Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the distinguished chairman for her fine work on this bill and for this opportunity to discuss these two important research programs in New Mexico.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Prior efforts on NTNAC have demonstrated the capability to model nation-wide freight transportation and provided valuable analytical insights into the nation's freight and transportation system. For example, NTNAC is currently capable of simulating the movement of millions of trucks across the nation's highway network from point-of-origin to final destination. Does the chairman agree that the Department of Transportation should give priority consideration to providing additional funding in fiscal year 2002 to extend and consolidate these achievements and to move towards a full-scale development.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The National Transportation Network Analysis Capability (NTNAC) is being developed to simulate the operation of the national transportation system, including individual modes--trucks, trains, planes, waterborne vessels--and the transportation infrastructure used by these carriers. Based on the technology underlying the successful TRANSIMS model, NTNAC is a simulation that will view the national transportation infrastructure as a single, integrated system. Los Alamos National Laboratory is the lead technical agency for this effort. Does the chairman agree that NTNAC could provide the DOT with new capabilities to assess and formulate critical policy and investment options that take into account transportation economics, modes, public safety, and environmental concerns, as well as infrastructure requirements and vulnerabilities?

Mr. BINGAMAN. The State of New Mexico will continue to shoulder most of the costs associated with the RoadLIFE research initiative and the FHWA has been an essential and valued partner in the development and implementation of the innovative approaches to financing and warranties being tested in New Mexico. Does the chairman join me in encouraging the FHWA and Volpe Center to give priority consideration to continuing to provide staff and financial support to the RoadLIFE program to ensure that the results will be useful to the Nation?

Mr. BINGAMAN. The ongoing RoadLIFE program is a partnership between FHWA, the State of New Mexico, and several universities to demonstrate the possible benefits of innovate financing methods, such as Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE), and performance warranties on highway safety, road quality and on the long-term costs to maintain a highway. Last year, the Department announced a 20-year research agreement between the Department, the Volpe Center and the State of New Mexico to validate the cost savings to the government of these innovative funding approaches. Does the chairman agree that this study could provide valuable information that could change the future of road building in America?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to spend just a few minutes today discussing two existing transportation research programs with the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, my friend Senator Murray. Is the distinguished chairman aware of the existing New Mexico Road Lifecycle Innovative Financing and Evaluation (RoadLIFE) program at the Federal Highway Administration and the National Transportation Network Analysis Capability (NTNAC) program funded through the Department's Transportation Planning, Research and Development Program?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate my colleague yielding me time to speak, both on the amendment the Senator from California has offered and also on the bill he has just introduced. I support what the Senator from California is trying to do with her amendment. I think it is a good resolution. It calls attention to the fact that we need this issue resolved. I also support what my colleague, Senator Domenici, is trying to do in the bill he has introduced, which I am pleased to cosponsor. It is similar to the bill that Senator Reid has earlier introduced. This makes the case clearly that the Federal Government needs to help these communities meet whatever standard we establish as a safe standard. I am not persuaded, as is the Senator from Montana, that we know the extent of the health risks. I think we still are learning precisely what the health risks are and we need to continue studying that. But in the meantime, we need to set a standard and we need to assist these communities in meeting that standard. I am persuaded that the technology is being developed which will allow these communities to meet that standard at a much lower cost than they have traditionally had to consider for meeting this type of standard. But I think we need to support that research as well. I know some of it is going on in the National Laboratories in our State, and I am encouraged that they are finding new ways to eliminate arsenic entirely from drinking water for a relatively small cost. Again, I compliment my colleague and look forward to supporting this amendment and also supporting his bill once it is called for a vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation being introduced by Senator Domenici that will help correct what I consider to be overzealous action on the part of the Congress to address security problems at our Department of Energy national laboratories. We're all aware of the security concerns that grew out of the Wen Ho Lee case. That case, and other incidents that have occurred since then, quite rightly prompted the Department of Energy and the Congress to assess security problems at the laboratories and seek remedies. Last year, during the conference between House and Senate on the Defense Authorization bill, a provision was added, Section 3135, that significantly expanded requirements for administering polygraphs to Department of Energy and contractor employees at the laboratories. That legislative action presumed that polygraph testing is an effective, reliable tool to reveal spies or otherwise identify security risks to our country. The problem is that the Congress does not have the full story about polygraph testing. I objected when Section 3135 was included in the conference mark of the Defense bill last year, but it was too late in the process to effectively protest its worthiness. It has since become clear that the provision has had a chilling effect on current and potential employees at the laboratories in a way that could risk the future health of the workforce at the laboratories. The laboratory directors have expressed to me their deep concerns about recruitment and retention, and I'm certain that the polygraph issue is a contributing factor. Indeed, I've heard directly from many laboratory employees who question the viability of polygraphs and who have raised legitimate questions about its accuracy, reliability, and usefulness. In response to those questions and concerns, I requested that the National Academy of Sciences undertake an effort to review the scientific evidence regarding polygraph testing. Needless to say, there are many difficult scientific issues to be examined, so the study will require considerable effort and time. We are expecting results next June. Once the Congress receives that report, I am hopeful that the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the national laboratories will be better able to consider the worthiness of polygraph testing to its intended purposes and determine whether and how to proceed with a program. Until that time, however, the Congress has levied a burdensome requirement on the national laboratories to use polygraph testing broadly at the laboratories with the negative consequences to which I have alluded. I believe the legislation that Senator Domenici and I are introducing today will provide a more balanced, reasoned approach in the interim until the scientific experts report to the Congress with their findings on this very complex matter. The bill being introduced will provide on an interim basis the security protection that many believe is afforded by polygraphs, but will limit its application to those Department of Energy and contractor employees at the laboratories who have access to Restricted Data or Sensitive Compartmented Information containing the nation's most sensitive nuclear secrets. It specifically excludes employees who may operate in a classified environment, but who do not have actual access to the critical security information we are seeking to protect. Other provisions in the bill would protect individual rights by extending guaranteed protections included under part 40 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations and by requiring procedures to preclude adverse personnel action related to ``false positives'' or individual physiological reactions that may occur during testing. The bill also seeks to ensure the safe operations of DOE facilities by requiring advance notice for polygraph exams to enable management to undertake adjustments necessary to maintain operational safety. Let me emphasize once again, that this legislation is intended as an interim measure that will meet three critical objectives until we have heard from the scientific community. This bill will ensure that critical secret information will be protected, that the rights of individual employees will be observed, and that the ability of the laboratories to do their job will be maintained. I thank Senator Domenici for his work on this bill, and urge my colleagues to support its passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation being introduced by Senator Domenici that will help correct what I consider to be overzealous action on the part of the Congress to address security problems at our Department of Energy national laboratories. We're all aware of the security concerns that grew out of the Wen Ho Lee case. That case, and other incidents that have occurred since then, quite rightly prompted the Department of Energy and the Congress to assess security problems at the laboratories and seek remedies. Last year, during the conference between House and Senate on the Defense Authorization bill, a provision was added, Section 3135, that significantly expanded requirements for administering polygraphs to Department of Energy and contractor employees at the laboratories. That legislative action presumed that polygraph testing is an effective, reliable tool to reveal spies or otherwise identify security risks to our country. The problem is that the Congress does not have the full story about polygraph testing. I objected when Section 3135 was included in the conference mark of the Defense bill last year, but it was too late in the process to effectively protest its worthiness. It has since become clear that the provision has had a chilling effect on current and potential employees at the laboratories in a way that could risk the future health of the workforce at the laboratories. The laboratory directors have expressed to me their deep concerns about recruitment and retention, and I'm certain that the polygraph issue is a contributing factor. Indeed, I've heard directly from many laboratory employees who question the viability of polygraphs and who have raised legitimate questions about its accuracy, reliability, and usefulness. In response to those questions and concerns, I requested that the National Academy of Sciences undertake an effort to review the scientific evidence regarding polygraph testing. Needless to say, there are many difficult scientific issues to be examined, so the study will require considerable effort and time. We are expecting results next June. Once the Congress receives that report, I am hopeful that the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the national laboratories will be better able to consider the worthiness of polygraph testing to its intended purposes and determine whether and how to proceed with a program. Until that time, however, the Congress has levied a burdensome requirement on the national laboratories to use polygraph testing broadly at the laboratories with the negative consequences to which I have alluded. I believe the legislation that Senator Domenici and I are introducing today will provide a more balanced, reasoned approach in the interim until the scientific experts report to the Congress with their findings on this very complex matter. The bill being introduced will provide on an interim basis the security protection that many believe is afforded by polygraphs, but will limit its application to those Department of Energy and contractor employees at the laboratories who have access to Restricted Data or Sensitive Compartmented Information containing the nation's most sensitive nuclear secrets. It specifically excludes employees who may operate in a classified environment, but who do not have actual access to the critical security information we are seeking to protect. Other provisions in the bill would protect individual rights by extending guaranteed protections included under part 40 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations and by requiring procedures to preclude adverse personnel action related to ``false positives'' or individual physiological reactions that may occur during testing. The bill also seeks to ensure the safe operations of DOE facilities by requiring advance notice for polygraph exams to enable management to undertake adjustments necessary to maintain operational safety. Let me emphasize once again, that this legislation is intended as an interim measure that will meet three critical objectives until we have heard from the scientific community. This bill will ensure that critical secret information will be protected, that the rights of individual employees will be observed, and that the ability of the laboratories to do their job will be maintained. I thank Senator Domenici for his work on this bill, and urge my colleagues to support its passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, again, that is certainly my view. There is no single solution to the problem. We need to make progress on increased energy supplies from a great many sources. We need to make progress on more efficiency in various ways. Clearly, we need to do a better job of conserving the energy we do produce.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in answer to the Senator, he is exactly right. There are a variety of technologies that can help us to meet our energy needs. There are a variety of sources for energy production. We need to move ahead on each of them. That is my view.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we will have a section in the bill dealing with renewable energy production. The one we are marking up this Wednesday deals with research and development and training programs. When we come back in September, we expect to have a section dealing with renewable energy production.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am pleased to respond.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to summarize where we are on the comprehensive energy legislation issue that all of us are interested in moving ahead, and to tell you my perspective on it at this point. As we began the year, we identified two sets of issues. There were the short-term challenges we faced as a country, and then there were the more long-term issues. The short-term challenges included the very high prices for electricity in California, which I think all of us recognized at that time were not just unreasonable but were exorbitant really for many residents in California. Really, the wholesale prices, being very high, were not being passed on to consumers at that time, although the consumer retail prices started to reflect those high prices that had been charged for such a long time. Second, of course, natural gas prices were very high. That was a concern. A third short-term concern was the inadequacy of funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. That is the program Congress put in place many years ago to help low-income families in this country pay their utility bills. The demand on that program was so great during this last winter, and even into this spring and early summer, that most States that operate that program, and are dependent on Federal funds to do so, were out of funding. So that was another short-term problem we needed to address. Fortunately, most of these short-term issues have been addressed in some significant way. The price of wholesale power in California has come down, perhaps not as far as it eventually will and should, but it has come down substantially. The price of natural gas has come down. Again, that is not being reflected to the extent it should as yet in home utility bills, but that hopefully will happen quickly, too. As to the LIHEAP program--the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program--we have put $300 million of new funding into the supplemental appropriations bill that we sent to the President to try to keep that program functioning through the rest of this summer. So those are short-term issues we have seen resolved to some extent. And I feel good about that. There remain, however, a great many long-term challenges that the country has in dealing with its energy future. Let me mention a few of those because I believe we can work in a bipartisan way to deal with them to help resolve those issues. One, of course, is supply. We do not have assured adequate supply going forward over the next several years. We need to look at ways to increase supply. One is affordability. We are concerned about the price of the various sources of energy: Electricity, natural gas, gasoline at the pump. Efficiency in the use of energy is a major challenge. We have tremendous inefficiency in power production in this country. We need to find ways to increase efficiency in that respect. In many cases, two- thirds of essentially all the power for fuel going into our power plants is lost because of inefficiency in power production. I believe we all want less pollution from the burning of fossil fuels. I think we have come to recognize that as fossil fuels burn we do have pollution. We need to find ways to diminish that. We need more diversity in our fuel supply. We need to shift to more use of renewable energy, to the extent the technology permits that, and to the extent the cost of producing that renewable energy permits. So we have a great many long-term goals that the country wants to achieve. I believe we can do that. I think we can do it in this Congress. I think we can do it in this session of this Congress. The President, to his credit, has presented the country with a national energy plan. There has been a lot of criticism of parts of that plan. I share some of that criticism. But I do think the President should receive credit for having made this a priority issue for the country. He has said this is something he thinks needs to be addressed. I agree with that; this is something that needs to be addressed. We need to pass an energy bill addressing these long-term concerns. The House of Representatives is expected to act this week on a major energy bill. There will be substantial controversy about some of the provisions in that bill. And there are, frankly, several provisions in the bill, as it comes to this Chamber, with which I do not agree. I do not agree with the proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and exploration. I do not think that is a substantial solution to our problems. I do not believe we should produce legislation to accomplish that, and send it to the President, even though he has requested that we do so. So that is one point of disagreement. I hope very much that we will do something significant to improve vehicle fuel efficiency. We are always concerned about the growing dependence on foreign sources of oil. And those sources are growing. We import a tremendous amount of oil. Most of that goes into the transportation sector, and most of that for cars and light-duty vehicles of various kinds. So we need to find ways to increase vehicle fuel efficiency. We can do that as well. Let me say there are a great many other challenges we also have. I know time is short. I intend to begin a markup of an energy bill in the Energy Committee this Wednesday. I hope we can move ahead on a bipartisan basis. Then we can also set the framework for moving ahead, when the Congress returns in September, on the balance of a comprehensive bill. This is something that will benefit the country; it is something we can do in the Senate; and we can do it on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes in morning business.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a nomination has been added to a full committee hearing previously announced for Friday, July 27, at 9:30 a.m. in SD-366 for the purpose of receiving testimony on H.R. 308, to establish the Guam War Claims Review Commission, and H.R. 309, to provide for the determination of withholding tax rates under the Guam income tax. The committee will also receive testimony on the nomination of Theresa Alvillar-Speake to be Director of the Office of Minority Economic Impact, Department of Energy. For further information, please call Sam Fowler at 202/224-3607.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I would like to address the Gramm amendment and the underlying issue of cross-border trucking. First, I compliment Chairman Murray and Senator Shelby for their fine work on this Transportation Appropriations bill and to thank them for the funding provided for a number of important projects in New Mexico. At the outset, let me say that I supported NAFTA, and I continue to support free trade. I do believe NAFTA is good for the country and good for New Mexico. However, it is not inconsistent with NAFTA to ensure that trucks and buses crossing the border from Mexico meet all of our safety standards. I do believe the American people expect Congress to ensure that our highways are safe to all users. The fact is safety standards in Mexico for trucks and buses are not the same as in our country. NAFTA doesn't require that they be consistent. Under NAFTA, domestic trucks and buses operating in Mexico must comply with Mexican standards and Mexican vehicles operating in our country must comply with our standards. The Mexican Government has never sought reduced safety or security standards for its trucks and buses. The regulatory structure and systems currently in place of ensuring the safety of trucks and buses in Mexico, including driver safety records, licenses, insurance records, hours of service logs, and so forth, are not as sophisticated as ours or those used in Canada. In recognition of the differences in standards and regulatory regimes, the NAFTA Arbitration Panel concluded the United States did not have to consider applications from Mexican vehicles exactly the same as we treat U.S. vehicles. The certification process for Mexican trucks and buses needs to be adapted to the different forms and availability of safety information used by government officials in Mexico. The Gramm amendment would have forbidden any adaption of our certification process to the safety and regulatory situation in Mexico. Let me be clear, the Senate bill does not discriminate against Mexico. The Murray language in this bill does not establish different safety standards for Mexican-owned trucks and buses. Rather, the Senate language will ensure that Mexican trucks and buses meet the same safety standards that U.S. and Canadian trucks are required to meet, before they are allowed free access to our highways. There is another point I would like to make. The State of New Mexico is not ready to deal with a dramatic increase in cross-border trucks. The New Mexico Department of Public Safety has not completed the truck inspection facility at Santa Teresa--our largest border crossing-- because the Governor vetoed $1 million he had requested for the project. Another facility at Orogrande, on U.S. Highway 54 in Otero County, has not been built. Both of these facilities were to include both weigh-in-motion and static scales to ensure all cross-border trucks comply with New Mexico's weight-distance road-use fees. They will also be equipped to perform full level-one safety inspections. For years Congress has failed to provide the additional funds needed for border States to prepare for the additional truck traffic that we all know would result from NAFTA. This year, the Senate bill has provided an additional $103.2 million--$13.9 for 80 additional Federal safety inspectors, $18 million in safety grants to States, and $71.3 million for construction and improvement of inspection facilities such as those at Santa Teresa and Orogrande in my State. The House bill, unfortunately, does not contain this additional funding. I applaud Senator Murray and the members of the Senate Committee for providing this important additional funding. I urge the House to accept the Senate funding levels. When the additional inspectors are in place and our inspection facilities are completed, I believe we will be in much better position to begin opening our borders fully to cross-border trucking. Again, I compliment Chairman Murray and Senator Shelby for their work on this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the National Parks Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 31, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 689, to convey certain Federal properties on Governors Island, New York; S. 1175, to modify the boundary of Vicksburg National Military Park to include the property known as Pemberton's Headquarters, and for other purposes; S. 1227, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area in the State of New York, and for other purposes; and H.R. 601, to redesignate certain lands within the Craters of the Moon National Monument, and for other purposes. 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 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attention: Shelley Brown, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning the recent passing of New Mexico's Patrick McKernan. Patrick McKernan recently passed away at the age of 60 due to complications of cancer. He is survived by his seven children and wife. McKernan, who has been deemed by many as ``Mr. Baseball'' was best known in New Mexico for his management of the Albuquerque Dukes AAA baseball team. However, McKernan was more than just the manager of one of the most successful baseball teams in minor league history, he was also the man who helped pave the way for the success of professional sports in New Mexico. One of Pat McKernan's key philosophies was the belief that the Albuquerque Dukes were more than a Dodgers AAA affiliate; they were in fact Albuquerque's very own team. McKernan worked hard to make sure the people of New Mexico knew this. McKernan's professional success is highlighted by recognition from his peers: three time PCL executive of the year, three time Eastern League executive of the year, 2000 inductee to the Albuquerque Sports Hall of Fame, and recipient of the ``King of Baseball'' lifetime achievement award. However, one of his most impressive achievements is not illustrated by any award, but by the fact that for more than 20 years, attendance at Dukes baseball games was well above the levels for the rest of minor league baseball. McKernan's management made it easy for Albuquerque and the rest of New Mexico to love the Dukes. McKernan went above and beyond the duties of a general manager. McKernan believed that baseball was more than just a game, it could also in fact be used as a gateway to reach out to the entire community. He made it an obligation for Dukes management and players to personally reach out to the community that had so lovingly embraced it. Each Christmas, McKernan dressed as Santa Claus and personally handed out presents to needy children. McKernan showed his humanitarianism and genuine love of his fellow New Mexicans by donating excess food to local homeless shelters following every Dukes home game. An editorial in The Albuquerque Tribune made a reference to Patrick McKernan and the city of Albuquerque by saying that they seemed almost intertwined in an ineffably charming enchantment. This statement is all too true. Not only did the world of baseball lose a brilliant and capable administrator, but the state of New Mexico also lost one its finest citizens and humanitarians. The citizens of Albuquerque and our state mourn the loss of Patrick McKernan.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Friday, July 27, 2001, beginning at 9:30 a.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 following bills: H.R. 308, to establish the Guam War Claims Review Commission; and H.R. 309, to provide for the determination of withholding tax rates under the Guam income tax. 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 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Kira Finkler of the committee staff at (202) 224-8164. committee on indian affairs

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. The General Accounting Office should submit a listing of Congressionally relevant technology assessment studies to its oversight committees, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform. From this list, two projects should be chosen, one by each Committee no later than October 31st, 2001. The technology assessment studies should then begin with a report given to both Committees, and the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, no later than June 15, 2002. At that time the decision can be made as to whether this technology assessment process was beneficial enough to continue it a second year. If this pilot program is to continue, I recommend that the funding be executed using the Office of Technology Assessment authorization language. Rather than OTA's 200 person, $20 million budget, the organization would be a small legislative branch staff using outside non-profit groups to perform the in-depth research.

Mr. BINGAMAN. It has been suggested that the General Accounting Office can better serve this function. I feel that the General Accounting Office may not be suited for such a long term research activity. The GAO is investigative in nature. However, it is better to start an initial pilot program utilizing the OTA technology assessment method rather than no pilot program at all. So, I offer this amendment to use the General Accounting Office. But, I ask the Chairman that during conference, serious consideration be given to my request of having the Congressional Research Service manage this pilot program.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am proposing a one year pilot program to utilize technology assessment methodology to analyze current science and technology issues affecting our Congress. I am proposing to implement this by contracting with outside non-profit agencies such as the National Academy of Sciences. My intent was for the Congressional Research Service to manage this activity as I feel they are better suited to conduct and oversee this type of long term research activity. In doing so. I was hoping that oversight would be provided by the Senate Rules and House Administration Committees and through these Committees, the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am not proposing to restart Office of Technology Assessment (or OTA). But, I feel that today we lack the analytical insight of its technology assessment process.