Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I also call Chairman Kohl's attention to the potential to broaden PSL's efforts, within the existing funding and framework, to include evaluations of technologies and methods for testing agricultural products for microbial contamination as well as contamination from pesticides, chemical and biological agents, evidence of tampering, or possible acts of bioterrorism. In addition to fruits and vegetables, the expanded scope of testing technologies might include other food products as well as illicit or counterfeit products and pharmaceuticals that could present hazards to public health and safety. I understand FDA is responsible for wide variety of product safety initiatives, including bioterrorism, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, and so forth. I do believe the availability of a testing and verification laboratory, such as PSL's Agriculture Products Food Safety Laboratory, could be of great value in FDA's continuing effort to combat illicit products and health hazards. Is the chairman aware of these additional capabilities at PSL that could be used by FDA to evaluate a wider variety of testing technologies and does he agree that it would be appropriate for FDA to consider this broader scope of effort at PSL within the funding level already provided in the bill?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Kohl, for all his fine work on this bill. I know his task has not been an easy one, and he and his staff are to be complimented for the very thoughtful and fair way they have worked to complete this legislation. I also thank the chairman for including in the bill second-year funding for the Food and Drug Administration to continue its contract with New Mexico State University's Physical Science Laboratory to develop and evaluate rapid screening methods, instruments, and analyses that will facilitate FDA's regulation of imported food products. As I requested, the committee's bill continues funding for PSL's Agriculture Products Food Safety Laboratory at the fiscal year 2001 level of $1.5 million. I understand FDA and PSL have completed all the necessary agreements and work is already underway. Equipment has been ordered and lab staff is being hired. One of the first tasks will be an independent evaluation of biosensors for microbial contamination to ensure the equipment is accurate and dependable. If the reliability of the new biosensors can be verified they could replace the much slower testing protocols FDA currently uses. Does the chairman agree that PSL's Agriculture Products Food Safety Laboratory is supporting FDA's efforts to develop quick and safe food inspection systems that can detect filth, microbial contamination, and pesticides on fresh fruits and vegetables and the FDA should continue this work at PSL is fiscal year 2001?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, October 18, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. has been postponed. This hearing has not been rescheduled. The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on the investigative report of the Thirtymile Fire and the prevention of future fire fatalities. For further information, please contact Kira Finkler (202) 224-8164 or Shelley Brown (202) 224-5915 of the Committee staff.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a nomination hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, October 25, at 9:30 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the nomination of Michael Smith to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy). Those wishing to submit written statements on this subject should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Sam Fowler, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Sam Fowler at 202/224-4103. subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two important pieces of legislation that have great significance for New Mexico, but also are crucial to the entire Great Plains region of our Nation. The bills address the alarming decline in portions of the Ogallala Aquifer, which extends under eight States: Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and South Dakota. A reliable source of groundwater is esential 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. Some areas have seen a decline of over 100 feet in aquifer levels during the last half of the twentieth century. The first bill that I am introducing today, the ``High Plains Aquifer Conservation, Monitoring, and Coordination Act,'' would direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop and carry out a comprehensive hydrogeologic mapping, modeling and monitoring program for the High Plains Aquifer, which is comprised in large part by the Ogallala 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 States for their participation in the program. The bill would also charge the Secretary of the Interior, working in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, with establishing a High Plains Aquifer Coordination Council. This Council would coordinate mapping, modeling, and monitoring efforts; facilitate coordination of federal, state and local programs relating to the groundwater resources of the High Plains Aquifer; facilitate coordination of programs and policies among the High Plains Aquifer States; and provide recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Governors regarding programs and policies to address the groundwater resources of the High Plains Aquifer. The Council will be comprised of State and Federal representatives, as well as individuals from irrigation production agriculture, nonagricultural water users, the conservation community, and Indian Tribes. Finally, the legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding to each of the High Plains Aquifer States to further groundwater education programs, working with land grant universities and other educational institutions and cooperating entities. The second bill that I am introducing today is the ``High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act.'' This bill would establish a voluntary 10-year groundwater conservation incentives program for the High Plains Aquifer region. Incentive payments would be made for voluntary land management practices, which may include changes from irrigated to dryland agriculture, changes in cropping patterns to utilize water conserving crops, and other conservation measures that result in quantifiable and significant savings in groundwater use. Cost-share payments will be made for structural practices that will conserve groundwater resources of the High Plains Aquifer, which may include improvement of irrigation systems and purchase of new equipment. Priority will be given to areas experiencing significant aquifer level declines. In order to be eligible, producers must be in an area covered by a groundwater conservation plan. The legislation would also require the Secretary of Agriculture to provide financial and technical assistance on a cost-share basis to States, tribes, counties, conservation districts and other political subdivisions. Upon approval by the Secretary, a State can carry out these activities in lieu of the Secretary. The Secretary is also required to set up a process to certify groundwater conservation plans. In addition, the bill would enhance eligibility for participation in the Conservation Reserve Program for lands drawing water from the High Plains Aquifer. These two bills bring focus to an issue that concerns the long-term economic viability of communities in much of America's heartland. This is farm country, and the cornerstone of its economy is its groundwater supply, the Ogallala Aquifer, which allows for irrigated agriculture. The Department of Agriculture estimates that there are over six million acres of irrigated agriculture overlying just the southern portion of the Ogallala. These farms use between six and nine million acre feet of water per year. 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. These bills would take significant steps to address this serious problem. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two important pieces of legislation that have great significance for New Mexico, but also are crucial to the entire Great Plains region of our Nation. The bills address the alarming decline in portions of the Ogallala Aquifer, which extends under eight States: Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and South Dakota. A reliable source of groundwater is esential 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. Some areas have seen a decline of over 100 feet in aquifer levels during the last half of the twentieth century. The first bill that I am introducing today, the ``High Plains Aquifer Conservation, Monitoring, and Coordination Act,'' would direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop and carry out a comprehensive hydrogeologic mapping, modeling and monitoring program for the High Plains Aquifer, which is comprised in large part by the Ogallala 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 States for their participation in the program. The bill would also charge the Secretary of the Interior, working in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, with establishing a High Plains Aquifer Coordination Council. This Council would coordinate mapping, modeling, and monitoring efforts; facilitate coordination of federal, state and local programs relating to the groundwater resources of the High Plains Aquifer; facilitate coordination of programs and policies among the High Plains Aquifer States; and provide recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Governors regarding programs and policies to address the groundwater resources of the High Plains Aquifer. The Council will be comprised of State and Federal representatives, as well as individuals from irrigation production agriculture, nonagricultural water users, the conservation community, and Indian Tribes. Finally, the legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding to each of the High Plains Aquifer States to further groundwater education programs, working with land grant universities and other educational institutions and cooperating entities. The second bill that I am introducing today is the ``High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act.'' This bill would establish a voluntary 10-year groundwater conservation incentives program for the High Plains Aquifer region. Incentive payments would be made for voluntary land management practices, which may include changes from irrigated to dryland agriculture, changes in cropping patterns to utilize water conserving crops, and other conservation measures that result in quantifiable and significant savings in groundwater use. Cost-share payments will be made for structural practices that will conserve groundwater resources of the High Plains Aquifer, which may include improvement of irrigation systems and purchase of new equipment. Priority will be given to areas experiencing significant aquifer level declines. In order to be eligible, producers must be in an area covered by a groundwater conservation plan. The legislation would also require the Secretary of Agriculture to provide financial and technical assistance on a cost-share basis to States, tribes, counties, conservation districts and other political subdivisions. Upon approval by the Secretary, a State can carry out these activities in lieu of the Secretary. The Secretary is also required to set up a process to certify groundwater conservation plans. In addition, the bill would enhance eligibility for participation in the Conservation Reserve Program for lands drawing water from the High Plains Aquifer. These two bills bring focus to an issue that concerns the long-term economic viability of communities in much of America's heartland. This is farm country, and the cornerstone of its economy is its groundwater supply, the Ogallala Aquifer, which allows for irrigated agriculture. The Department of Agriculture estimates that there are over six million acres of irrigated agriculture overlying just the southern portion of the Ogallala. These farms use between six and nine million acre feet of water per year. 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. These bills would take significant steps to address this serious problem. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, October 24, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the science and implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan including its effect on species restoration and timber availability. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please contact Kira Finkler of the Committee staff at (202) 224-8164.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, October 18, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the investigative report of the Thirtymile Fire and the prevention of future fire fatalities. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please contact John Watts of the Committee staff at (202) 224-5488. Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 74, legislation that explicitly condemns the bigotry and violence against Sikh-Americans that has originated as a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C. and New York City. Let me begin by saying that I am deeply disturbed that such a resolution has to be introduced in our country. For more than 200 years America has treasured the freedoms held in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the right of Americans to pursue the religion of their choice. Throughout those years, America has attracted individuals from around the world who found refuge from persecution for their religious beliefs. Sikh-Americans have made America their home for over one hundred years, and in that time they have significantly contributed to the vitality, prosperity, and harmony of the communities in which they live. In the time that has passed since September 11, Sikh-Americans have been vocal in their support for Americans, both for those that lost their lives in the attack and those that now risk their lives in their attempt to bring to justice those that are responsible. But sadly, Sikh-Americans have been among the initial and repeated victims of hate crimes in the United States since the attacks, and they continue to suffer daily from actual violence and threats of violence. This comes in spite of unambiguous remarks by President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft that any inappropriate activity emanating from either religious or ethnic intolerance would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is distasteful to me that in our search for terrorist schemes, necessary though it is, some Americans have looked toward the most convenient and conspicuous available target to blame, that being individuals of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent whose appearance is considered different than the norm. As we learn more and more of the origins of these radical religious movements, it is important that we refrain from painting all religions and ethnicities with a very broad and indiscriminate brush. Although radical religious movements may share the name of a major religion, they clearly obfuscate the basic tenets and purposes of these religions, especially those related to tolerance, understanding, and peace. In my own State of New Mexico, I am proud to say we have a large, energetic, and engaged Sikh-American population. They live throughout my State and contribute significantly to the professional, economic, and spiritual vitality of the communities in which they live. The jobs that they hold, whether they are doctors, lawyers, engineers, businessmen, educators, or social service providers, are essential to the social and economic welfare of the people in New Mexico. They always have been, and always will be, an integral part of their communities, and, accordingly, they have been treated in a manner that reflects their position in my State as friends, neighbors, and colleagues. That treatment should continue today, tomorrow, and in the future. Over the years, Sikh-Americans have done much to make New Mexico a better place to live. They have created the 3HO Foundation, a non- profit organization dedicated to the service and teaching of the science of Yoga and mediation. The organization has served in a consultative manner to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations since 1994. Sikh-Americans sponsor the International Peace Prayer Day, part of their effort to recognize all human beings as equals and to establish egalitarian and democratic societies across the world. They contribute to charitable organizations and establish businesses that have as their foremost motivation the distribution of products and assistance to those in need. Sikh- Americans are an asset to New Mexico in every way. The resolution introduced by Senator Durbin and co-sponsored by myself and many other colleagues states in unequivocal terms that: 1. bigotry and any acts of violence or discrimination against any American, including Sikh-Americans should be condemned; 2. the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, including Sikh-Americans, should be protected; 3. local and Federal law enforcement authorities should work to prevent hate crimes against all Americans, including Sikh-Americans, and; 4. local and Federal law enforcement authorities should prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who commit hate crimes, including those against Sikh-Americans. I support this legislation in the strongest possible manner and I state in the strongest possible terms that the kind of violence Sikh- Americans have suffered from since the September 11 attack must stop. Furthermore, I ask local, State, and Federal law enforcement to re- double their efforts to prevent these abhorrent actions and prosecute perpetrators of such actions to the full extent of the law. We need to make it clear that acts of violence against other religions and ethnicities as a means of exacting revenge for the recent terrorist attacks are unacceptable and will not be tolerated in this country. America has long been a beacon of freedom and tolerance in the international system, but it goes without saying that it suffers in stature when the civil rights of Sikh-Americans, as well as Americans of Muslim, Hindu, or other religious persuasion, come under open attack. In my view, these individual abuses are not indicative of the people we as Americans are, nor are they reflective of the society that we aspire to be. But they have a cost and we cannot ignore them. It is time that we acknowledge the contemptuous behavior that is occurring, unite as a country in our universal condemnation of hate crimes of any type, and censure it to the fullest extent of the law. There is no doubt that we are in a difficult moment in our country's history and we must take extraordinary steps to prevent further injuries and loss of life. But even now we need to take care to not abandon the principles and the spirit of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Indeed, it is my hope that we use these unfortunate circumstances as an opportunity to move forward with an even more sincere and collective commitment to the ideals that have made this Nation so great.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I want to just make a few brief points regarding an announcement I made last evening about how we would try to proceed through the remainder of the session to get consideration of an energy bill. I indicated in that announcement that the majority leader had asked me to work with other Senators on the Energy Committee, as well as Senators on other committees, to put together a proposal that could be brought to the floor by the leadership for consideration, and that in light of that, we would not proceed to try to mark up a bill in the Energy Committee, as I expect probably there will not be markups of other portions of a proposed energy bill in some of other committees that would have jurisdiction. First, as I understand it, the majority leader's assignment was clear. He wants the Senate to be in a position to move to consideration of an energy bill in a timely fashion. And it was his view that this process of putting a bill together, and hopefully on a consensus basis, involving input from all Senators--Democrats and Republicans--was the best way to do that. We will now have an opportunity to deal with some of the energy issues that cross committee jurisdictional lines; and there are many of those. I think it is clear to people that many of the energy issues also involved the Environment and Public Works Committee. There are clearly issues involving the Finance Committee regarding energy-related tax incentives or incentives for use of particular types of energy. All of that, of course, would be expected to be part of a larger piece of legislation with which the Senate would deal. Second, I want to respond to a couple of the comments that were made earlier in this Chamber by some of my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, indicating that they believed this was partisan and this would make the consideration of energy in the Senate a partisan issue. I see it as just the opposite. I am interested in the input from all Senators. I think those on the committee know I have invested a substantial amount of time, in the past several months, seeking and having individual meetings with Senators on both sides of the aisle to discuss some of these difficult issues. My hope is that we can put together a piece of legislation that will reflect the provisions around which we can form a consensus; and some of those will come from the Republican side of the aisle and, certainly, some will come from the Democratic side of the aisle. My colleagues on the committee are aware we have made that effort to work in a bipartisan way. I see no disadvantage to any member of the committee from the procedure the majority leader has proposed. If there are good ideas related to energy policy, of course, the first choice would be to try to have them included in the bill the majority leader brings up for consideration. If those ideas are not included in that package, for whatever reason, any Senator, whether Democrat or Republican, would be in a position to offer those as an amendment. I don't see anyone being disadvantaged by the procedure the majority leader has proposed. I was disappointed to hear in one of the statements this morning a somewhat colorful account of how this decision was supposed to have been made. That purported account was not accurate in any respect, as far as I know. The decision was simply made by the majority leader that if we proceeded in this way, in his view, this process would hold out the best chance for us to get an energy bill considered by the Senate and passed in a timely fashion. On that basis, it is advisable for all Senators to support the decision of the majority leader to try to move ahead on a bipartisan basis. That will certainly be my best effort in the committee. I look forward to working with all colleagues, both on the Energy Committee and with other committees that claim jurisdiction and have jurisdiction on different aspects of a comprehensive energy bill. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in extremely strong support of S. 1499, the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Protection Act, and I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the legislation. In the aftermath of the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon on September 11, we were right I believe, to focus our attention on the loss of human life and the enormous tragedy that had affected our entire Nation. From my perspective, there would have been something callous about calculating economic impact when there was so much visible pain and suffering going on around us. But as time has passed, there is an economic reality that must be addressed in a coherent and effective fashion. The increasingly negative economic reports we face cannot be ignored as they have immediate and tangible effects on the people and communities of our country. Over the last week or so the administration, along with key Members of Congress, have discussed the creation of an economic stimulus plan that is designed to pull our country and our economy back on track and back to where it belongs. Although this plan has yet to be solidified, it will provide Americans with a stable and secure foundation upon which public confidence can grow again, economic growth can expand again, and business productivity can increase again. The bipartisan legislation that was introduced today by Senator Kerry will complement this economic stimulus package by giving substantial assistance to the small businesses that were either directly affected by the events on September 11 or subsequently affected by the ripple that has spread across the United States. Senator Kerry has very wisely taken an approach that looks not only at the small businesses that were in the immediate areas of the attack and thus suffered as a result of the damage or closures, but also those businesses--supplier firms, contractors, and so on--that have suffered indirectly as a result of the initial destruction. These businesses will now have the opportunity to obtain a number of benefits not previously available under current legislation. In brief, the legislation: expands and facilities access for small business to the SBA Disaster Loan Program; offers incentives that allows business to use the 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs; provides additional funds to the SCORE and SBDC Programs, and; increases outreach done by SBA to small businesses in need of management consulting. Let me provide some context to this effort. From where I sit, no sector of the economy is as vital, dynamic, and creative as small business. If you read the paper or listen to the news, you know that there has been an entrepreneurial explosion in the United States over the last decade, and that this explosion has significantly impacted every region in the country. According to the latest estimates, there are at least 24 million full time small businesses in the United States at this time, employing millions of Americans. Make no mistake about it, these businesses drive the U.S. economy, as they are the ones that fire innovation, provide jobs, and create wealth for the country as a whole. When we talk about the knowledge economy, we are talking about small business. When we talk about energy and risk-taking, we are talking about small business. When we talk about the ``creative destruction'' that enhances our over-all competitiveness and pushes our country forward, we are talking about small business. Small business represents the best of the United States, and from where I sit we should always make sure it has everything it needs to make a go of it. In my State of New Mexico, there are nearly 40,000 small businesses, over half owned by women and minorities. These entities employ nearly 60 percent of the individuals that are now working in my state and generate billions of dollars in revenue. New Mexico depends on small business for its continued economic welfare, and I am committed to helping them succeed in good times and in bad. It is never easy to start a small business or earn a profit, but it has gotten significantly harder recently. Many small businesses were already teetering on the brink as a result of the economic downturn, but in number of cases, conditions have become unmanageable as a result of the September 11 events and the recession. It is time to recognize that these folks need some help. This legislation does that. It shows that the Congress cares about what has happened and will do everything in its power to put things back on track again. It accepts the fact that these folks are not experiencing a normal business cycle downturn, and that they can't wait for the next upturn for things to get better. They need some assistance, and they need it now. As far as I am concerned, it would be a good fit to have this specific legislation in the economic stimulus package being put together at this time. However, given how far down the road the negotiations over that package are, I doubt if that is possible. If this is indeed the case, I think it is imperative absolutely imperative, that this legislation be passed by both the Senate and the House, and then signed by the President as soon as possible. If we are looking for stability and confidence to be re-established in the United States, small business is a good place to start. It is time to act, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in extremely strong support of S. 1499, the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Protection Act, and I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the legislation. In the aftermath of the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon on September 11, we were right I believe, to focus our attention on the loss of human life and the enormous tragedy that had affected our entire Nation. From my perspective, there would have been something callous about calculating economic impact when there was so much visible pain and suffering going on around us. But as time has passed, there is an economic reality that must be addressed in a coherent and effective fashion. The increasingly negative economic reports we face cannot be ignored as they have immediate and tangible effects on the people and communities of our country. Over the last week or so the administration, along with key Members of Congress, have discussed the creation of an economic stimulus plan that is designed to pull our country and our economy back on track and back to where it belongs. Although this plan has yet to be solidified, it will provide Americans with a stable and secure foundation upon which public confidence can grow again, economic growth can expand again, and business productivity can increase again. The bipartisan legislation that was introduced today by Senator Kerry will complement this economic stimulus package by giving substantial assistance to the small businesses that were either directly affected by the events on September 11 or subsequently affected by the ripple that has spread across the United States. Senator Kerry has very wisely taken an approach that looks not only at the small businesses that were in the immediate areas of the attack and thus suffered as a result of the damage or closures, but also those businesses--supplier firms, contractors, and so on--that have suffered indirectly as a result of the initial destruction. These businesses will now have the opportunity to obtain a number of benefits not previously available under current legislation. In brief, the legislation: expands and facilities access for small business to the SBA Disaster Loan Program; offers incentives that allows business to use the 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs; provides additional funds to the SCORE and SBDC Programs, and; increases outreach done by SBA to small businesses in need of management consulting. Let me provide some context to this effort. From where I sit, no sector of the economy is as vital, dynamic, and creative as small business. If you read the paper or listen to the news, you know that there has been an entrepreneurial explosion in the United States over the last decade, and that this explosion has significantly impacted every region in the country. According to the latest estimates, there are at least 24 million full time small businesses in the United States at this time, employing millions of Americans. Make no mistake about it, these businesses drive the U.S. economy, as they are the ones that fire innovation, provide jobs, and create wealth for the country as a whole. When we talk about the knowledge economy, we are talking about small business. When we talk about energy and risk-taking, we are talking about small business. When we talk about the ``creative destruction'' that enhances our over-all competitiveness and pushes our country forward, we are talking about small business. Small business represents the best of the United States, and from where I sit we should always make sure it has everything it needs to make a go of it. In my State of New Mexico, there are nearly 40,000 small businesses, over half owned by women and minorities. These entities employ nearly 60 percent of the individuals that are now working in my state and generate billions of dollars in revenue. New Mexico depends on small business for its continued economic welfare, and I am committed to helping them succeed in good times and in bad. It is never easy to start a small business or earn a profit, but it has gotten significantly harder recently. Many small businesses were already teetering on the brink as a result of the economic downturn, but in number of cases, conditions have become unmanageable as a result of the September 11 events and the recession. It is time to recognize that these folks need some help. This legislation does that. It shows that the Congress cares about what has happened and will do everything in its power to put things back on track again. It accepts the fact that these folks are not experiencing a normal business cycle downturn, and that they can't wait for the next upturn for things to get better. They need some assistance, and they need it now. As far as I am concerned, it would be a good fit to have this specific legislation in the economic stimulus package being put together at this time. However, given how far down the road the negotiations over that package are, I doubt if that is possible. If this is indeed the case, I think it is imperative absolutely imperative, that this legislation be passed by both the Senate and the House, and then signed by the President as soon as possible. If we are looking for stability and confidence to be re-established in the United States, small business is a good place to start. It is time to act, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 51, the Vietnam Trade Act, which would extend normal trade relations to the nation of Vietnam. I know there is limited time available on this issue today, so I will keep my comments short and to the point. Let me begin by clarifying what this agreement actually does. Simply put, the purpose of this trade agreement is to normalize trade relations between the United States and Vietnam. At present, Vietnam is one of only a handful of countries in the world that do not receive what is called normal trade relations status from the United States. Under this agreement, the United States will obtain a range of significant advantages in the Vietnamese market it does not have at this time, examples being; access to key sectors, including goods, services and agriculture; protection for investment and intellectual property, transparency in laws and regulations, and a lowering of tariffs on products. For the United States, this agreement translates into a unique opportunity for American companies to enter a country with significant development needs. It means sales across the board in the consumer market, sales in infrastructure development, and sales in government procurement. Importantly, it means that we will now be able to compete on equal footing with other foreign countries, all of which trade with Vietnam on ``normal'' terms and many of which already have a significant presence in that country. For Vietnam, this agreement translates into a substantial decrease in tariffs on products it can send to the United States and a tangible opportunity for export-led economic growth now and in the future. It gives Vietnam and its people, more than half of which are under the age of 25, a very real chance to obtain the level of prosperity, security, and stability that it has desired for nearly a half a century. It means an increased standard of living, an increased exchange of ideas with the world, and an increased integration of Vietnam's institutions with the international system. Most of all, it means positive and peaceful political economic change in a country that has suffered tremendously for far too long. Let us not lose sight of this last point, because much like the U.S.- Jordan free trade agreement, the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade agreement has a larger geo-political context. In 1995, after years of lingering animosity between our two countries, the United States and Vietnam made a conscious and, I think, an extremely wise decision to take a different and far more constructive path in our relations. For many, this decision was also difficult and even controversial as there was a number of critical issues that they felt remained unresolved. These issues--the POW/MIAs, religious freedom, human rights, labor rights, and so on--are not going away quickly. I have thought about them carefully and at length as I decided whether or not I would support this legislation. I do not want to underestimate or, even worse, ignore the fact that Vietnam has a very long way to go when it comes to the rights and liberties that we in our country consider fundamental. But I also feel that this comes down to the question of how change is going to occur. Does it occur through engagement or isolation? Based on the evidence I have seen, both in the case of Vietnam and with other countries, I am convinced it is far more productive to integrate Vietnam into our system of norms, values, and rules--pull it into the common tent where we can talk to government officials and private citizens on a regular basis on the issues that matter to us all than leave it out. I have come to the conclusion that it is far better to create cooperative mechanisms to discuss issues like forced child labor, or environmental degradation, or trafficking in women, or international trade than to ostracize Vietnam and wonder why change is not occurring. I think it is essential that the United States interact regularly and intensively with Vietnam. Our goal should be to integrate Vietnam fully into the collective institutions of East Asia and the international community. Only through this effort will we see incremental but steady reform and progress occur. Let me say in conclusion that Vietnam is changing in dramatic, important, and, I believe, irreversible ways. I believe this trade agreement will not only accelerate and expand that change, but it will also create a strong, mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and Vietnam. I want to thank all my colleagues who have played an integral role in drafting this legislation. I am convinced it will have a profound and lasting effect on Vietnam, on the region of East Asia as a whole, and on U.S.-Vietnam relations. Our countries have come a long way, and I am extremely encouraged to see that we have put old and counterproductive animosities aside to take a very positive step forward into the future.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 6 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, it is both with a sense of sorrow and with great admiration that I rise today to pay tribute to an exemplary public servant and a good friend, D. Michael Harvey, who died on August 31, 2001. Mike served the United States Senate and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with distinction for some 22 years. He often said that there was no higher calling than public service. Mike worked for and counseled some of the giants of the committee: Clifford Hansen of Wyoming; Lee Metcalf of Montana; Henry M. (Scoop) Jackson of Washington; Mark Hatfield of Oregon; Dale Bumpers of Arkansas; and J. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana. He served at the direction of the committee's leaders, but all the committee's members--Democrats and Republicans alike--had access to and benefit of his counsel. Mike was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and raised in Rochester, NY. He received his B.A. from the University of Rochester in 1955. He joined Eastman Kodak Co., for 4 years, before moving to Washington. Mike began his public service career in 1960 with the Bureau of Land Management in the Interior Department, spending his last 4 years there as chief of the Division of Legislation and Regulatory Management. He received a J.D. from Georgetown University in 1963, while working at BLM. In the mid-1960s he served with the Public Land Law Review Commission and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. In 1973 Mike accepted an invitation from Senator Henry M. Jackson to become special counsel to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. In February 1977, when the Senate reorganized its committee structure and created the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Mike was appointed its first chief counsel. Until his retirement in 1995, he served as majority chief counsel during the years that the Democrats controlled the Senate and as chief counsel and staff director for the minority when Republicans held the majority. During his tenure with the committee, Mike played a key role in developing landmark legislation involving Alaska lands, the regulation of surface coal mining, and Federal energy policy and land management. His knowledge of the law regarding natural resources was enclyclopedic and his judgment was well-respected. Mike was dedicated to achieving good public policy and his counsel was always given with that paramount objective in mind. In addition to providing a sounding board on a huge range of issues, Mike was a role model, a teacher and a mentor for his colleagues. He established a high standard of professionalism among the committee staff and instilled it, by his example more than by precept, in the generation of young staff members that he trained. Mike was known by all who worked with him for his dedicated professionalism and the breadth and depth of his substantive expertise. But he was perhaps known best for the extremely high standard of ethics he brought to public service. You could always get a legal opinion from Mike of the highest caliber, and you could be absolutely confident that the opinion was free of any special interest or personal prejudgment. He was a talented professional and a fine human being. Mike was actively involved in American Bar Association activities. He served on the council of the ABA Section of Natural Resources Law. He was past chairman of the Fairfax County Park Authority. He served as a congressional adviser to the U.S. delegation to the third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea and served on the board of governors of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation and the board of directors of the Public Land Foundation. Mike often attended the theater, loved poetry, and was known to quote Shakespeare at length. The Senate was fortunate to have the benefit of Mike Harvey's considerable talents for many years. I was privileged to have worked with him and to have known him. Our deepest sympathies go out to Mike's family: his wife, Pat; his four children, Michelle, Jeffrey, David, and Leslie; and his 10 grandchildren. We share in their loss. In eulogizing the great Scoop Jackson, Mike relied on a quotation from Shakespeare. I believe that Shakespeare's eloquent words apply as well to the late Mike Harvey: His life was noble, and the elements so mixed in him that Nature might stand up and say to all the world: ``This was a man.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing to receive testimony on S. 1480, a bill to amend the Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992 in order to provide for the security of dams, facilities, and resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation; and other proposals related to energy infrastructure security. The hearing will take place on October 9 at 9:30 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to submit written statements should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn. Jonathan Black, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Patty Beneke at 202/224-5451 or Deborah Estes at 202/224-5360.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I am introducing this amendment with Senator Domenici to S. 1438, the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, to provide funds badly needed for two vital test support activities in the Department of Defense, DoD. The Big Crow program provides DoD with highly sophisticated airborne electronic warfare capabilities that enable us to test our newest weapon systems and technologies in a realistic battle environment in which electronic warfare is likely to be used. The system can also be used operationally if a requirement suddenly occurs. The Defense Systems Evaluation, DSE, program provides aircraft to replicate enemy and friendly aircraft in testing Army air defense programs and technology. Both of these programs provide vital test support assets used by all the military services. Unfortunately, it is typical for programs that provide cross- service support to be inadequately funded by their parent service organization. This year's President's budget request did not seek any funding for these programs, perhaps relying on the Congress, once again, to provide the emergency funds needed to keep them operating. Thus we find ourselves again this year, seeking the funding needed for these two programs in order for them to continue to provide vital test support activities for all of the military services. The amendment, which Senator Domenici and I offer, will provide the minimum necessary funding to enable Big Crow and DSE to operate during fiscal year 2002. There are other test support programs in the DoD that suffer the same circumstance as the two for which I am seeking funding. They refer to them in the Pentagon as ``the orphans.'' The Defense Science Board, DSB, recently completed a review of operational testing and evaluation in the Department of Defense and published a report containing a number of significant recommendations about how to improve that process to make it more effective and efficient. The DSB recommended that DoD seek ways to encourage and implement joint service testing. Among their recommendations, the DSB endorsed budget oversight responsibility for orphan programs such as Big Crow and DSE to the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Actual test and evaluation activities would remain the province of the military services. This year's Defense authorization bill reported out by the Armed Services Committee contains a provision requesting the Secretary of Defense to review the DSB report and to submit recommendations regarding its implementation with the budget request submission for fiscal year 2003. I am hopeful that the Secretary will endorse the DSB findings so that the Department will finally exercise appropriate oversight and support for cross-service test activities. In the meantime, the amendment I am introducing is necessary to keep those essential test activities underway. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a nomination hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, October 3, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the nomination of Jeffrey D. Jarrett to be Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior; and Harold Craig Manson to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior. Those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Attn. Sam Fowler, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Sam Fowler on 202/224-7571.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment to S. 1438, the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, to provide funds badly needed for two vital test support activities in the Department of Defense. The Big Crow program provides DoD with highly sophisticated airborne electronic warfare capabilities that enable us to test our newest weapon systems and technologies in a realistic battle environment in which electronic warfare is likely to be used. The system can also be used operationally if a requirement suddenly occurs. The Defense Systems Evaluation, DSE, program provides aircraft to replicate enemy and friendly aircraft in testing Army air defense programs and technology. Both of these programs provide vital test support assets used by all the military services. Unfortunately, it is typical for programs that provide cross-service support to be inadequately funded by their parent service organization. This year's President's budget request did not seek any funding for these programs, perhaps relying on the Congress, once again, to provide the emergency funds needed to keep them operating. Thus we find ourselves again this year, seeking the funding needed for these two programs in order for them to continue to provide vital test support activities for all of the military services. The amendment, which Senator Domenici and I offer, will provide the minimum necessary funding to enable Big Crow and DSE to operate during fiscal year 2002. There are other test support programs in the DoD that suffer the same circumstance as the two for which I am seeking funding. They refer to them in the Pentagon as ``the orphans.'' The Defense Science Board, DSB, recently completed a review of operational testing and evaluation in the Department of Defense and published a report containing a number of significant recommendations about how to improve that process to make it more effective and efficient. The DSB recommended that DoD seek ways to encourage and implement joint service testing. Among their recommendations, the DSB endorsed budget oversight responsibility for orphan programs such as Big Crow and DSE to the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Actual test and evaluation activities would remain the province of the military services. This year's Defense Authorization bill reported out by the Armed Services Committee contains a provision requesting the Secretary of Defense to review the DSB report and to submit recommendations regarding its implementation with the budget request submission for fiscal year 2003. I am hopeful that the Secretary will endorse the DSB findings so that the Department will finally exercise appropriate oversight and support for cross-service test activities. In the meantime, the amendment I am introducing is necessary to keep those essential test activities underway. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of this amendment by Senator Domenici and strongly supportive of it because it takes important steps to fully fund the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA. RECA was originally enacted as a means of compensating thousands of individuals who suffered from exposure to radiation as a result of the Federal Government's nuclear testing program and Federal uranium mining activities. While the Government can never fully compensate for the loss of a life or the reduction in the quality of life, RECA serves as a cornerstone for the national apology Congress extended in 1990 to the victims of the radiation tragedies. This amendment is critical to ensure that the Federal Government finally lives up to that commitment of providing a compassionate program of compensation to these workers and their families. Unfortunately, for years the Federal Government's commitment to RECA has been half-hearted. The fund has been consistently shortchanged, so much so that the Justice Department was until recently shamefully issuing IOU's to sick and dying workers. This amendment will assure uranium millers, miners and ore transporters that the Federal Government values the service they gave to our country and is committed to ensuring they receive compassionate compensation for that service. The amendment provides $655 million over 10 years to workers and their families that are eligible through RECA. This goes a long way toward the Federal Government fully living up to its promise when we passed RECA 11 years ago. Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that we need $812 million over the same period. So, while I urge the Congress to recognize we are making important and critical strides to fully funding this commitment, we remain around $150 million short and we must all work to ensure that the program is fully funded throughout the 10-year period. We must never reach a point of issuing IOU's rather than actual financial assistance to these workers and their families again. I would also like to thank Chairman Levin and Senator Warner for their hard work on this issue. They have, from the beginning, recognized the importance and fairness involved in passage of this amendment and I am appreciative of their help and support.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I join Senator Lott, Senator Bunning, my colleague who just spoke, and others, in supporting the amendment to strike section 29 of the bill. That is the provision in the bill that comes to the Senate floor to authorize the Base Realignment and Closure Commission that would be convened 2 years from now. Simply stated, I believe this is the wrong time for us to be committing our country to this course. It adds greatly to the uncertainty that already is substantial in the country. In the context of this new threat that we have all come to recognize in stark terms in recent weeks, it strikes me as inconsistent for us to agree to close more military facilities, not knowing precisely what our military needs are going to be as we move ahead. We may decide we need to resize the military and we may need to reconfigure it in a great many ways. Let me make one other point that I believe is accurate, which I have always thought got too little attention in this discussion; that is, the point that the administration has authority to realign and, in fact, even to close bases--or essentially do that--if it determines that is an appropriate course to follow. When they send us their budget each year, they can send us proposals to move people from here to there and, in fact, they don't need to wait for the next budget cycle or for the next fiscal year to take those actions. I think the reality is that this whole concept of setting up a commission to make these determinations is a way for the administration to not have to specify what bases it believes ought to be realigned or what bases it believes ought to be closed. We had a base closed in my State back in the 1960s. Lyndon Johnson was the President at the time that happened. We didn't have a law on the books that authorized that in this same way. It was the decision of the President to support the recommendations made to him by the people he chose to review this matter. So I don't really think anyone in this Senate should be under the illusion that if we don't pass this provision, the administration is totally hamstrung; they are not. If they feel strongly about this, they should come to the Congress and make their recommendation or take their action. If the Department of Defense decides to reduce the number of vulnerable overseas bases and facilities--which they may well do in light of this new terrorist threat of which we have all become aware-- then that would require that personnel and equipment and their families be brought home, and we may well need the various facilities in this country to accommodate them at that time. It is another aspect of the uncertainty that we face in going forward. Clearly, there are other aspects of that uncertainty that we also need to take into account. Let me also raise the obvious issue about the impact that closing bases and realigning bases has on morale and quality of life for the people in uniform and their families. There is a lot of relocating that goes on when you are in the military. I think we have all observed that, and we see that in our own States. But that relocating is added to very substantially when you go through this process of doing a major realignment and closure of a whole raft of bases. So that needs to be taken into account in determining whether this is the right time to be pursuing this course of action. Among those who support setting up a new commission on realignment and closure, we hear a lot about savings. They say the reason we are doing this is that this will give us extra money in the defense budget to meet these urgent needs. Several Senators have already spoken about how those savings are fairly illusory when you get down to looking at them. The costs of closing bases and realigning bases can be very substantial. When the Department of Defense was closing bases in the 1990s, there were expenditures--identifiable expenditures--of over $3 billion during 1994, 1995, and 1996. The Congressional Budget Office cited the Department of Defense estimates that an average round of base realignment and closure could average costing more than $2 billion each year during the first 3 years after that process begins. I think what people are not focusing on is that these extra costs--if we approve this provision as it comes to the Senate floor, these extra costs that can be incurred in going forward with this issue are not in the budgets we have been given by the Department of Defense so far. If the Congress approves another round of base realignment and closure, those upfront costs have to come out of some other portion of funds that are identified for the Department of Defense. It could be procurement of weaponry, it could be readiness, and it could be research and development for improvements in our force structure in the future. Those choices, which are already hard to make, become even harder if we lay these additional billions of dollars of expense on the defense budget. So the upfront cost problem is a very real problem and needs to be taken into account. Supporters of BRAC, as I mentioned before, refer to the billion dollars in savings; there will be savings and I recognize that. But they will be a long time in the future. According to the Department of Defense estimates, the Department did not begin to show overall net savings for the first four rounds of base realignment and closure until at least 10 years after the first round of the base realignment and closure was approved in 1988. So there may be savings, but we need to recognize that those are far in the future, and that for the next several years there will be additional costs laid on top of the military, which they will have to take out of some other activity in which they are engaged. I believe the timing is wrong for this issue. From a national security standpoint, it does not make sense to me to commit ourselves to reducing our base infrastructure, with all of the uncertainty we have about what that base infrastructure ought to be as we move forward. It also doesn't make sense to undertake significant new spending that is not currently in the Department of Defense budget when future budgets promise to be tighter and our economy clearly is more fragile than we thought it was several months ago. All of this we are doing, or proposing to do, in the hope we will have some savings in the far distant future. In my view, that is not an adequate justification for going forward with another base realignment and closure commission. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment Senator Lott and Senator Bunning have put forward on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield to my colleague from Michigan.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 2603, the United States-Jordan Free Trade Area implementing bill. There is a very limited time for debate available to my colleagues today on this legislation, so I will keep my comments short. First, let me say that the timing for the consideration of this legislation could not be more propitious given the horrific events that have just occurred in our country. As we consider this bill, let us not lose sight of the geo-political context within which we now conduct international affairs. Trade negotiations between the U.S. and Jordan were initiated for one reason alone, that being that government officials felt it would substantially increase economic interaction between the two countries and thus significantly enhance political stability in the Middle East as a whole. Although the immediate economic gains from the agreement will, no doubt, be modest, the long- term political benefits will be considerable. Of particular importance are the opportunities the agreement potentially provides Palestinians living in Jordan and operating in qualified industrial zones. For these individuals, nearly all of whom at present live in poverty and have little chance to improve their lives, this agreement changes the equation and offers real hope. Significantly, it offers a tangible alternative to violence, and I need not emphasize how important a different path like this might be to young individuals, and the strategic interests of the United States, at this time. I understand the concern of certain colleagues about national sovereignty as it relates to the dispute resolution provisions in the agreement. But clearly this concern comes not because this agreement in particular threatens our sovereignty--from my perspective it does not and it will not, but rather because of the apprehension that this agreement establishes a precedent for future negotiations. The concern relates to this trade agreement being a ``model,'' and once this trade agreement is passed, others will certainly look much the same. To this criticism I respond by saying that each agreement negotiated by our country is unique and based on the issues that concern the parties at the time. There is no reason to assume that every agreement will contain similar language to that which is contained in this agreement. Indeed, there is much reason to doubt that they will. Clearly, there is a balance that must be found between having an agreement and having ways to ensure that the provisions that are in an agreement are implemented. In this particular case, I think a very appropriate arrangement has been created. But I want to emphasize today that I do intend to be very cognizant of how we establish dispute resolution mechanisms down the road. And I say this simply because we have reached a point in international trade relations where we have to ask if we are prepared to change the ideas and institutions that form the foundation of our political economic system to attain a trade agreement. That is the essence of the debate at hand, and if we have learned anything at all from NAFTA, it is that this is not something to be taken lightly. All this said, this legislation must be passed today, and it deserves to be passed today. It sends a signal to the people of Jordan that while they are already our political friend and ally, the time has come that they also become our economic partner. I look forward to the benefits, short and long-term, that will come as a result of this historic free trade area agreement. I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the Clinton and Bush Administrations for recognizing its significance and pushing the agreement forward.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a closed hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, September 26, at 9:30 a.m., in location to be announced. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on critical energy infrastructure security and the energy industry's response to the events of September 11, 2001. Those wishing to submit written statements on this subject should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Deborah Estes, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Deborah Estes at 202/224-5360.