas be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will enhance the future economic vitality of communities in Otero, Lincoln, Torrance, Guadalupe, and Quay Counties. The purpose of this legislation is to focus attention on the need to upgrade U.S. Highway 54 to four lanes. I believe improving the transportation infrastructure will help attract good jobs to South, Central, and Eastern New Mexico. I am honored to have my good friend and colleague, Senator Roberts, as the lead cosponsor of the bill. I am also pleased to have Senators Inhofe, Hutchison, Domenici and Brownback as original cosponsors. In addition, Representatives Udall, NM, Moran, Lucas, Thornberry, Pearce, and Reyes are introducing this bill today on the House side. Our bill designates U.S. Highway 54 from the border with Mexico at El Paso, TX, through New Mexico, and Oklahoma to Wichita, KS, as the Southwest Passage Initiative for Regional and Interstate Transportation, or SPIRIT, corridor. Congress has already included Highway 54 as part of the National Highway System. This bill adds the SPIRIT Corridor in Congress's list of High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System. About half of the 700-mile-long SPIRIT corridor is in New Mexico and another 200 miles of it are in Kansas. Our goal with this designation is to promote the development of this route into a full four-lane divided highway. When completed, the route will link rural areas in the four States to major market centers. I continue to believe strongly in the importance of highway infrastructure for economic development in my State. Even in this age of the new economy and high-speed digital communications, roads continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are especially important to citizens in the rural parts of New Mexico. It is well known that regions with four-lane highways more readily attract out-of-State visitors and new jobs. Truck drivers and the traveling public prefer the safety of a four-lane divided highway. In New Mexico, US 54 is a fairly level route, bypassing New Mexico's major mountain ranges. The route also traverses some of New Mexico's most dramatic scenery, including two of the State's popular Scenic Byways. One is the Mesalands Scenic Byway in Guadalupe, San Miguel and Quay Counties, incorporating the beautiful tablelands known as El Llano Estacado. The other is the state's newest byway, La Frontera de Llano, which follows highway 39 from Logan to Abbott in Harding County, including the spectacular Canadian River Canyon and the Kiowa National Grasslands. The SPIRIT corridor passes through Alamogordo, home of the New Mexico Museum of Space History and gateway to the stunning White Sands National Monument. Highway 54 is also important to our nation from the perspective of national security. The route directly serves Fort Bliss, the White Sands Missile Range, and Holloman Air Force Base. It also passes through the Nation's breadbasket as well as some of the Nation's most important oil and gas fields. The route of the SPIRIT corridor starts at Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, home of one the largest concentrations of manufacturing in the border region. As a result of increased trade under NAFTA, commercial border traffic is now much higher at the border crossings in El Paso, Texas, and Santa Teresa, New Mexico. In New Mexico, truck traffic from the border has risen to over 1000 per day and is expected to triple in the next twenty years. The SPIRIT corridor is perfectly situated to serve international trade and promote economic development along its entire route. The route provides direct connections to four major Interstate Highways: I- 10, I-35, I-40, and I-70. SPIRIT is also the shortest route between Chicago and El Paso, shaving 137 miles off the major alternative. Though much of US 54 is currently only two lanes, traffic has been rising dramatically along the entire route since NAFTA was implemented. In New Mexico, total daily traffic levels are nearing 10,000 and are projected to rise to 30,000, with trucks making up 35 percent of the total. In Oklahoma, traffic levels are up to 6,500 per day--40 percent of which are commercial trucks. These traffic statistics clearly reflect the SPIRIT corridor's attraction to commercial and passenger drivers. New Mexicans recognize the importance of efficient roads to economic development and safety. I have long supported my state's efforts to complete the four-lane upgrade of US 54. The State Highway and Transportation Department now rates the project a high priority for New Mexico. The four-lane upgrade of the first 56-mile segment from the Texas border to Alamogordo was completed last year. Two more sections in New Mexico remain to be upgraded: 163 miles from Tularosa, north through Carrizozo, Corona, and Vaughn, to Santa Rosa and 50 miles from Tucumcari to the Texas border near Nara Visa in Quay County. The cost to four-lane these two segments is estimated at $420 million. I am committed to working to help secure the funding required to complete New Mexico's four-lane upgrade as soon as possible. I am pleased the other States are also moving quickly to four-lane their portion of the route. I hope designating SPIRIT as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System will help spur the completion of this project. Once the SPIRIT corridor is designated, New Mexico will have four high-priority corridors on the National Highway System. The other three are the Ports-to-Plains corridor, the Camino Real Corridor, and the East West Transamerica Corridor. These four trade corridors, as well as our close proximity to the border, strongly underscore the vital role New Mexico plays in our nation's interstate and international transportation network. The SPIRIT project has broad grassroots support. Most of the cities, counties, and chambers of commerce all the way from Wichita to El Paso have passed resolutions of support for the four-lane upgrade of US 54 along the entire corridor. I do believe the four-lane upgrade of Highway 54 is vital to the continued economic development for all of the communities along the SPIRIT corridor in New Mexico. I again thank Senators Roberts, Inhofe, Hutchison, Domenici and Brownback for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope all Senators will join us in support of this important legislation. It is my hope that our bill can pass quickly this year or be included when the Senate considers the reauthorization of the six-year transportation bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that letters and resolutions of support from Otero County, Lincoln County, and Alamogordo in New Mexico, and from the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the Secretary of Transportation of Kansas be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three welfare bills. Although these bills do not represent a comprehensive welfare reform proposal, they do address what I see as some of the most critical and pressing issues we must deal with as we move toward improving the TANF program. Let me begin by introducing the Children First Act on behalf of myself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Levin, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg and Mr. Reed). Since 1996, federal funding for child care assistance under the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, has significantly increased, making it possible for states to provide more low-income families with child care assistance and to expand initiatives to improve the quality of child care. This has been an extremely important endeavor. Access to high quality childcare is crucial in helping families to work and children to succeed. Most people agree that the recent employment gains among welfare recipients can only be sustained if families have access to dependable child care. Studies show that when childcare is available and when families get help in paying for care, they are more likely to work. In fact, when I talk to people in my home State of New Mexico about welfare reform, they identify access to childcare as the most important work support we can provide. Despite the past increases in the CCDBG, we must do more. Overall, only one out of seven children eligible for assistance through the CCDBG program receives a subsidy, leaving approximately 12.9 million eligible children without assistance. Less than 25 percent of New Mexican children under the age of six who are eligible for childcare assistance are currently receiving it. Unfortunately, the need for childcare assistance is only likely to increase in the near future. Many states are currently threatened with serious budget shortfalls that threaten the availability of funds for numerous important endeavors, including childcare assistance. In addition, the administration's recently proposed TANF plan includes provisions for increased work requirements for recipients. If passed, this would create an increased need for welfare support services, especially childcare. Without subsidized care, many of our Nation's poor families simply cannot afford to work. We must not only seek to increase access to childcare overall, but also to ensure the improved quality of such care. Currently, many families receiving assistance cannot provide their children with a high quality childcare setting. In part, this is because the childcare reimbursement rates are so low that many of the higher quality providers do not accept state-subsidized children into their programs. Low salaries and the lack of health care and other benefits also make it difficult to attract and retain highly qualified childcare workers. These are major issues given that quality childcare provides low-income children with the early learning experiences they need to do well in school and in life. We know that children in high quality early care are more likely to experience academic success, for example, higher test scores and an increased likelihood of graduating from high school, and less likely to experience social problems such as being charged in juvenile court or being aggressive toward others. The Children First Act will address these important issues by increasing funds for the CCDBG by $11.2 billion over 5 years. With these funds, States will be able to serve approximately 1 million more children nationally. The bill also contains an increase in the quality set-aside in CCDBG, which will provide States with funds that can be used to train care providers and create and enforce standards of care. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. It will help low-income families work and help prepare our children to succeed. Next, I would like to introduce the Education Works Act on behalf of myself and Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Reed, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Wyden. Since the 1996 changes in our welfare laws, the number of individuals on welfare has dramatically decreased in most States. However, although many have successfully left welfare for work over the past several years, too many have been left behind because they don't have a high school degree, have little or no work history, or are lacking the skills that are important for success in the job market. In addition, many of those who have secured work are working for low wages, receive few or no benefits, and have limited opportunity for upward financial mobility. As we move toward reauthorization, we must do more to support State efforts to insure that all individuals leaving welfare have the capacity to obtain employment that will provide long-term financial independence. The Education Works Act will do just that. We know that the welfare programs that have been most successful in helping parents work and earn more over the long run are those that have focused on employment but also make substantial use of education and training, together with job search and other employment services. Yes, less than 1 percent of Federal TANF funds were spent on education and training in 2000, largely because current law limits the extent to which education activities count toward Federal work participation requirements, effectively restricting how long individuals can participate in training and also capping how many people can receive these services. The Education Works Act would change this by: clarifying that states have the flexibility to allow participation in postsecondary, vocational English as a Second Language, and basic adult education programs by TANF recipients as part of TANF work requirements; giving States the flexibility to determine how long each recipient may participate in education and training activities while receiving benefits; giving states the flexibility to provide non-cash assistance in the form of childcare and transportation supports to individuals who are participating in a full-time education program, without counting these services against the 5-year time limit on TANF benefits; eliminating the 30 percent cap on the number of TANF recipients that can participate in education and training programs in fulfillment of their work requirements. Via TANF waivers, many States have already been operating programs that do many of the things we're talking about here. In other cases, however, state efforts to provide education and training to welfare recipients have been hampered by an inability to use TANF funds to support these efforts. For example, in my home State, we already have an ``Education Works'' program but only 400 participants are enrolled statewide, due to funding limitations. States should be held accountable for decreasing welfare caseloads but also for insuring that those entering the workforce have the skills they need to become and remain economically self-sufficient. We need to give all states the flexibility to implement the types of programs that they believe will best achieve these goals. The Education Works Act is an important step in this direction and I urge my colleagues to support it. Finally, I would like to introduce the Self-Sufficiency and Accountability Act. This Act has several broad goals: to increase state reporting and accountability for welfare dollars that are received, to encourage states to develop concrete strategies to help families move from welfare to self-sufficiency, and to allow states not currently receiving TANF waivers to do so. First, State plan requirements under current welfare law are simply not comprehensive enough. Under current law, States can submit plans that contain little information about the services that will be provided, long-range or strategic planning, goals or benchmarks, or how they will insure equitable treatment of all welfare clients. In addition, there are currently few provisions for informing the public about the details contained in state plans. Thus, States have little or no accountability to legislators or to the public for the billions of welfare dollars they receive each year. The Self-Sufficiency and Accountability Act seeks to remedy these deficits. Some of the key provisions include the following: comprehensive state plans would be required to describe the programs and services that will be offered, eligibility requirements, the purposes and goals for all programs and how these goals will be assessed; the new State plans would increase compliance with nondiscrimination, employment, and civil rights laws by requiring among other things, better training of caseworkers, better communication with welfare clients about their rights and obligations, an appeals process, reporting requirements for complaints, and penalties for states that fail to comply with these requirements; the Act would improve public awareness of and access to State plans in their entirety and provides opportunity for public comment when a state plan is pending or being amended. As I mentioned earlier, large numbers of individuals have moved from the welfare rolls to work since 1996. During the current welfare reauthorization, we must look beyond simply putting people to work and focus on strategies that will help these individuals achieve lasting economic self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, the current content and structure of state plans are wholly inadequate to address these crucial self-sufficiency concerns. The self-Sufficiency and Accountability Act will address these shortcomings by encouraging States to develop concrete strategies designed to move families toward self-sufficiency. The bill requires States to identify and address individual and environmental barriers to self-sufficiency, describe program strategies implemented to promote self-sufficiency, and to assess the progress of former welfare families in this regard. The final purpose of this bill is to address the issue of increased State flexibility to implement programs that have been proven effective. After the last reauthorization, many states obtained and some continue to use TANF waivers to develop innovative welfare programs that are suited to the specific needs of their TANF caseloads and labor market conditions in their states. This Act would allow states that currently have waivers to continue to operate under those waivers. In addition, the Act stipulates that any state may submit a waiver application on terms similar or identical to states that are successfully implementing innovative programs. In this way, all States would be provided with the flexibility to employ proven strategies in an effort to address the unique needs of their welfare clients. Taken together, the three bills I have introduced today would go a long way toward helping people transition from welfare and providing these individuals with the skills and supports they need to achieve a lifetime of productive and financially sustaining work. I urge my colleagues to support these three bills and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three welfare bills. Although these bills do not represent a comprehensive welfare reform proposal, they do address what I see as some of the most critical and pressing issues we must deal with as we move toward improving the TANF program. Let me begin by introducing the Children First Act on behalf of myself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Levin, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg and Mr. Reed). Since 1996, federal funding for child care assistance under the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, has significantly increased, making it possible for states to provide more low-income families with child care assistance and to expand initiatives to improve the quality of child care. This has been an extremely important endeavor. Access to high quality childcare is crucial in helping families to work and children to succeed. Most people agree that the recent employment gains among welfare recipients can only be sustained if families have access to dependable child care. Studies show that when childcare is available and when families get help in paying for care, they are more likely to work. In fact, when I talk to people in my home State of New Mexico about welfare reform, they identify access to childcare as the most important work support we can provide. Despite the past increases in the CCDBG, we must do more. Overall, only one out of seven children eligible for assistance through the CCDBG program receives a subsidy, leaving approximately 12.9 million eligible children without assistance. Less than 25 percent of New Mexican children under the age of six who are eligible for childcare assistance are currently receiving it. Unfortunately, the need for childcare assistance is only likely to increase in the near future. Many states are currently threatened with serious budget shortfalls that threaten the availability of funds for numerous important endeavors, including childcare assistance. In addition, the administration's recently proposed TANF plan includes provisions for increased work requirements for recipients. If passed, this would create an increased need for welfare support services, especially childcare. Without subsidized care, many of our Nation's poor families simply cannot afford to work. We must not only seek to increase access to childcare overall, but also to ensure the improved quality of such care. Currently, many families receiving assistance cannot provide their children with a high quality childcare setting. In part, this is because the childcare reimbursement rates are so low that many of the higher quality providers do not accept state-subsidized children into their programs. Low salaries and the lack of health care and other benefits also make it difficult to attract and retain highly qualified childcare workers. These are major issues given that quality childcare provides low-income children with the early learning experiences they need to do well in school and in life. We know that children in high quality early care are more likely to experience academic success, for example, higher test scores and an increased likelihood of graduating from high school, and less likely to experience social problems such as being charged in juvenile court or being aggressive toward others. The Children First Act will address these important issues by increasing funds for the CCDBG by $11.2 billion over 5 years. With these funds, States will be able to serve approximately 1 million more children nationally. The bill also contains an increase in the quality set-aside in CCDBG, which will provide States with funds that can be used to train care providers and create and enforce standards of care. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. It will help low-income families work and help prepare our children to succeed. Next, I would like to introduce the Education Works Act on behalf of myself and Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Reed, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Wyden. Since the 1996 changes in our welfare laws, the number of individuals on welfare has dramatically decreased in most States. However, although many have successfully left welfare for work over the past several years, too many have been left behind because they don't have a high school degree, have little or no work history, or are lacking the skills that are important for success in the job market. In addition, many of those who have secured work are working for low wages, receive few or no benefits, and have limited opportunity for upward financial mobility. As we move toward reauthorization, we must do more to support State efforts to insure that all individuals leaving welfare have the capacity to obtain employment that will provide long-term financial independence. The Education Works Act will do just that. We know that the welfare programs that have been most successful in helping parents work and earn more over the long run are those that have focused on employment but also make substantial use of education and training, together with job search and other employment services. Yes, less than 1 percent of Federal TANF funds were spent on education and training in 2000, largely because current law limits the extent to which education activities count toward Federal work participation requirements, effectively restricting how long individuals can participate in training and also capping how many people can receive these services. The Education Works Act would change this by: clarifying that states have the flexibility to allow participation in postsecondary, vocational English as a Second Language, and basic adult education programs by TANF recipients as part of TANF work requirements; giving States the flexibility to determine how long each recipient may participate in education and training activities while receiving benefits; giving states the flexibility to provide non-cash assistance in the form of childcare and transportation supports to individuals who are participating in a full-time education program, without counting these services against the 5-year time limit on TANF benefits; eliminating the 30 percent cap on the number of TANF recipients that can participate in education and training programs in fulfillment of their work requirements. Via TANF waivers, many States have already been operating programs that do many of the things we're talking about here. In other cases, however, state efforts to provide education and training to welfare recipients have been hampered by an inability to use TANF funds to support these efforts. For example, in my home State, we already have an ``Education Works'' program but only 400 participants are enrolled statewide, due to funding limitations. States should be held accountable for decreasing welfare caseloads but also for insuring that those entering the workforce have the skills they need to become and remain economically self-sufficient. We need to give all states the flexibility to implement the types of programs that they believe will best achieve these goals. The Education Works Act is an important step in this direction and I urge my colleagues to support it. Finally, I would like to introduce the Self-Sufficiency and Accountability Act. This Act has several broad goals: to increase state reporting and accountability for welfare dollars that are received, to encourage states to develop concrete strategies to help families move from welfare to self-sufficiency, and to allow states not currently receiving TANF waivers to do so. First, State plan requirements under current welfare law are simply not comprehensive enough. Under current law, States can submit plans that contain little information about the services that will be provided, long-range or strategic planning, goals or benchmarks, or how they will insure equitable treatment of all welfare clients. In addition, there are currently few provisions for informing the public about the details contained in state plans. Thus, States have little or no accountability to legislators or to the public for the billions of welfare dollars they receive each year. The Self-Sufficiency and Accountability Act seeks to remedy these deficits. Some of the key provisions include the following: comprehensive state plans would be required to describe the programs and services that will be offered, eligibility requirements, the purposes and goals for all programs and how these goals will be assessed; the new State plans would increase compliance with nondiscrimination, employment, and civil rights laws by requiring among other things, better training of caseworkers, better communication with welfare clients about their rights and obligations, an appeals process, reporting requirements for complaints, and penalties for states that fail to comply with these requirements; the Act would improve public awareness of and access to State plans in their entirety and provides opportunity for public comment when a state plan is pending or being amended. As I mentioned earlier, large numbers of individuals have moved from the welfare rolls to work since 1996. During the current welfare reauthorization, we must look beyond simply putting people to work and focus on strategies that will help these individuals achieve lasting economic self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, the current content and structure of state plans are wholly inadequate to address these crucial self-sufficiency concerns. The self-Sufficiency and Accountability Act will address these shortcomings by encouraging States to develop concrete strategies designed to move families toward self-sufficiency. The bill requires States to identify and address individual and environmental barriers to self-sufficiency, describe program strategies implemented to promote self-sufficiency, and to assess the progress of former welfare families in this regard. The final purpose of this bill is to address the issue of increased State flexibility to implement programs that have been proven effective. After the last reauthorization, many states obtained and some continue to use TANF waivers to develop innovative welfare programs that are suited to the specific needs of their TANF caseloads and labor market conditions in their states. This Act would allow states that currently have waivers to continue to operate under those waivers. In addition, the Act stipulates that any state may submit a waiver application on terms similar or identical to states that are successfully implementing innovative programs. In this way, all States would be provided with the flexibility to employ proven strategies in an effort to address the unique needs of their welfare clients. Taken together, the three bills I have introduced today would go a long way toward helping people transition from welfare and providing these individuals with the skills and supports they need to achieve a lifetime of productive and financially sustaining work. I urge my colleagues to support these three bills and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as I understood the President in his State of the Union speech earlier this week, it is his intention to begin military action against Iraq sometime in the near future. That stated intention of the President causes me some grave concern, and I wanted to come to the Senate floor today and express that concern. Let me begin by stating the propositions with which we all agree. First, I think we all agree Saddam Hussein is a brutal despot who has terrorized his own people and has threatened his neighboring States for many years. Second, whether or not Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction in a readily usable form at this time, we must assume that given the opportunity he will obtain those weapons. Third, it is very much in our interest as a Nation, and in the interest of our allies, that Saddam Hussein be prevented from acquiring or maintaining those weapons. But the question before the country today is narrower than these propositions. The question before the country is whether we should cut short the inspection process that is currently underway. The U.N. inspection process is a process that we rightly insisted upon in our earlier deliberations with the Security Council. So the question is whether we should cut short that inspection process and begin a military action to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. The President has moved aggressively to prepare this Nation for war. The total number of personnel who have been either ordered to deploy, or who have been put on alert to do so, is roughly 148,000. There are roughly 23,000 marines en route to the Persian Gulf aboard three major task forces. There are roughly 25,000 sailors and aviators attached to the various carrier battle groups and amphibious task forces that are either en route to the region, on standby, or are on surge status. These forces include some 175 aircraft of all types and over 1,000 VLS launch tubes carrying nearly 500 cruise missiles. So steps have been taken to prepare us militarily for war. Today, we are, simply put, on the brink of war. But while these military preparations have occurred, there has also been a parallel effort going on through the U.N. to ascertain what weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein holds, where those weapons are located, and what threat those weapons pose to his neighbors and to other free nations. We have come to a difficult decision point. The Pentagon is advising the President that military preparations are nearly complete. The President must decide whether this country should proceed militarily in the next few weeks or whether we should continue to support the efforts of U.N. inspectors to carry out the instructions that were given them by the U.N. Security Council, on which we sit. In my view, the President should allow the U.N. inspectors to continue their work. If they are denied access to sites they wish to inspect, then the use of military force will be justified. If they find substantial evidence of a weapons program that threatens Iraq's neighbors, then we should join with those neighbors in eliminating that threat. But up until this date, up until today, neither of these circumstances prevails. The inspectors themselves have so stated, and they have asked for additional time to complete their work. The decision the President makes on going to war with Iraq will be the first test of the new National Security Strategy that was issued by the White House in September of last year. In that document, the President acknowledges that the legitimacy of preemptive military action depends ``on the existence of an imminent threat.'' Right after that statement appears in this document, however, the document speaks of ``adapting the concept of imminent threat.'' How much adaptation of that concept is wise? How much adaptation of that concept makes sense for ourselves and our allies as a precedent for the future? This National Security Strategy document that the administration issued in September of last year goes on to talk about our willingness as a nation to take military action to preempt emerging threats. Here the President is contemplating, in the circumstance before us today, military action not to meet a specific identified military threat but to depose a hostile government, even though no imminent military threat has been identified. In his State of the Union Address, the President framed the issue as being whether ``war is forced upon us.'' He stated that, ``If war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the U.S. military--and we will prevail.'' I, and I am sure most Americans, agree with that statement. But in my view, as of this date, war has not been forced upon us. It is not credible for us to assert as a nation that war has been forced upon us. The U.N. inspection process proceeds. If there is evidence of an imminent threat that requires us to take preemptive military action, I have not seen that evidence. Many Americans and many of our allies also have been unpersuaded by the evidence they have seen. The more willing we are to assert the right to start a war to change the government of a sovereign state, the more we risk encouraging preemptive action by other nations against governments they wish to depose. And the less we need to identify an imminent threat before beginning a war, the more we undermine efforts to avoid unprovoked conflict in the future. The President was right to go to the United Nations and to insist that U.N. inspectors return to Iraq. His latest decision to send Secretary Powell to the Security Council to present evidence of the threat posed by Iraq is also proper, and I look forward to hearing what that evidence is. But unless that evidence demonstrates a threat that requires military action now, the wise course is for us to hold off on that military action and allow the U.N. inspectors to do their work. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with the support of my colleague Senator Domenici. This bill, which passed the Senate during the 107th Congress, would assist the City of Albuquerque, by clearing its title to two parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. More specifically, it would allow the City to move forward with its plans to improve the properties as part of a Biological Park Project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens and the entire State of New Mexico. The Biological Park Project has been in the works since 1987 when the City began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. The facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. In pursuit of the balance of the project, the City, in 1997, purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, (MRGCD), for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach has been leased by the City from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, has been leased by the City since 1963, and also used for public park purposes. In the year 2000, the City's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, in had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States' assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the City and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the City dispute the United States' claim of ownership. This dispute is delaying the City's progress in developing the Biological Park Project. If the matter is simply left to litigation, the delay with be both indefinite and unnecessary. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. Moreover, the record indicates that Reclamation had once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is very high. This bill is narrowly tailored to address this local interest, affecting only the two properties at issue. The general dispute concerning title to project works is left for the courts to decide. I hope my colleagues will work with me to help resolve this issue which is important to the citizens of my State. While much of what we do here in the Congress is complex and time-consuming work, we should also have the ability to move quickly when necessary and appropriate to solve local problems caused by Federal actions. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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, along with my colleague Senator Domenici, legislation to designate Fort Bayard in New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark. Fort Bayard is significant not only for the role it played as a military post in fostering early settlement in the region, but for its role as a nationally important tuberculosis sanatorium and hospital. During the 99 years spanning its establishment in 1866 through its closing as a Veterans Administration hospital in 1965, Fort Bayard served as the most prominent evidence of the Federal Government's role in southwestern New Mexico. Fort Bayard has recently been listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of the historical significance of the site. From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard functioned as an Army post while its soldiers, many of them African-American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected settlers working in the nearby mining district. These Buffalo Soldiers were a mainstay of the Army during the late Apache wars and fought heroically in numerous skirmishes. Like many soldiers who served at Fort Bayard, some of the Buffalo Soldiers remained in the area following their discharge. Lines of headstones noting the names of men and their various Buffalo Soldier units remain in the older section of what is now the National Cemetery. In 1992, these soldiers were recognized for their bravery when a Buffalo Soldier Memorial statue was dedicated at the center of the Fort Bayard parade ground. It gradually became apparent that the Army's extensive frontier fort system was no longer necessary. By 1890, it was clear that the era of the western frontier, at least from the Army's perspective, had ended. Fort Bayard was scheduled for closure in 1899. Even as the last detachment of the 9th U.S. Cavalry prepared to depart the discontinued post, new federal occupants were arriving at Fort Bayard. On August 28, 1899, the War Department authorized the surgeon-general to establish a general hospital for use as a military sanatorium. This would be the first sanatorium dedicated to the treatment of officers and enlisted men of the Army suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. At 6,100 ft. and with a dry, sunny climate, the fort lay within what proponents of climatological therapy termed the ``zone of immunity.'' By 1919, the cumulative effect of over 15 years of construction and improvement projects was the creation of a small, nearly self-sufficient community. In 1920, the War Department closed the sanatorium and the United States Public Health Service assumed control of the facility. A second phase occurred in 1922 when a new agency, the Veterans' Bureau, was created within the Treasury Department and charged with operating hospitals throughout the country whose clientele were veterans requiring medical services. As a result, in the summer of 1922 the United States General Hospital at Fort Bayard was transferred to the Veterans' Bureau and became known as United States Veterans' Hospital No. 55. Its mission of treating those afflicted with tuberculosis, however, remained the same. By 1965, there was no longer a need for a tuberculosis facility located at a high elevation in a dry climate, and the Veterans' Administration decided to close the hospital in that year. However, in part because of the concerns of the local communities that depended upon the hospital, the State of New Mexico assumed responsibility for the facility and 484 acres of the former military reservation. Since then, the State has used it for geriatric, as well as drug and alcohol rehabilitation and orthopedic programs. Because of the extensive cemetery dating to the fort and sanatorium eras at Fort Bayard, the State of New Mexico transferred 16 acres in 1975 for the creation of the Fort Bayard National Cemetery, administered by the Veterans' Administration. For these and many other reasons, I believe it is clear that Fort Bayard is historically significant and merits recognition as a National Historic Landmark. Fort Bayard illuminates a rich and complex story that is important to the entire nation. Last Congress identical legislation was considered and favorably reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and included in a larger package of public land bills which passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Since there is broad local support for the bill, and it has already received the approval of the Senate, it is my hope that we can expeditiously consider the bill this year. 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 a bill that has significance for the entire Great Plains region of our Nation. It will establish a program for the hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and monitoring of the High Plains Aquifer, which extends from Wyoming to New Mexico and Texas. This legislation was the subject of a hearing last Congress before the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It is the same as legislation that was unanimously agreed to by the full Senate last year. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Brownback and Domenici in introducing this bill. The High Plains Aquifer, which is comprised in large part by the Ogallala Aquifer, extends under eight states: Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. It is experiencing alarming declines in its water levels. This aquifer is the source of water for farmers and communities throughout the Great Plains region. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to ensure that sound and objective science is available with respect to the hydrology and geology of the High Plains Aquifer. This bill, the ``High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Act,'' would direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop and carry out a comprehensive hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and monitoring program for the High Plains Aquifer. The Secretary is directed to work in conjunction with the eight High Plains Aquifer States in carrying out this program. The U.S. Geological Survey and the States will work in cooperation to further the goals of this program, with half of the available funds directed to the State component of the program. A reliable source of groundwater is essential to the well-being and livelihoods of people in the Great Plains region. Local towns and rural areas are dependent on the use of groundwater for drinking water, ranching, farming, and other commercial uses. Yet many areas overlying the Ogallala Aquifer have experienced a dramatic depletion of this groundwater resource. The problem we are confronting is that the aquifer is not sustainable, and it is being depleted rapidly. This threatens the way of life of all who live on the High Plains. The bill I am introducing today would help ensure that the relevant science needed to address this problem is available so that we will have a better understanding of the resources of the High Plains Aquifer. I ask that my colleagues join me in once again supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to again introduce legislation to protect several important archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico. This bill identifies approximately two dozen sites in northern New Mexico which contain the ruins of pueblos dating back almost 900 years. When Coronado and other Spanish conquistadors first entered what is now New Mexico in 1541, they encountered a thriving Pueblo culture with its own unique tradition of religion, architecture and art, which was influenced through an extensive trade system. We know that these sites remain occupied up through the Pueblo revolt in 1680. After that, the sites were deserted, although we still don't know why they were abandoned, after over 700 years of continuous use. Through these sites, we have the opportunity to learn more not only about the history and culture of these Pueblos, but also about the first interaction between European and Native American cultures. The Cochiti Pueblo, in particular, is culturally and historically tied to these sites, which have tremendous historical and religious significance to the Pueblo. I am grateful for the continued support of the Pueblo de Cochiti for this legislation. This bill has strong local support, including the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners, the City of Santa Fe, and the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. I would also like to thank the Archaeological Conservancy for its efforts over the past several years to identify and protect many of these sites, and in helping with this legislation. Many of these archaeological sites are on Federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management. BLM archaeologists have already provided extensive background research on many of these sites, and I was pleased that the agency supported a similar bill I introduced in the previous Congress. Last Congress the Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on this bill in Santa Fe. It was clear from that hearing that there is strong local support for protecting these sites. In fact nobody testified in opposition to the bill, at either the Santa Fe or Washington hearings. This bill simply authorizes the BLM to work in a cooperative manner with interested landowners to protect sites on Federal and non-Federal lands. Last Congress we included several provisions to make clear that the bill did not infringe on private property rights. Although the bill is non-controversial, we have been unable to get the legislation passed through both the House and Senate, although last Congress I was pleased that bill was favorably reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and passed by the Senate as part of a larger public lands bill. In the years since I first introduced this bill, many irreplaceable archaeological resources have been lost, whether by vandalism, erosion, or other means. Enactment of the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Sites Protection Act will allow us to take the steps necessary to protect these resources and to allow for improved public understanding and interpretation of these sites. 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 reintroduce legislation to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in northern New Mexico. I am pleased that Senator Domenici is again joining me in sponsoring this bill. The Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area will be established as part of a collaborative effort between local residents, Indian tribes, businesses and local governments, who are working together to preserve the area. By establishing the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, I hope to commemorate the significant but complex heritage of northern New Mexico communities and Indian tribes, from the pre-Spanish colonization period to present day. Establishing a National Heritage Area will benefit the northern New Mexico communities, local residents, students, and visitors, as well as help the local protection and interpretation of the unique cultural, historical, and natural resources of northern New Mexico. Last Congress, similar legislation was considered and favorably reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and passed by the Senate by unanimous consent as part of a comprehensive heritage area bill. Unfortunately, the House was not able to consider the bill prior to the sine die adjournment of the Congress. Since the bill is non-controversial and has already passed the Senate, it is my hope that we will be able to move it through the Committee and to the floor as soon as possible. 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, along with my colleague Senator Domenici, legislation to designate Fort Bayard in New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark. Fort Bayard is significant not only for the role it played as a military post in fostering early settlement in the region, but for its role as a nationally important tuberculosis sanatorium and hospital. During the 99 years spanning its establishment in 1866 through its closing as a Veterans Administration hospital in 1965, Fort Bayard served as the most prominent evidence of the Federal Government's role in southwestern New Mexico. Fort Bayard has recently been listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of the historical significance of the site. From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard functioned as an Army post while its soldiers, many of them African-American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected settlers working in the nearby mining district. These Buffalo Soldiers were a mainstay of the Army during the late Apache wars and fought heroically in numerous skirmishes. Like many soldiers who served at Fort Bayard, some of the Buffalo Soldiers remained in the area following their discharge. Lines of headstones noting the names of men and their various Buffalo Soldier units remain in the older section of what is now the National Cemetery. In 1992, these soldiers were recognized for their bravery when a Buffalo Soldier Memorial statue was dedicated at the center of the Fort Bayard parade ground. It gradually became apparent that the Army's extensive frontier fort system was no longer necessary. By 1890, it was clear that the era of the western frontier, at least from the Army's perspective, had ended. Fort Bayard was scheduled for closure in 1899. Even as the last detachment of the 9th U.S. Cavalry prepared to depart the discontinued post, new federal occupants were arriving at Fort Bayard. On August 28, 1899, the War Department authorized the surgeon-general to establish a general hospital for use as a military sanatorium. This would be the first sanatorium dedicated to the treatment of officers and enlisted men of the Army suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. At 6,100 ft. and with a dry, sunny climate, the fort lay within what proponents of climatological therapy termed the ``zone of immunity.'' By 1919, the cumulative effect of over 15 years of construction and improvement projects was the creation of a small, nearly self-sufficient community. In 1920, the War Department closed the sanatorium and the United States Public Health Service assumed control of the facility. A second phase occurred in 1922 when a new agency, the Veterans' Bureau, was created within the Treasury Department and charged with operating hospitals throughout the country whose clientele were veterans requiring medical services. As a result, in the summer of 1922 the United States General Hospital at Fort Bayard was transferred to the Veterans' Bureau and became known as United States Veterans' Hospital No. 55. Its mission of treating those afflicted with tuberculosis, however, remained the same. By 1965, there was no longer a need for a tuberculosis facility located at a high elevation in a dry climate, and the Veterans' Administration decided to close the hospital in that year. However, in part because of the concerns of the local communities that depended upon the hospital, the State of New Mexico assumed responsibility for the facility and 484 acres of the former military reservation. Since then, the State has used it for geriatric, as well as drug and alcohol rehabilitation and orthopedic programs. Because of the extensive cemetery dating to the fort and sanatorium eras at Fort Bayard, the State of New Mexico transferred 16 acres in 1975 for the creation of the Fort Bayard National Cemetery, administered by the Veterans' Administration. For these and many other reasons, I believe it is clear that Fort Bayard is historically significant and merits recognition as a National Historic Landmark. Fort Bayard illuminates a rich and complex story that is important to the entire nation. Last Congress identical legislation was considered and favorably reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and included in a larger package of public land bills which passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Since there is broad local support for the bill, and it has already received the approval of the Senate, it is my hope that we can expeditiously consider the bill this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with the support of my colleague Senator Domenici. This bill, which passed the Senate during the 107th Congress, would assist the City of Albuquerque, by clearing its title to two parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. More specifically, it would allow the City to move forward with its plans to improve the properties as part of a Biological Park Project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens and the entire State of New Mexico. The Biological Park Project has been in the works since 1987 when the City began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. The facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. In pursuit of the balance of the project, the City, in 1997, purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, (MRGCD), for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach has been leased by the City from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, has been leased by the City since 1963, and also used for public park purposes. In the year 2000, the City's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, in had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States' assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the City and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the City dispute the United States' claim of ownership. This dispute is delaying the City's progress in developing the Biological Park Project. If the matter is simply left to litigation, the delay with be both indefinite and unnecessary. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. Moreover, the record indicates that Reclamation had once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is very high. This bill is narrowly tailored to address this local interest, affecting only the two properties at issue. The general dispute concerning title to project works is left for the courts to decide. I hope my colleagues will work with me to help resolve this issue which is important to the citizens of my State. While much of what we do here in the Congress is complex and time-consuming work, we should also have the ability to move quickly when necessary and appropriate to solve local problems caused by Federal actions. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that has significance for the entire Great Plains region of our Nation. It will establish a program for the hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and monitoring of the High Plains Aquifer, which extends from Wyoming to New Mexico and Texas. This legislation was the subject of a hearing last Congress before the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It is the same as legislation that was unanimously agreed to by the full Senate last year. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Brownback and Domenici in introducing this bill. The High Plains Aquifer, which is comprised in large part by the Ogallala Aquifer, extends under eight states: Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. It is experiencing alarming declines in its water levels. This aquifer is the source of water for farmers and communities throughout the Great Plains region. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to ensure that sound and objective science is available with respect to the hydrology and geology of the High Plains Aquifer. This bill, the ``High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Act,'' would direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop and carry out a comprehensive hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and monitoring program for the High Plains Aquifer. The Secretary is directed to work in conjunction with the eight High Plains Aquifer States in carrying out this program. The U.S. Geological Survey and the States will work in cooperation to further the goals of this program, with half of the available funds directed to the State component of the program. A reliable source of groundwater is essential to the well-being and livelihoods of people in the Great Plains region. Local towns and rural areas are dependent on the use of groundwater for drinking water, ranching, farming, and other commercial uses. Yet many areas overlying the Ogallala Aquifer have experienced a dramatic depletion of this groundwater resource. The problem we are confronting is that the aquifer is not sustainable, and it is being depleted rapidly. This threatens the way of life of all who live on the High Plains. The bill I am introducing today would help ensure that the relevant science needed to address this problem is available so that we will have a better understanding of the resources of the High Plains Aquifer. I ask that my colleagues join me in once again supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in northern New Mexico. I am pleased that Senator Domenici is again joining me in sponsoring this bill. The Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area will be established as part of a collaborative effort between local residents, Indian tribes, businesses and local governments, who are working together to preserve the area. By establishing the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, I hope to commemorate the significant but complex heritage of northern New Mexico communities and Indian tribes, from the pre-Spanish colonization period to present day. Establishing a National Heritage Area will benefit the northern New Mexico communities, local residents, students, and visitors, as well as help the local protection and interpretation of the unique cultural, historical, and natural resources of northern New Mexico. Last Congress, similar legislation was considered and favorably reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and passed by the Senate by unanimous consent as part of a comprehensive heritage area bill. Unfortunately, the House was not able to consider the bill prior to the sine die adjournment of the Congress. Since the bill is non-controversial and has already passed the Senate, it is my hope that we will be able to move it through the Committee and to the floor as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to again introduce legislation to protect several important archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico. This bill identifies approximately two dozen sites in northern New Mexico which contain the ruins of pueblos dating back almost 900 years. When Coronado and other Spanish conquistadors first entered what is now New Mexico in 1541, they encountered a thriving Pueblo culture with its own unique tradition of religion, architecture and art, which was influenced through an extensive trade system. We know that these sites remain occupied up through the Pueblo revolt in 1680. After that, the sites were deserted, although we still don't know why they were abandoned, after over 700 years of continuous use. Through these sites, we have the opportunity to learn more not only about the history and culture of these Pueblos, but also about the first interaction between European and Native American cultures. The Cochiti Pueblo, in particular, is culturally and historically tied to these sites, which have tremendous historical and religious significance to the Pueblo. I am grateful for the continued support of the Pueblo de Cochiti for this legislation. This bill has strong local support, including the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners, the City of Santa Fe, and the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. I would also like to thank the Archaeological Conservancy for its efforts over the past several years to identify and protect many of these sites, and in helping with this legislation. Many of these archaeological sites are on Federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management. BLM archaeologists have already provided extensive background research on many of these sites, and I was pleased that the agency supported a similar bill I introduced in the previous Congress. Last Congress the Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on this bill in Santa Fe. It was clear from that hearing that there is strong local support for protecting these sites. In fact nobody testified in opposition to the bill, at either the Santa Fe or Washington hearings. This bill simply authorizes the BLM to work in a cooperative manner with interested landowners to protect sites on Federal and non-Federal lands. Last Congress we included several provisions to make clear that the bill did not infringe on private property rights. Although the bill is non-controversial, we have been unable to get the legislation passed through both the House and Senate, although last Congress I was pleased that bill was favorably reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and passed by the Senate as part of a larger public lands bill. In the years since I first introduced this bill, many irreplaceable archaeological resources have been lost, whether by vandalism, erosion, or other means. Enactment of the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Sites Protection Act will allow us to take the steps necessary to protect these resources and to allow for improved public understanding and interpretation of these sites. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I submitted an amendment to extend the authority for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, is the major tool the United States has to deal with the impact of a significant disruption in oil supplies. Current authorizations to the President to release or drawdown oil from the SPR will expire on September 30, 2003. Release of oil from the SPR, in coordination with stock drawdowns with other consumer nations is done pursuant to the International Energy Agency's International Energy Program, IEP, Agreement. Actions taken under this agreement seek to add more supply to a tight market, reducing the possibility of price spikes and economic havoc that oil markets experienced during such incidents as the Arab oil embargo. Decisions to withdraw crude oil from the SPR during an energy emergency are made by the President under the authorities of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. It is important to extend the SPR authority on this legislation. While it may be possible to move legislation through the Energy Committee, there is no guarantee that a separate bill would be completed and on the President's desk before September 30. Therefore, the prudent thing for the Senate to do is to add this language to the Omnibus Appropriation bill. Such precautionary action has already been taken with regard to Price Anderson authority which does not expire until the end in 2004. My amendment incorporates the exact language that was agreed to last fall by the House and Senate conferees on H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy bill. The amendment: Permanently authorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and our participation in the International Energy program. Codifies current Administration policy that the reserve be filled to 700 million barrels which is its current capacity. This does not affect the Administration's discretion to adjust the timing and extent of fill in light of market conditions. Permanently authorizes the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve program. Current market disruptions such as political unrest in Venezuela and the potential threat of a war with Iraq have already led to unusually high oil prices and talk of potentially tapping the SPR. In the current market context, operation of the SPR should be a top concern to all Senators. For the benefit of my colleagues, I thought I would talk a little about the current situation regarding oil production in two important oil producing states--Venezuela & Iraq. The current uncertainty over production in Venezuela and the possibility of war with Iraq has contributed to the high oil prices we see today. On December 2, oil workers opposed to Venezuelan President Chavez, initiated a general strike, now in its 53rd day. The strike has nearly shut down the government-owned oil company PdVSA. Production has dropped from 2.7 million barrels per day to less than half a million. At the same time, world oil prices, currently at a 2 year high, have risen more than $8 per barrel, or 30 percent since the strike began. Oil market experts attribute half of the price increase to the political unrest and production uncertainty in Venezuela. The U.S. imports a significant amount of Venezuelan crude. Roughly 16 percent of U.S. imports come from Venezuela, or what on average amounts to more than a million barrels per day, according to the EIA. In the absence of Venezuelan imports, U.S. refiners have had to dip into their own inventory stocks and resort to using other crudes. Absent Venezuelan imports, the U.S. has increased its import of Iraqi crude in the last month. Even though OPEC overproduction helped cushion the strike's impact at the outset, U.S. refiners had to turn to their own inventories and to Iraqi crude to make up for lost imports. Those inventories are already below normal operational inventory level. Even if the strike were to end today, experts are unsure how long it will take to bring Venezuelan crude production back to its pre-strike level of three million barrels per day. It is unclear how carefully the oil wells in PdVSA's fields were shut down improperly, it may take more than six months to bring them back online. Although some strikers have returned to work and the government succeeded in pumping up light crude production, Venezuela has not been able to restart production of its trademark heavy crude. To add to the uncertainty, Venezuela's Central Bank closed the country's foreign exchange market on Wednesday frustrating oil operators' ability to convert currency. The reliability of Iraqi crude supplies going forward is also uncertain. The threat of war with Iraq has contributed to unusually high oil prices and talk of potentially tapping into the SPR. This region's importance to the stability of not only U.S. but also world markets cannot be understated. Iraq represents 6 percent of U.S. petroleum imports and the Persian Gulf region represents 25 percent. If military conflict disrupts oil imports from Iraq or other gulf states, the larger shortfall may exceed OPEC's leftover capacity. Even under a benign war scenario, panicked buying and a rise in crude prices would still occur at the outset of the conflict. Price estimates from oil analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies range up to $80 barrel oil for the worst case scenario. In addition to the impact of a war on oil from Iraq, we cannot be certain about Iraqi production after a conflict is concluded. If Iraqi oil fields are damaged during the war, Iraqi production could be reduced for a longer period of time. In this period of very tight oil markets and continuing uncertainty about both Venezuelan and Iraqi production, we may have to look very seriously at releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve this year. We should not take the risk that our authority to use the SPR will expire in September. I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and re-authorize SPR authority now.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, it is now Senate Bill 167.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would be glad to. The next generation lighting initiative was first introduced as S. 1166 in the 107th Congress. It was then included in H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy bill, as amended by the Senate, which then went into conference with the House. Unfortunately, the energy bill failed in conference, but the next generation lighting initiative, and nearly the entire R&D authorization title were conferenced with the House. This agreed upon R&D authorization title, with the next generation lighting initiative, is now found in H.R. 238, as introduced by the House Science Committee in the 108th Congress.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to my esteemed colleague from Montana. It is my understanding that the fiscal year 2003 Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee report contains $4 million allocated for the next generation lighting initiative? Is that correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, it is now S. 167.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would be glad to. The Next Generation Lighting Initiative was first introduced as S. 166 in the 107th Congress. It was then included in H.R. 4, the Comprehensive Energy Bill, as amended by the Senate, which then went into conference with the House. Unfortunately, the energy bill failed in conference, but the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, and nearly the entire R&D authorization title were conferenced with the House. This agreed upon R&D authorization title, with the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, is now found in H.R. 238, as introduced by the House Science Committee in the 108th Congress.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to my esteemed colleague from Montana. It is my understanding that the fiscal year 2003 Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee report contains 4 million dollars allocated for the Next Generation Lighting Initiative. Is that correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I will wait for the remaining package. If not, I will ask for a vote on it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Not wishing to object, I ask if any disposition has been made on amendment 126.