Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I share the assistant majority leader's view that this bill would address an important need for a safe recreational shooting facility in southern Nevada and believe that S. 1451, which my committee reported favorably with amendment, is a good bill. The two primary concerns raised by many interested parties were that the original bill would have released land from wilderness study area status and that the parcel of land conveyed was possibly too large, and therefore the bill might set an unfortunate precedent on those two issues.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when this session of Congress ends, one member of New Mexico's congressional delegation will be retiring, and I rise to acknowledge his departure from public life and to express appreciation for his loyal service to our state and this nation. Joe Skeen has been involved in Republican politics in New Mexico for more than forty years, most of them as an elected official. He was in the State Senate for ten years, and while his two campaigns for governor in the 1970's were unsuccessful, he is one of the very few in the history of our country elected to the Congress as a write-in candidate. That occurred in 1980, and he has served his district in the House of Representatives for eleven terms, longer than any New Mexico House Member. It cannot be said that Joe and I agree on even every fourth issue that comes down the pike, but we have worked well together on so much that matters to New Mexico. I have never doubted for a moment his devotion to what he thinks is right, nor have I doubted his ability to get the job done. New Mexico is a small town in many ways, and while Joe and I were acquainted before either of us came to Washington, it was when I came here that we really got to know one another. I consider him, and his wife, Mary, to be friends, and am honored that they think the same of me. They raise sheep on their ranch in Lincoln County, and I know Joe will be glad to get back home after having distinguished himself in the Congress, and representing his District so well. We'll miss him.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, it is rare for me to make a statement for the Record in honor of a retiring staff member, but this is a rare staff member--one who by any measure would be deserving of the Senate's time and of space in the Congressional Record. I am speaking of Dolores Garcia, whose service in the Senate started the same day as my own, January 3, 1983. Dolores and I had worked together prior to that when I was Attorney General of New Mexico, and she had been with the Attorney General's staff long before I came to that office. My staff and I, as well as countless New Mexicans, feel fortunate to know and work with Dolores. Diligent, competent, with a benevolent nature and a strong work ethic, Dolores embodies the best of human traits. In her work as the coordinator for service academy nominations, she has started many young leaders on their way to success. She helps keep my Santa Fe office running smoothly, attends the needs of local and legislative officials, helps manage my office budget, and coordinates my state schedule. No matter how busy she might be, she always has time and a kind word for those who turn to her for help. Dolores is a great friend to my staff and me. We hold her in the highest esteem. Another long-time staff member commented that he thought his best hope of getting into Heaven is on her coattails. I feel the same, Mr. President, and would feel fortunate to have her vouch for me.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about Neal Gonzales, a prominent new Mexico labor leader who died in late October. In the early 1970's when I became acquainted with the working of the new Mexico Legislature, I also became acquainted with Neal Gonzales, a powerful presence in the halls of power in our state. He was the representative of labor and as such his influence was felt in most of the important legislative battles that were waged. Neal was a true professional at his job. Liked and respected by all, he was a formidable adversary as those who found themselves opposing him soon learned. I learned much from watching Neal Gonzales work as the advocate for the working people of New Mexico. He kept his focus on the impact of legislation on the lives of those he represented. He did his homework and, more often than not, he prevailed. With his death, many of us in New Mexico have lost not only a valued friend, but the working families of our State have lost a tireless champion.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will also say a few words about Paul and Sheila Wellstone. Paul and Sheila were good friends of my wife Anne, my son John, and myself. We met shortly after they arrived in Washington for Paul to take up his duties in the Senate. Our friendship grew over time. Friendship came easily to Paul and to Sheila because they had a genuine interest in and a compassion for other people. So on a personal level, Paul and Sheila will be greatly missed. On a policy level, they will also be greatly missed in this Senate. Paul believed strongly that government should and could help improve the lives of average people. He championed better education for our children, better access to health care, particularly mental health care, as my colleague from Illinois has described. He championed a decent wage for workers. Any issue that presented a choice between the public interest and a special interest, there was no question where Paul stood. Sheila was also a fierce advocate for policies in which she believed. Her focus for many years was on the problems of domestic violence, and she and Paul helped spotlight that problem. They did much to put it on our national agenda. Paul said what he believed. He voted his convictions, even when those convictions placed him in a small minority in the Senate. He was proud to proclaim himself a Liberal in an age where most Americans have been persuaded that liberal is a pejorative term. The truth is that his views, when not distorted by his opponents, were very much endorsed by the majority of the Americans. His core belief was that those who are less fortunate should be helped to obtain the tools with which to succeed. That belief is shared by most in this great country. His service in the Senate was an effort to implement that belief. When serving here in the Senate, one is always aware that the imperative to do what is right sometimes conflicts with the desire to be reelected. Paul always chose to do what he considered right and damn the consequences. He came to the Senate with a clear intent to make a difference in the history of his nation, and he succeeded. The death of Paul and Sheila and their daughter, their staff and pilots, was a great tragedy for our country. It was also a great tragedy for this Senate. The Senate will be a lesser place without Paul Wellstone. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I do believe should not be necessary, and I hope ultimately will not be needed. Unfortunately, the failure of the Federal Government to own up to its responsibility has left a small group of farmers in Southern New Mexico with no other option. As I understand it, last July the Bureau of Land Management and the Natural Resources Conservation Service applied herbicide, Tebuthiuron, on a ranch in Southern Eddy County to help control woody brush. The brush control was part of an EQIP project under NRCS. I have no reason to doubt the application was consistent with label requirements and normal practice. Unfortunately, as frequently happens in New Mexico in July, a heavy rainstorm struck the area and the pellets of herbicide were apparently washed into the Black River. The river is the source of irrigation water for a number of farmers in the vicinity of the town of Malaga. Unaware of the contamination in the water, farmers irrigated their fields in the normal way. Almost immediately, damage to cotton, hay and other crops was observed. The Eddy County Extension Office of the Cooperative Extension Service at New Mexico State University was asked to investigate the damage to the crops. Mr. Woods E. Houghton of the Eddy County Office conducted a thorough review of the evidence and in a report dated August 20, 2002, concluded that Tebuthiuron was the likely cause of the crop damage. The report noted levels of Tebuthiuron of over 2 parts per million in some samples. Later tests by the State Chemistry Laboratory found levels over 5 pm. I ask unanimous consent that the August 20th Cooperative Extension Service report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, exhibit 1. All the evidence seems to point to the government's application of Tebuthiuron as the most likely source of the poisoning of the crops in Malaga. Last month, I asked the heads of BLM and NRCS to look into the situation and to advise me what recourse is available to the farmers who have lost their crops. Unfortunately, the agencies have not assumed any responsibility for the contamination. Moreover, normal crop insurance doesn't cover damage caused by chemicals. What are the farmers of Malaga, NM, to do? Through no fault of their own, they have lost their crops, and the Federal Government is not willing to take responsibility. For example, Mr. Oscar Vasquez and his family have lost 130 acres of cotton, 20 acres of hay and 1 acre of full-grown pecan trees. As Mr. Vasquez points out, his losses may persist for several years. He has asked for my assistance in securing compensation for his losses. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me by Mr. Vasquez be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, exhibit 2. It appears that as many as nine farmers have suffered direct losses from the contamination of their crops and an additional thirteen farmers suffered losses when they couldn't irrigate because of the contamination in the water. I have urged the heads of BLM and NRCS in the strongest terms possible to do what they can to assist the farmers of Malaga. Unfortunately, nobody wants to take responsibility. The Federal Government's response so far is to suggest the farmers sue the government, but that's a long, drawn-out process. It is also an unacceptable response if the Federal Government is found to be responsible. The farmers of Malaga need help paying their bills now. These are not rich people, but hard working family farmers. Many have farmed the same land for many, many years. I ask unanimous consent that a recent article from the Carlsbad Current Argus describing the impact this event is having on a number of the farmers of Malaga be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks, exhibit 3. At this point I don't see any other option than to ask that Congress provide some relief to the farmers of Malaga that have suffered losses because of this unfortunate situation. I note that last year Congress provided financial compensation to farmers in Idaho that suffered crop losses in a very similar situation and where BLM and NRCS refused to provide compensation. When a federal program was clearly the source of the contamination in the water, I do believe the government has a responsibility to come to the assistance of the people who have suffered losses. It is my hope that the agencies involved will step forward, acknowledge their responsibility, and do what is right and necessary to compensate the farmers. Unfortunately, it now appears the agencies are not inclined to do the right thing. Instead, they tell us the affected farmers are free to file a tort claim; we all know what a costly and time-consuming process any legal action can be. However, the farmers need help right now. While it is not the best way, I do believe Congressional action may be the only way of getting these farmers the financial help they need in a timely manner. The bill I am introducing today simply authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to use funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to compensate the farmers for their losses. We are still working with the Cooperative Extension Service at New Mexico State University to determine the total amount of the losses, but in light of the small area affected, I fully expect the sums needed to be very modest, indeed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter supporting this legislation from Frank DuBois, New Mexico's Secretary of Agriculture, exhibit 4, and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I do believe should not be necessary, and I hope ultimately will not be needed. Unfortunately, the failure of the Federal Government to own up to its responsibility has left a small group of farmers in Southern New Mexico with no other option. As I understand it, last July the Bureau of Land Management and the Natural Resources Conservation Service applied herbicide, Tebuthiuron, on a ranch in Southern Eddy County to help control woody brush. The brush control was part of an EQIP project under NRCS. I have no reason to doubt the application was consistent with label requirements and normal practice. Unfortunately, as frequently happens in New Mexico in July, a heavy rainstorm struck the area and the pellets of herbicide were apparently washed into the Black River. The river is the source of irrigation water for a number of farmers in the vicinity of the town of Malaga. Unaware of the contamination in the water, farmers irrigated their fields in the normal way. Almost immediately, damage to cotton, hay and other crops was observed. The Eddy County Extension Office of the Cooperative Extension Service at New Mexico State University was asked to investigate the damage to the crops. Mr. Woods E. Houghton of the Eddy County Office conducted a thorough review of the evidence and in a report dated August 20, 2002, concluded that Tebuthiuron was the likely cause of the crop damage. The report noted levels of Tebuthiuron of over 2 parts per million in some samples. Later tests by the State Chemistry Laboratory found levels over 5 pm. I ask unanimous consent that the August 20th Cooperative Extension Service report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, exhibit 1. All the evidence seems to point to the government's application of Tebuthiuron as the most likely source of the poisoning of the crops in Malaga. Last month, I asked the heads of BLM and NRCS to look into the situation and to advise me what recourse is available to the farmers who have lost their crops. Unfortunately, the agencies have not assumed any responsibility for the contamination. Moreover, normal crop insurance doesn't cover damage caused by chemicals. What are the farmers of Malaga, NM, to do? Through no fault of their own, they have lost their crops, and the Federal Government is not willing to take responsibility. For example, Mr. Oscar Vasquez and his family have lost 130 acres of cotton, 20 acres of hay and 1 acre of full-grown pecan trees. As Mr. Vasquez points out, his losses may persist for several years. He has asked for my assistance in securing compensation for his losses. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me by Mr. Vasquez be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, exhibit 2. It appears that as many as nine farmers have suffered direct losses from the contamination of their crops and an additional thirteen farmers suffered losses when they couldn't irrigate because of the contamination in the water. I have urged the heads of BLM and NRCS in the strongest terms possible to do what they can to assist the farmers of Malaga. Unfortunately, nobody wants to take responsibility. The Federal Government's response so far is to suggest the farmers sue the government, but that's a long, drawn-out process. It is also an unacceptable response if the Federal Government is found to be responsible. The farmers of Malaga need help paying their bills now. These are not rich people, but hard working family farmers. Many have farmed the same land for many, many years. I ask unanimous consent that a recent article from the Carlsbad Current Argus describing the impact this event is having on a number of the farmers of Malaga be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks, exhibit 3. At this point I don't see any other option than to ask that Congress provide some relief to the farmers of Malaga that have suffered losses because of this unfortunate situation. I note that last year Congress provided financial compensation to farmers in Idaho that suffered crop losses in a very similar situation and where BLM and NRCS refused to provide compensation. When a federal program was clearly the source of the contamination in the water, I do believe the government has a responsibility to come to the assistance of the people who have suffered losses. It is my hope that the agencies involved will step forward, acknowledge their responsibility, and do what is right and necessary to compensate the farmers. Unfortunately, it now appears the agencies are not inclined to do the right thing. Instead, they tell us the affected farmers are free to file a tort claim; we all know what a costly and time-consuming process any legal action can be. However, the farmers need help right now. While it is not the best way, I do believe Congressional action may be the only way of getting these farmers the financial help they need in a timely manner. The bill I am introducing today simply authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to use funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to compensate the farmers for their losses. We are still working with the Cooperative Extension Service at New Mexico State University to determine the total amount of the losses, but in light of the small area affected, I fully expect the sums needed to be very modest, indeed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter supporting this legislation from Frank DuBois, New Mexico's Secretary of Agriculture, exhibit 4, and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the two resolutions that the Senator from Michigan has talked about in his comments because there are two resolutions before the Senate, both of which authorize the President to use force, if necessary, against Iraq. Before I discuss those, let me just say a few words about the war on terrorism which has engaged the attention of this entire Nation during the last 13 months. Before I discuss those, I congratulate the President on the way he was able to bring our country together after the attack of September 11 of last year. In cooperation with the President, Congress put aside other matters, put aside partisan issues, and acted quickly to appropriate necessary funds and to enact important legislation to help safeguard our country and its citizens. I think all of us in Congress joined in meeting this challenge, and I am proud we were able to do so. The President has come to us again, and this time he has focused attention on another threat--that is, the threat that Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, will use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or that he will provide such weapons to terrorists for them to use. The President has indicated his belief that regime change in Iraq is needed to deal with this threat, but he makes the point that at this time he has not made a decision about whether or when to commence any military action. The United Nations, for many years, has agreed with our country's view that Saddam Hussein should not be permitted to possess weapons of mass destruction. An inspection regime was established by the United Nations in April of 1991, and inspections by UNSCOM continued until August of 1998 to ensure that weapons were not being developed or maintained. I11In December of 1998, Iraq expelled those weapons inspectors, and since that time it is widely believed the likelihood of such weapons being developed in Iraq has increased. So in response to this threat, the President has urged Congress to adopt a broadly worded resolution that authorizes him at any time in the future: To use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate, in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Senator Levin, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, with whom I have been privileged to serve for the last 20 years, has urged us to adopt a different resolution that grants the President the authority to use military power, but Senator Levin's proposed resolution differs from the broad grant of authority the President has requested in two very significant ways. First, it authorizes the use of force at this time only pursuant to a resolution of the U.N. Security Council. In this way, we would be ensuring our actions to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction continue to be taken in coordination with our allies. Second, the Levin resolution authorizes the use of: The Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution. There is a specific objective we are saying the President is authorized to use military force to accomplish. The Levin resolution does not authorize unilateral action at this time to accomplish so-called regime change. Rather, it would leave open the option for the President to come back to seek and obtain that authority from Congress if and when he determines that military action against Iraq is required, even without U.N. sanction. I strongly support giving the President authority to work with our allies in the United Nations, to inspect for, locate, and destroy weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It may well prove necessary to use military force to accomplish that objective. In my view, the Levin resolution grants the President that authority. Unless that effort, which is already underway, fails, I believe it would be wrong for us to grant authority to the President to use U.S. Armed Forces in what is essentially a unilateral action to achieve goals that are, at best, vague and broad. The President has made clear that in his view our goal should be regime change. The argument is Saddam Hussein has shown such a proclivity to lie, cheat, and evade that anything short of regime change will leave us vulnerable to a future attack by Iraq. Depending on the success of our current efforts to reinstitute an inspection regime, the American people and our allies may well conclude the President is correct. We may have to conclude that finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq cannot be achieved as long as Saddam Hussein is in power, and if that is the necessary conclusion we reach, then a major military action will likely be required, with all the casualties and consequences such an action entails. Our allies have not reached that conclusion yet. They believe a new inspection regime can be made to work and that the threat can be dealt with short of going to war. At least they believe it is worthwhile for us to make that final effort. The President's proposed resolution authorizes him: To use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate. This is, in my view, a virtually open-ended grant of authority. It is not a proper action for Congress to take at this time. I do not believe it is wise at this point to be authorizing war without the support of the United Nations and our allies. If war must be waged, other countries should be there with us, sharing the costs, both the financial and human costs, and helping restore stability in what will almost certainly be the tumultuous aftermath of that military action. I also do not favor an authorization for war unless and until the President is prepared to advise Congress that war is necessary, and he has explicitly said he is not prepared to advise us of that at this time. For all these reasons, I will support the resolution put forth by Senator Levin and not support the much broader grant of authority urged by the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my esteemed colleague, Senator Lugar, in the introduction of the Teaching Fellows Act of 2002. Earlier this year, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law. I was proud to be a member of the Conference Committee that ultimately wrote this important piece of legislation. This legislation includes important reform efforts and increased resources for schools that will go a long way toward addressing many of the needs in our education system. I will continue to fight for increased appropriations for the programs contained in this bipartisan legislation. As we begin to consider reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we must continue to seek avenues for supporting our Nation's schools. Providing additional support for the training of new, high quality teachers is an important way to do that. Ultimately, improving the quality of education in our nation will require a comprehensive approach that includes raising standards and increasing school accountability. However, central to any effort to improve education are teachers. Being the son of two former teachers, I am well acquainted with the challenges and the rewards that being a good teacher brings. Being a parent and a community member, I also know how influential teachers can be in the lives of our children. Teachers not only pass along knowledge and act as role models, but research shows that teacher quality is critical to student achievement. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to meet with many of our dedicated and hard-working teachers in New Mexico. These personal experiences have strengthened my belief that we need to do all that we can to encourage the best and the brightest to enter and to remain in this most important profession. It is estimated that nearly a third of our Nation's teachers will retire over the next five years. In addition, large numbers of new teachers leave their jobs within a few years, particularly in rural and urban areas. These patterns could seriously jeopardize the quality of our children's education unless we take some steps to insure that there are enough trained people available to fill these positions. We must also do what we can to support the preparation and training of these individuals. The Teaching Fellows Act would create two programs designed to encourage people to enter and to remain in the profession of teaching. First, the program would distribute grants to states for teaching scholarships. In return for at least $6,500 per year toward college expenses, students would agree to teach in a low-performing school for five years. This program would thus not only help teachers to prepare for their profession but it would also insure that students in our poorest and most challenged schools have access to well-trained teachers. Second, the bill would provide grants for individuals currently working in our schools as instructional assistants or in other capacities to obtain four-year degrees to become licensed teachers. Grants would be available to States for partnership programs between community colleges and four-year colleges to provide for this training. These programs require that states come up with 25 percent of the funding and students will be required to stay in the state to teach for five years. In conclusion, I would like to say that I am very excited about co- sponsoring a bill that seeks to recruit new teachers and to enrich their training experiences. Although this bill is only part of a larger effort to provide all American students with a quality education, it is an important component. Having well-qualified teachers available to teach, especially in the most impoverished districts, is something that we owe to our children and ourselves. We, as parents and as legislators, must do what we can to see that America's teachers are recognized and supported as a crucial component in our children's education.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I see my colleague from New Jersey is here to speak. He has been a strong supporter of this legislation from the time it was first introduced. I will yield the floor at this time so he may speak.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, again, at the appropriate time, once Senator Nickles has arrived in the Chamber, I will rise once again to seek unanimous consent that we be allowed to bring up and pass S. 724, as passed out of the Finance Committee. Mr. President, I am informed Senator Nickles will not be able to come to the floor in the near future. Therefore, I will go ahead and make the unanimous consent request at this time. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 541, S. 724; that the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the title amendment be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, once again, I will rise for the purpose of asking unanimous consent to take up and pass S. 724. I will withhold doing that until Senator Nickles is able to come to the floor. I understand he wishes to address the issue. This is a subject I raised last week here in the Senate. S. 724 is the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act of 2001. It was reported by the Senate Finance Committee unanimously in July. It is legislation which was introduced by Senators Bond and Breaux and would simply give States the option of covering pregnant women in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or the CHIP program, for the full range of pre- and postpartum care. This legislation did pass out of the Senate Finance Committee by unanimous vote. It includes language we incorporated in an earlier bill, S. 1016, which was the Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2001 introduced by me and supported by Senators Lugar, McCain, Corzine, Lincoln, Chafee, Miller, and Landrieu, and it provides children with continuous health care coverage throughout the first and most fragile year of life. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the United States ranks 21st in the world in infant mortality and 26th in the world in maternal mortality. For a nation as wealthy as ours, these statistics are simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, the regulation the administration issued last week to allow unborn children to be covered by the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, leaves pregnant women out of that equation. That is contrary to the clinical guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It is contrary to the guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Both organizations indicate that the woman and the unborn child need to be treated together. If you are covering only the fetus, as this regulation that came out last week purports to do, this eliminates important aspects of coverage for women during all the stages of birth, pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum care. The various health services that pregnant women could be denied, without passage of this legislation, were elaborated on the Senate floor earlier. We need to do better by our Nation's mothers than we have done so far. This legislation will do that. Let me also make it clear, though, that this bill is about children's health. Senator Bond's bill appropriately is called the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act. It is given that title for a very good reason. We all know the importance of an infant's first year of life. Senator Bond's legislation, as amended in our committee, the Finance Committee, provides 12 months of continuous coverage for children after they are born. Again, the United States ranks 21st in the world in infant mortality. We need to do a better job by our Nation's newborn infants just as we need to do a better job by our Nation's mothers. The rule that was passed last week does provide an option for 12 months continuous enrollment to States, but it makes the time for that 12 months retroactive to the period that the child was in the womb. Therefore, if 9 months of pregnancy were covered, the child would lose coverage in the third month after birth. Potentially lost would be a number of well-baby visits, immunizations, and access to pediatric caregivers. This legislation, S. 724, which was introduced by Senator Bond, has a large number of bipartisan cosponsors. Senator Daschle is a cosponsor. Senator Lott is a cosponsor. Many others of my colleagues are cosponsors. Last Wednesday, we tried to pass S. 724 and objections were raised. Senator Nickles asked a number of questions, and Senator Lincoln and I prepared some detailed responses. We made several points in those responses. Let me just summarize those. First, with regard to the cost of this legislation, the bill is almost entirely offset over the first 5 years it would be in existence, and it actually saves money over the 10-year period. With regard to whether the administration supports the bill, Secretary Thompson has repeatedly expressed support for passage of legislation, including specifically mentioning support for S. 724 and companion legislation in the House. He has done that on two occasions. With regard to whether the regulation eliminates the need for legislation, the regulation itself notes that it leaves many gaps in coverage that the rule creates, including denials of care for pregnant women through pregnancy, through delivery, and through postpartum care. With regard to the burden this bill could place on States, the legislation would simply allow States the option to expand coverage to pregnant women through the CHIP program, or not to expand that coverage, as they choose. States that do not wish to expand coverage would not be compelled to do so. The National Governors Association believes all States should have that option. Therefore, the NGA has specific policy in support of expanding options to cover pregnant women through this CHIP program. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the more detailed response Senator Lincoln and I sent to Senator Nickles with respect to the objections and questions he raised on the floor last Wednesday.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, two years ago we enacted the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, EEOICPA. This important legislation was intended to give timely, uniform and reasonable compensation to Department of Energy employees suffering injury and disease resulting from working in the nuclear weapons program. The program has two parts: a Federal component for certain diseases, and, for all others, an assistance program for the filing of State workers' compensation claims. The Federal component, for workers made ill by exposure to substances unique to DOE facilities, gives a one- time $150,000 payment and covers medical payments for illnesses like beryllium disease, certain cancers and silicosis. Since the passage of the original act in October 2000 a number of additional issues, complicating factors and implementation barriers have emerged. Recently I held a public meeting in Espanola, New Mexico with Representative Tom Udall, to review the performance of the program. The gathering, attending by over 300 present and former workers, focused on three broad issues: delays in processing claims, missing radiation exposure records and difficulty gaining compensation for exposure to toxic substances, like mercury. Upon my return I continued to investigate the implementation barriers facing the program. Meetings with Department of Energy, Labor and HHS officials as well as experts in occupational health and workers compensation revealed further flaws. Let me describe some of the problems this legislation is intended to address based on what I have recently learned. First, with regard to subtitle D, the program relies on an amalgamation of private insurance, state workers compensation programs and DOE contractor self-insurance for the timely and fair payment of medical costs and lost wages. Unfortunately, Department of Energy officials recently stated that up to 50 percent of all eligible beneficiaries would not have access to a willing payor. Assistant Secretary of Energy Beverly Cook in a June 7, 2002 letter noted DOE cannot give directives to ``persons who are not DOE contractors, such as insurers or lessees of DOE facilities.'' In short, workers found to have a meritorious claim under the program may not have a payor. The legislation introduced today would address this problem by making DOE the defacto for all claims. Further, the Department of Energy failed, for nearly two years following the passage of the legislation, to publish a rule crucial for the submission of subtitle D claims. The physician panel rule is a critical component allowing injury claims to be adjudicated by a panel of physicians specializing in occupational medicine. Since the inception of the program and because of delays like the one described above, only four claims have been sent to the physician panel for review. Clearly, we must do better. My legislation simplifies the process to allow the expeditious handling of claims. The dangers faced by these workers is only now being fully understood. In addition to certain cancers, silicosis and beryllium disease, increased risk for other maladies are now being discovered. In my own State of New Mexico I have workers suffering from mercury poisoning, once known as ``Mad Hatters'' disease. Mr. Alex Smith of Espanola operated a mercury still for many years at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. At one point Mr. Smith displayed all the signs of both acute and chronic mercury poisoning. He approached LANL's medical clinic seeking treatment only to be told he was not suffering from mercury poisoning. Documentation later revealed a different story. In fact, the physician did suspect Mr. Smith suffered from mercury toxicity but, for reasons we can only speculate on now, failed to act. According to the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, during the 1950's a majority of the world's mercury was used in the production of nuclear weapons. Although mercury usage is not unique to DOE facilities, the volumes utilized in these facilities, at one point 70 percent of the world's supply, set mercury toxicity in this setting apart from other exposures. Recent data has revealed an increased risk of chronic renal disease and lung cancer from exposure to uranium and beryllium, respectively. Although lung cancer can arise from many causes, clear scientific data points to beryllium disease as a precursor for this devastating illness. As well, chronic renal disease has many etiologies with uranium among them. Like mercury, these exposures and the consequent illnesses are unique to the environment workers found themselves in and should be recognized. The legislation I am introducing today, along with Senators Bunning, Harkin, Allard and Reid, entitled the Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002 is intended to fulfill the original legislative objectives of Congress, address unforeseen obstacles and assure just compensation for our Nation's energy workers. The Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002 addresses and improves the shortcomings of the original legislation by: Establishing the Department of Labor as the willing payor of benefits for claimants approved by the Department of Energy under Subtitle D. Benefit payments are authorized from the previously established EEOICPA fund. Setting time limits for DOE to make determinations regarding claimant's employment records. Setting at 150 days the time limit for the reconstruction of worker's radiation dosages. Adding lung cancer to a list of covered beryllium related diseases. Adding chronic renal disease as a covered illness for uranium workers. Adding mercury disease as a covered illness for workers employed at facilities utilizing more than 100 kilograms of mercury. Establishing an ombudsman to help claimants with administration of claims. Allowing individuals otherwise eligible for compensation under EEOICPA, but who previously received Radiation Exposure Compensation Act awards, to be compensated at levels equal to EEOICPA. It is imperative we protect those who helped America win the cold war. Members of the House of Representatives have come to similar conclusion. Representatives Whitfield and Strickland have recently introduced legislation similar to ours. They too realize that promises made to cold war era workers and families must be kept. A debt of gratitude to these workers, who became sick through no fault of their own, must be paid. I request unanimous consent that the bill and selected testimony be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, two years ago we enacted the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, EEOICPA. This important legislation was intended to give timely, uniform and reasonable compensation to Department of Energy employees suffering injury and disease resulting from working in the nuclear weapons program. The program has two parts: a Federal component for certain diseases, and, for all others, an assistance program for the filing of State workers' compensation claims. The Federal component, for workers made ill by exposure to substances unique to DOE facilities, gives a one- time $150,000 payment and covers medical payments for illnesses like beryllium disease, certain cancers and silicosis. Since the passage of the original act in October 2000 a number of additional issues, complicating factors and implementation barriers have emerged. Recently I held a public meeting in Espanola, New Mexico with Representative Tom Udall, to review the performance of the program. The gathering, attending by over 300 present and former workers, focused on three broad issues: delays in processing claims, missing radiation exposure records and difficulty gaining compensation for exposure to toxic substances, like mercury. Upon my return I continued to investigate the implementation barriers facing the program. Meetings with Department of Energy, Labor and HHS officials as well as experts in occupational health and workers compensation revealed further flaws. Let me describe some of the problems this legislation is intended to address based on what I have recently learned. First, with regard to subtitle D, the program relies on an amalgamation of private insurance, state workers compensation programs and DOE contractor self-insurance for the timely and fair payment of medical costs and lost wages. Unfortunately, Department of Energy officials recently stated that up to 50 percent of all eligible beneficiaries would not have access to a willing payor. Assistant Secretary of Energy Beverly Cook in a June 7, 2002 letter noted DOE cannot give directives to ``persons who are not DOE contractors, such as insurers or lessees of DOE facilities.'' In short, workers found to have a meritorious claim under the program may not have a payor. The legislation introduced today would address this problem by making DOE the defacto for all claims. Further, the Department of Energy failed, for nearly two years following the passage of the legislation, to publish a rule crucial for the submission of subtitle D claims. The physician panel rule is a critical component allowing injury claims to be adjudicated by a panel of physicians specializing in occupational medicine. Since the inception of the program and because of delays like the one described above, only four claims have been sent to the physician panel for review. Clearly, we must do better. My legislation simplifies the process to allow the expeditious handling of claims. The dangers faced by these workers is only now being fully understood. In addition to certain cancers, silicosis and beryllium disease, increased risk for other maladies are now being discovered. In my own State of New Mexico I have workers suffering from mercury poisoning, once known as ``Mad Hatters'' disease. Mr. Alex Smith of Espanola operated a mercury still for many years at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. At one point Mr. Smith displayed all the signs of both acute and chronic mercury poisoning. He approached LANL's medical clinic seeking treatment only to be told he was not suffering from mercury poisoning. Documentation later revealed a different story. In fact, the physician did suspect Mr. Smith suffered from mercury toxicity but, for reasons we can only speculate on now, failed to act. According to the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, during the 1950's a majority of the world's mercury was used in the production of nuclear weapons. Although mercury usage is not unique to DOE facilities, the volumes utilized in these facilities, at one point 70 percent of the world's supply, set mercury toxicity in this setting apart from other exposures. Recent data has revealed an increased risk of chronic renal disease and lung cancer from exposure to uranium and beryllium, respectively. Although lung cancer can arise from many causes, clear scientific data points to beryllium disease as a precursor for this devastating illness. As well, chronic renal disease has many etiologies with uranium among them. Like mercury, these exposures and the consequent illnesses are unique to the environment workers found themselves in and should be recognized. The legislation I am introducing today, along with Senators Bunning, Harkin, Allard and Reid, entitled the Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002 is intended to fulfill the original legislative objectives of Congress, address unforeseen obstacles and assure just compensation for our Nation's energy workers. The Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002 addresses and improves the shortcomings of the original legislation by: Establishing the Department of Labor as the willing payor of benefits for claimants approved by the Department of Energy under Subtitle D. Benefit payments are authorized from the previously established EEOICPA fund. Setting time limits for DOE to make determinations regarding claimant's employment records. Setting at 150 days the time limit for the reconstruction of worker's radiation dosages. Adding lung cancer to a list of covered beryllium related diseases. Adding chronic renal disease as a covered illness for uranium workers. Adding mercury disease as a covered illness for workers employed at facilities utilizing more than 100 kilograms of mercury. Establishing an ombudsman to help claimants with administration of claims. Allowing individuals otherwise eligible for compensation under EEOICPA, but who previously received Radiation Exposure Compensation Act awards, to be compensated at levels equal to EEOICPA. It is imperative we protect those who helped America win the cold war. Members of the House of Representatives have come to similar conclusion. Representatives Whitfield and Strickland have recently introduced legislation similar to ours. They too realize that promises made to cold war era workers and families must be kept. A debt of gratitude to these workers, who became sick through no fault of their own, must be paid. I request unanimous consent that the bill and selected testimony be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the actions taken by the administration to create a viable international regime that stops trade in conflict diamonds, and I encourage the administration to increase their efforts to further expand this regime so it attains an effective and comprehensive level of coordination, certification, monitoring, and enforcement. The Kimberley process has its origins in a decision by African countries to end trade in diamonds that fuel regional conflict but sustain trade in diamonds that create economic stability. This effort has been supported by a number of countries, non-governmental organizations, and the diamond industry. In March 2002, the principals concluded their last full session, and it is now the responsibility of the countries involved in this process to enact implementing legislation. A number of Senators and I are currently engaged in discussions with the administration as to what this legislation would look like and what an appropriate vehicle for the legislation would be. I would like the legislation to be more expansive than the administration wants at this time, and I would like the legislation to directly address the problems related to certification and accountability mentioned in a recent GAO report. But that said, I believe the administration is negotiating in good faith, and that they want the same outcome in the end that I do. Thus I fully expect that we will find common ground for action in the next few days. I also fully expect that discussions will continue so we can find appropriate remedies on all the outstanding issues. I traveled to Africa in August, and I know from my briefings there that trade in conflict diamonds is a despicable practice that must end. It is incredibly disturbing and sad that one of the most promising means to attain real economic growth and political stability in certain areas of Africa--the natural wealth represented by diamonds and the diamond industry--has instead become a deadly tool by which rebel movements can purchase weapons, maim and massacre civilians, destroy communities, overthrow governments, and perpetuate uncertainty. Of equal significance, there is increasing and incontrovertible evidence that funds from the illicit trade in conflict diamonds are being used by Al-Qaeda to finance terrorism. The problem of conflict diamonds must be confronted, it must be confronted now, and it must be confronted in a way that ends both the brutal violence that is pervasive in Africa and the possibility that conflict diamonds may fund terrorist activities in countries around the world. In my view, it is incumbent on the United States to play an active and prominent role in creating a framework that ends trade in conflict diamonds. In my view, it is incumbent upon Congress to work with the administration to ensure that this effort occurs. I believe the Kimberley process should move more rapidly toward its stated goals and the more robust goals outlined by the United Nations. But I also understand that multilateral action will be essential for this regime to work, and that multilateral agreements take time to arrange. I am willing to be patient, but only with the understanding that people are dying in Africa at this time and we must help them soon. More delay means more suffering, and we all have to be cognizant of that as we contemplate solutions. Thus I think it is essential to state on the floor of the Senate today that I stand solidly behind the ongoing effort to end trade in conflict diamonds, and I encourage the administration to continue its effort to create a strong international regime that will engender political stability and economic growth in Africa. I am ready to work intensively with my colleagues and the administration to this end. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a Business Meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 3, at 9:30 a.m. in SD-366. The purpose of the Business Meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me add one other item, since the Senator referred to it, about States not favoring this. My other information is that the National Governors Association has issued a policy or endorsement of this legislation and supports it. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Oklahoma to look into this further. I will get all the information we have to him. If he has any other information that we need to see, I am glad to look at it. I hope we can move ahead as soon as possible with this bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is certainly my understanding of the bill. I know of no provision in this bill that changes the Medicaid coverage that way.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, I am glad to yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me say for the information of my colleague, I appreciate his willingness to look into this matter. My strong impression--and not just impression, but information I have been given--is Secretary Thompson clearly supports the regulation which his Department issued today related to the fetus, the coverage of unborn children. However, he also supports passage of this bill to provide an option to States to cover pregnant women under the CHIP Program. It is also my information that this does not involve any expansion of Medicaid, that this is strictly a change in law that provides the option to States to cover pregnant women under the CHIP Program if they so choose. That is not, as I see it, an additional burden on any State.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I did not hear the second part of the question. On the question as to whether he actually supports passage of this bill, he issued a press release indicating he supports passage of S. 724, the bill we are trying to move ahead right now. This was March 6, 2002, in his testimony before the House Labor-HHS Appropriations Committee.

Mr. BINGAMAN. In response, the offset was the increased scrutiny on the Social Security payments which we discussed in the Finance Committee as an appropriate offset. I think all Members agree that would at least raise as much money as this bill will cost the Treasury.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in answer to the question, the bill costs right at $600 million over a 5-year period, and the cost is fully offset in the legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, yes, there is a committee substitute that is essentially the bill. It is the bill we passed through the Finance Committee by unanimous consent.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas and also my colleague from Missouri for their eloquent statements in support of moving ahead and passing this legislation. The Senator from Arkansas speaks with more authority and conviction than any male Member of this body can muster in connection with this subject and this legislation. Of course, the Senator from Missouri is the prime sponsor of the very bill on which I am asking that we move ahead. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 541, which is S. 724; that the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed; that the title amendment be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements related to the bill be placed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.