Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, my amendment intends to restore a lost capability to assess the effects of science and technology on our Congressional policymaking process.

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 two hearings to receive testimony on legislative proposals relating to comprehensive electricity restructuring, including electricity provisions of S. 388 and S. 597, and electricity provisions contained in S. 1273 and S. 2098 of the 106th Congress. The hearings will take place on Wednesday, July 25, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, and Thursday, July 26, at 9:45 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to submit written statements on the legislation should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510, Attention, Leon Lowery. For further information, please call Leon Lowery at 202/224-2209.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, Farmers, Communities, and Firms Act of 2001, and would like to add Senators Baucus, Daschle, Conrad, Rockefeller, Kerry, Torricelli, Jeffords, Lincoln, Breaux, Bayh, Dayton, and Lieberman as original co-sponsors. This legislation represents the culmination of almost two years of effort, including discussions with individuals who process or receive trade adjustment assistance, conversations with labor and trade policy experts, consultations with the Department of Labor, requests for studies from the General Accounting Office, and dialogue between my colleagues in the Senate. The legislation is extremely important, as it directly addresses the question of how Congress will assist those workers and communities negatively impacted by international trade. It is also long overdue, as Congress--the Senate in particular--has discussed reform of the trade adjustment assistance programs for a number of years. The last revision of the trade adjustment assistance programs occurred when NAFTA was passed, and we only added to the programs at that time, we did not make them compatible in any tangible way. I believe it is time to act, and I think we have a unique opportunity to act in that there is interest both in Congress and the Administration to improve the trade adjustment assistance programs in a fundamental and a beneficial way. Let me give some background on trade adjustment assistance, and why I feel it is so important to address at this time. In 1962, when the Trade Expansion Act was being considered in Congress, the Kennedy Administration established a basic rule concerning international trade as it applies to American workers. When someone loses their job as a result of trade agreements entered into by the U.S. government, we have an obligation to assist these Americans in finding new employment. It is a very straightforward proposition really. If you lose your job because of U.S. trade policy, the Federal Government should help you in your effort to get a job in a competitive industry at a wage equivalent to what you are making now. While I believe the United States should be committed to expanding the international trading system, I also believe we should help our workers get back on their feet when they are harmed by trade agreements. I find this proposition to be reasonable, appropriate, and fair. It suggests that the U.S. government supports an open, multilateral trading system, but recognizes that it is responsible for the negative impacts this policy has on its citizens. It suggests that the U.S. government believes that an open trading system provides long-term advantages for the United States and its people, but the short-terms costs must be addressed if the policy is to continue and the United States is to remain competitive. It suggests that there is a collective interest that must be pursued by the United States in the international trading system, but that our individual and community interests must be simultaneously protected for the greater good of our country. This commitment to American workers has continued over the years-- through both Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses-- and I am convinced the Trade Adjustment Assistance program should be both solidified and expanded at this time. I say this for two reasons. First, as I have stated above, because from where I stand American workers and communities deserve some tangible help from the competitive pressures of the international trading system. We cannot stand by and pretend that there is not a need to assist workers and communities adjust to the dramatic changes that are now occurring as a result of globalization. Trade adjustment assistance will help do this. Second, as a practical matter, passage of stronger trade adjustment assistance legislation will allow us to intensively pursue international trade negotiations and focus on important issues like liberalization, transparency, access, inequality, and poverty in the international economy. If we support programs like Trade Adjustment Assistance--programs that empower American workers, that raise living standards, and that advance the prospects of everyone in our country-- then we open the possibility for more comprehensive and beneficial international trade agreements. We must understand that globalization is inevitable, and over time will only move at an even more rapid pace. The question for us in this chamber is not whether we can stop it--we cannot--but how we can manage it to benefit the national interest of the United States. Trade adjustment assistance programs for workers and communities will help do this. There is no denying that globalization is a double-edged sword. But while there are obvious benefits that come from a more open and interdependent trading system, we cannot ignore the problems that come as a result. In my State of New Mexico we have seen a number of plant closings and lay-offs, including some in my own home town of Silver City. These people cannot simply go across the street and look for new work. They are people who have been dedicated to their companies and have played by the rules over the years. When I talk to these people, they ask me: Where am I supposed to work now? Where do I find a job with a salary that allows me to support a family, own a house, put food on the table, and live a decent life? Where are the benefits of free trade for me now that my company has gone overseas? These are hard questions, especially given their current situation. But my answer is that they deserve an opportunity to get income support and re-training to rebuild their lives. They deserve a program that creates skills that are needed, that moves them into new jobs faster, that provides opportunities for the future, that keeps families and communities intact. They deserve the recognition that they are important, and that through training they can continue to contribute to the economic welfare of the United States. Trade adjustment assistance offers the potential for this outcome. Over the years it has consistently helped workers across the United States deal with the transition that is an inevitable part of a changing international economic system. It helps people that can work and want to work to train for productive jobs that contribute to the economic strength of their communities and our country. Although TAA has not been without its flaws, it remains the only program we have that allows workers and companies to adjust and remain competitive. Without it, in my opinion, we are saying unequivocally that we don't care what happens to you, that we bear no responsibility for the position that you are in, that you are on your own. We can't do that. We have made a promise to workers in every administration, both Democrat and Republican, and we should continue to do so. As we wrote this legislation, we kept a number of fundamental objectives in mind: First, we wanted to combine existing trade adjustment assistance programs and harmonize their various requirements so they would provide more effective and efficient results for individuals and communities. In doing so, we wanted to provide allowances, training, job search, relocation, and support service assistance to secondary workers and workers affected by shifts in production. We also ensured that the State-based delivery system created through the Workforce Investment Act remained intact but tightened the program so response times to lay- offs and trade adjustment assistance applications would quicker. Second, we wanted to recognize the direct correlation between job dislocation, job training, and economic development, especially in communities that have been hit hard by unemployment. In the past, trade adjustment assistance focused specifically on individual re-training, but it did not address the possibility that unemployment might be so high in a community that jobs were not available for an individual after they had completed a training program. To rectify this problem, we have created a community trade adjustment assistance program, designed to provide strategic planning assistance and economic development funding to those communities that need it the most. In doing so, we have emphasized the responsibility of regional and local agencies and organizations to create a community-based recovery plan and activate a response designed to alleviate economic problems in their region, and to establish stakeholder partnerships in the community that enhance competitiveness through workforce development, specific business needs, education reform, and economic development. Third, we wanted to encourage greater cooperation between Federal, regional, and local agencies that deal with individuals receiving trade adjustment assistance. At present, individuals that are receiving trade adjustment assistance obtain counseling from one-stop shops in their region, but typically this is limited to information related to allowances and training. Not available is the other information concerning funds available through other Federal departments and agencies, such as health care for individuals and their families. To prevent the creation of duplicative programs and to use the funds that are currently available, we have asked that an inter-agency working group on trade adjustment assistance be created and that a inter-agency database on Federal, State, and local resources available to TAA recipients be established. Fourth, we wanted to establish accountability in the trade adjustment assistance program. In the past, data concerning trade adjustment assistance has been collected, but not in a uniform fashion across all States and regions. The Department of Labor and the General Accounting Office have done their best to obtain data that allow us to evaluate programs and measure outcomes, and we have used this data in writing this bill. In the future, however, we need to ensure that Congress has the information needed that will allow us to make targeted reforms. Finally, we wanted to help family farmers. At present, trade adjustment assistance is available for employees of agricultural firms, the reason being that firms have individuals that can become unemployed. Family farmers, however, are not in this position. For them, there is no way to become unemployed, and therefore, no way for them to become eligible for trade adjustment assistance. This legislation improves upon the current system in a number of ways. As I mentioned above, for the first time Congress will establish a two-tier system for trade adjustment assistance, recognizing that trade can adversely affect both individuals and communities. For individuals, the legislation: harmonizes TAA and NAFTA/TAA across the board as it relates to eligibility requirements, certification time periods, and training enrollment discrepancies, making it one coherent, comprehensive program; extends TAA benefits to all secondary workers and all workers affected by shifts in production; increases TAA benefits so allowances and training are both available for a 78 week period; provides relocation and job search allowances to TAA recipients; provides support services for individuals, including child- care and dependent-care; increases the time frame available for breaks in training to 30 days; allows individuals who return to work to receive training funds for up to 26 weeks; entitles individual certified under trade adjustment assistance program to training, and caps total training program funding at $300m per year; establishes sliding scale wage insurance program at the Department of Labor; requires detailed data on program performance by States and Department of Labor, plus regular Department of Labor report on efficacy of program to Congress; establishes inter-agency group to coordinate Federal assistance to individuals and communities; allows individual eligible for trade adjustment assistance program a tax credit of 50% on amount paid for continuation of health care coverage premiums; requires the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of all assistance available from Federal Government for workers facing job loss and economic distress; requires States to conduct a study of all assistance available from Federal Government for workers facing job loss and economic distress; provides States with grants not to exceed $50,000 to conduct such study; requires General Accounting Office and States to submit reports to Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee within one year of enactment of this Act; establishes that the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee can by resolution direct the Secretary to initiate a certification process covering any group of workers. For communities, the legislation: establishes Office of Community Economic Adjustment (OCEA) at Commerce; establishes inter-agency group to coordinate Federal assistance to communities; establishes community economic adjustment advisors to provide technical assistance to communities and act as liaison between community and Federal government concerning strategic planning and funding; provides funding for strategic planning; provides funding for community economic adjustment efforts; responds to the criticism contained in several reports and creates a series of performance benchmarks and reporting requirements, all of which will allow us to gauge the effectiveness and efficiency of the program. For companies, the legislation: re-authorizes TAA for firms program. For Farmers, Ranchers, and Fishermen, the legislation: establishes special provisions that allow TAA to cover family farmers, ranchers, and fishermen. Let me conclude by saying that I consider the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to be a commitment between our government and the American people. It is the only program designed to help American workers cope with the changes that occur as a result of international trade. Current legislation expires on September 30th of this year, and it is time to do something more than a simple reauthorization. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, Farmers, Communities, and Firms Act of 2001, and would like to add Senators Baucus, Daschle, Conrad, Rockefeller, Kerry, Torricelli, Jeffords, Lincoln, Breaux, Bayh, Dayton, and Lieberman as original co-sponsors. This legislation represents the culmination of almost two years of effort, including discussions with individuals who process or receive trade adjustment assistance, conversations with labor and trade policy experts, consultations with the Department of Labor, requests for studies from the General Accounting Office, and dialogue between my colleagues in the Senate. The legislation is extremely important, as it directly addresses the question of how Congress will assist those workers and communities negatively impacted by international trade. It is also long overdue, as Congress--the Senate in particular--has discussed reform of the trade adjustment assistance programs for a number of years. The last revision of the trade adjustment assistance programs occurred when NAFTA was passed, and we only added to the programs at that time, we did not make them compatible in any tangible way. I believe it is time to act, and I think we have a unique opportunity to act in that there is interest both in Congress and the Administration to improve the trade adjustment assistance programs in a fundamental and a beneficial way. Let me give some background on trade adjustment assistance, and why I feel it is so important to address at this time. In 1962, when the Trade Expansion Act was being considered in Congress, the Kennedy Administration established a basic rule concerning international trade as it applies to American workers. When someone loses their job as a result of trade agreements entered into by the U.S. government, we have an obligation to assist these Americans in finding new employment. It is a very straightforward proposition really. If you lose your job because of U.S. trade policy, the Federal Government should help you in your effort to get a job in a competitive industry at a wage equivalent to what you are making now. While I believe the United States should be committed to expanding the international trading system, I also believe we should help our workers get back on their feet when they are harmed by trade agreements. I find this proposition to be reasonable, appropriate, and fair. It suggests that the U.S. government supports an open, multilateral trading system, but recognizes that it is responsible for the negative impacts this policy has on its citizens. It suggests that the U.S. government believes that an open trading system provides long-term advantages for the United States and its people, but the short-terms costs must be addressed if the policy is to continue and the United States is to remain competitive. It suggests that there is a collective interest that must be pursued by the United States in the international trading system, but that our individual and community interests must be simultaneously protected for the greater good of our country. This commitment to American workers has continued over the years-- through both Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses-- and I am convinced the Trade Adjustment Assistance program should be both solidified and expanded at this time. I say this for two reasons. First, as I have stated above, because from where I stand American workers and communities deserve some tangible help from the competitive pressures of the international trading system. We cannot stand by and pretend that there is not a need to assist workers and communities adjust to the dramatic changes that are now occurring as a result of globalization. Trade adjustment assistance will help do this. Second, as a practical matter, passage of stronger trade adjustment assistance legislation will allow us to intensively pursue international trade negotiations and focus on important issues like liberalization, transparency, access, inequality, and poverty in the international economy. If we support programs like Trade Adjustment Assistance--programs that empower American workers, that raise living standards, and that advance the prospects of everyone in our country-- then we open the possibility for more comprehensive and beneficial international trade agreements. We must understand that globalization is inevitable, and over time will only move at an even more rapid pace. The question for us in this chamber is not whether we can stop it--we cannot--but how we can manage it to benefit the national interest of the United States. Trade adjustment assistance programs for workers and communities will help do this. There is no denying that globalization is a double-edged sword. But while there are obvious benefits that come from a more open and interdependent trading system, we cannot ignore the problems that come as a result. In my State of New Mexico we have seen a number of plant closings and lay-offs, including some in my own home town of Silver City. These people cannot simply go across the street and look for new work. They are people who have been dedicated to their companies and have played by the rules over the years. When I talk to these people, they ask me: Where am I supposed to work now? Where do I find a job with a salary that allows me to support a family, own a house, put food on the table, and live a decent life? Where are the benefits of free trade for me now that my company has gone overseas? These are hard questions, especially given their current situation. But my answer is that they deserve an opportunity to get income support and re-training to rebuild their lives. They deserve a program that creates skills that are needed, that moves them into new jobs faster, that provides opportunities for the future, that keeps families and communities intact. They deserve the recognition that they are important, and that through training they can continue to contribute to the economic welfare of the United States. Trade adjustment assistance offers the potential for this outcome. Over the years it has consistently helped workers across the United States deal with the transition that is an inevitable part of a changing international economic system. It helps people that can work and want to work to train for productive jobs that contribute to the economic strength of their communities and our country. Although TAA has not been without its flaws, it remains the only program we have that allows workers and companies to adjust and remain competitive. Without it, in my opinion, we are saying unequivocally that we don't care what happens to you, that we bear no responsibility for the position that you are in, that you are on your own. We can't do that. We have made a promise to workers in every administration, both Democrat and Republican, and we should continue to do so. As we wrote this legislation, we kept a number of fundamental objectives in mind: First, we wanted to combine existing trade adjustment assistance programs and harmonize their various requirements so they would provide more effective and efficient results for individuals and communities. In doing so, we wanted to provide allowances, training, job search, relocation, and support service assistance to secondary workers and workers affected by shifts in production. We also ensured that the State-based delivery system created through the Workforce Investment Act remained intact but tightened the program so response times to lay- offs and trade adjustment assistance applications would quicker. Second, we wanted to recognize the direct correlation between job dislocation, job training, and economic development, especially in communities that have been hit hard by unemployment. In the past, trade adjustment assistance focused specifically on individual re-training, but it did not address the possibility that unemployment might be so high in a community that jobs were not available for an individual after they had completed a training program. To rectify this problem, we have created a community trade adjustment assistance program, designed to provide strategic planning assistance and economic development funding to those communities that need it the most. In doing so, we have emphasized the responsibility of regional and local agencies and organizations to create a community-based recovery plan and activate a response designed to alleviate economic problems in their region, and to establish stakeholder partnerships in the community that enhance competitiveness through workforce development, specific business needs, education reform, and economic development. Third, we wanted to encourage greater cooperation between Federal, regional, and local agencies that deal with individuals receiving trade adjustment assistance. At present, individuals that are receiving trade adjustment assistance obtain counseling from one-stop shops in their region, but typically this is limited to information related to allowances and training. Not available is the other information concerning funds available through other Federal departments and agencies, such as health care for individuals and their families. To prevent the creation of duplicative programs and to use the funds that are currently available, we have asked that an inter-agency working group on trade adjustment assistance be created and that a inter-agency database on Federal, State, and local resources available to TAA recipients be established. Fourth, we wanted to establish accountability in the trade adjustment assistance program. In the past, data concerning trade adjustment assistance has been collected, but not in a uniform fashion across all States and regions. The Department of Labor and the General Accounting Office have done their best to obtain data that allow us to evaluate programs and measure outcomes, and we have used this data in writing this bill. In the future, however, we need to ensure that Congress has the information needed that will allow us to make targeted reforms. Finally, we wanted to help family farmers. At present, trade adjustment assistance is available for employees of agricultural firms, the reason being that firms have individuals that can become unemployed. Family farmers, however, are not in this position. For them, there is no way to become unemployed, and therefore, no way for them to become eligible for trade adjustment assistance. This legislation improves upon the current system in a number of ways. As I mentioned above, for the first time Congress will establish a two-tier system for trade adjustment assistance, recognizing that trade can adversely affect both individuals and communities. For individuals, the legislation: harmonizes TAA and NAFTA/TAA across the board as it relates to eligibility requirements, certification time periods, and training enrollment discrepancies, making it one coherent, comprehensive program; extends TAA benefits to all secondary workers and all workers affected by shifts in production; increases TAA benefits so allowances and training are both available for a 78 week period; provides relocation and job search allowances to TAA recipients; provides support services for individuals, including child- care and dependent-care; increases the time frame available for breaks in training to 30 days; allows individuals who return to work to receive training funds for up to 26 weeks; entitles individual certified under trade adjustment assistance program to training, and caps total training program funding at $300m per year; establishes sliding scale wage insurance program at the Department of Labor; requires detailed data on program performance by States and Department of Labor, plus regular Department of Labor report on efficacy of program to Congress; establishes inter-agency group to coordinate Federal assistance to individuals and communities; allows individual eligible for trade adjustment assistance program a tax credit of 50% on amount paid for continuation of health care coverage premiums; requires the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of all assistance available from Federal Government for workers facing job loss and economic distress; requires States to conduct a study of all assistance available from Federal Government for workers facing job loss and economic distress; provides States with grants not to exceed $50,000 to conduct such study; requires General Accounting Office and States to submit reports to Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee within one year of enactment of this Act; establishes that the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee can by resolution direct the Secretary to initiate a certification process covering any group of workers. For communities, the legislation: establishes Office of Community Economic Adjustment (OCEA) at Commerce; establishes inter-agency group to coordinate Federal assistance to communities; establishes community economic adjustment advisors to provide technical assistance to communities and act as liaison between community and Federal government concerning strategic planning and funding; provides funding for strategic planning; provides funding for community economic adjustment efforts; responds to the criticism contained in several reports and creates a series of performance benchmarks and reporting requirements, all of which will allow us to gauge the effectiveness and efficiency of the program. For companies, the legislation: re-authorizes TAA for firms program. For Farmers, Ranchers, and Fishermen, the legislation: establishes special provisions that allow TAA to cover family farmers, ranchers, and fishermen. Let me conclude by saying that I consider the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to be a commitment between our government and the American people. It is the only program designed to help American workers cope with the changes that occur as a result of international trade. Current legislation expires on September 30th of this year, and it is time to do something more than a simple reauthorization. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Committee has scheduled a hearing to consider the nomination of Dan R. Brouillette to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs). The hearing will take place on Wednesday, July 18, at 9 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to submit written statements on the nominations should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at 202/224-7571.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has previously announced a hearing on Tuesday, July 17, 2001, on several national park and memorial measures pending before the subcommittee. I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that in addition to considering the measures previously announced, the subcommittee will receive testimony on H.R. 1668, to authorize the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia and its environs to honor former President John Adams and his legacy. The hearing will begin at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. 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 National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact David Brooks of the committee staff at (202) 224-9863.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator DeWine to introduce a bill authorizing the Secretary of Energy to lead the United States into the next generation of lighting technology. If this bill is enacted, I believe it will allow us not only to maintain a world leadership role that Thomas Edison started, but promote efficiency advances in a market which consumes 19 percent of our electrical energy supply. Lighting is a 40-billion-dollar global industry. The United States occupies roughly one-third of that market. It's an extremely competitive industry whose technology has been well established over the course of 80 years. Today's lighting market primarily consists of two technologies. The first technology is incandescent lighting, it's the one Thomas Edison invented over 100 years ago. Incandescent lighting relies on running a current through a wire to heat it up and illuminate your surroundings. Only 5 percent of the electricity in a conventional bulb is converted into visible light. The second type of lighting is fluorescent lights, which use a combination of chemical vapors, mainly mercury, to discharge light when current is passed through it. Flourescent lights are six times more efficient than a light bulb. As I have mentioned, today's lighting uses up about 19 percent of our electricity supply. In 1998, lighting electricity cost about 47 billion dollars which accounted for about 100 million tons of carbon equivalent from fossil energy plants. Today, this paradigm is changing, because some scientists recently made a leap ahead in lighting research. Technology leaps displace, very quickly, traditional markets. We know the stories all too well, the horse courier, the telegraph, the telephone and finally the Internet. That is why Senator DeWine and I are proposing this legislation, because some advances have been made in the areas of solid state lighting that require a national investment that no one lighting industry can match. This emerging technology has the capability to disrupt our existing lighting markets. So quickly in fact, that other countries have formed consortia between their governments, industries, laboratories and universities. Solid state lighting is being taken very seriously around the world. Let me describe solid state lighting. The best examples are red light emitting diodes, or ``LED's'', found in digital clocks. LED's produce only one color but they do not burn up a wire like a bulb and are seven times more efficient. Until recently LED's were limited to yellow or red. That all changed in 1995. In 1995, some Japanese researchers developed a blue LED. Soon other bright colors started to emerge, such as green. That is when things started to change. Because, white light is a combination of red, blue, the recent Japanese breakthrough, and green or yellow. The recent Japanese breakthrough of that simple blue LED has now made it possible to produce white light from LED's ten times more efficient than a light bulb. If it is successful, white light LED's will revolutionize lighting technology and will disrupt the existing industries. It's imperative that we move quickly on these advances. We need a consortia between our government, industry, research labs and academia to develop the necessary pre-competitive research to maintain our leadership role in this field. I would like to mention one other technology that will change lighting. That technology is found in your cell phone and on your computer screen. It's called conductive polymers. Three Nobel Prizes were just awarded for this technology. Conductive polymers offer the possibility of covering large surface areas and replacing fluorescent lamps. These materials will not only provide white light, but like your computer screen, display text or programmed color pictures. These technologies can be Internet controlled to adjust building lighting across the country. Given these advances, I would like to describe the Next Generation Lighting Initiative Act. If enacted, it will move our country to capture these revolutionary mergers between lighting and information. It will supply the necessary pre-competitive R&D which no one industry alone can provide, and, which we as holders of the public trust of basic research owe a duty to further. It will keep the United States in a leadership role of commercial lighting while promoting energy efficiency that can either be ten times that of incandescent lights or twice that of fluorescent lights. We need to enact this legislation now. The Next Generation Lighting Initiative authorizes the Department of Energy to grant up to $480 million over ten years to a consortium of the United States lighting industry and research institutions. The goals of the Act are to have a 25 percent penetration of solid state lighting into the commercial markets by the year 2012. The Next Generation's consortium, will perform the basic and manufacturing research. The lighting industry will take this R&D and develop the necessary technologies to make it commercially viable. This is precompetitive research. It is research that no one industry by itself can achieve and which we have a duty to promote together with industry. It has implications for our country's energy policy far broader than economic competitiveness. It is the reduction in energy consumption that makes it a national initiative. Once the pre- competitive research is transitioned to industry then it should be terminated, we think that will take about 10 years. If this initiative is successful, then by 2025, it can reduce our energy consumption by roughly 17 billion watts of power or the need for 17 large electricity generating plants. That's as much as 17 million homes consume in a single day. That's more homes than in California, Oregon, and Washington combined. So let me conclude that the Next Generation Lighting Initiative will carry the U.S. lighting industry into the twenty first century. It capitalizes on technologies that have emerged only five years ago but have the potential to quickly displace our lighting industry. This Initiative will reduce our nation's energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission. The research necessary to advance this technology requires a national investment that must be in partnership with industry. I encourage my colleagues to review this bill, offer their comments, and, join Senator DeWine and me in its bipartisan support. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator DeWine to introduce a bill authorizing the Secretary of Energy to lead the United States into the next generation of lighting technology. If this bill is enacted, I believe it will allow us not only to maintain a world leadership role that Thomas Edison started, but promote efficiency advances in a market which consumes 19 percent of our electrical energy supply. Lighting is a 40-billion-dollar global industry. The United States occupies roughly one-third of that market. It's an extremely competitive industry whose technology has been well established over the course of 80 years. Today's lighting market primarily consists of two technologies. The first technology is incandescent lighting, it's the one Thomas Edison invented over 100 years ago. Incandescent lighting relies on running a current through a wire to heat it up and illuminate your surroundings. Only 5 percent of the electricity in a conventional bulb is converted into visible light. The second type of lighting is fluorescent lights, which use a combination of chemical vapors, mainly mercury, to discharge light when current is passed through it. Flourescent lights are six times more efficient than a light bulb. As I have mentioned, today's lighting uses up about 19 percent of our electricity supply. In 1998, lighting electricity cost about 47 billion dollars which accounted for about 100 million tons of carbon equivalent from fossil energy plants. Today, this paradigm is changing, because some scientists recently made a leap ahead in lighting research. Technology leaps displace, very quickly, traditional markets. We know the stories all too well, the horse courier, the telegraph, the telephone and finally the Internet. That is why Senator DeWine and I are proposing this legislation, because some advances have been made in the areas of solid state lighting that require a national investment that no one lighting industry can match. This emerging technology has the capability to disrupt our existing lighting markets. So quickly in fact, that other countries have formed consortia between their governments, industries, laboratories and universities. Solid state lighting is being taken very seriously around the world. Let me describe solid state lighting. The best examples are red light emitting diodes, or ``LED's'', found in digital clocks. LED's produce only one color but they do not burn up a wire like a bulb and are seven times more efficient. Until recently LED's were limited to yellow or red. That all changed in 1995. In 1995, some Japanese researchers developed a blue LED. Soon other bright colors started to emerge, such as green. That is when things started to change. Because, white light is a combination of red, blue, the recent Japanese breakthrough, and green or yellow. The recent Japanese breakthrough of that simple blue LED has now made it possible to produce white light from LED's ten times more efficient than a light bulb. If it is successful, white light LED's will revolutionize lighting technology and will disrupt the existing industries. It's imperative that we move quickly on these advances. We need a consortia between our government, industry, research labs and academia to develop the necessary pre-competitive research to maintain our leadership role in this field. I would like to mention one other technology that will change lighting. That technology is found in your cell phone and on your computer screen. It's called conductive polymers. Three Nobel Prizes were just awarded for this technology. Conductive polymers offer the possibility of covering large surface areas and replacing fluorescent lamps. These materials will not only provide white light, but like your computer screen, display text or programmed color pictures. These technologies can be Internet controlled to adjust building lighting across the country. Given these advances, I would like to describe the Next Generation Lighting Initiative Act. If enacted, it will move our country to capture these revolutionary mergers between lighting and information. It will supply the necessary pre-competitive R&D which no one industry alone can provide, and, which we as holders of the public trust of basic research owe a duty to further. It will keep the United States in a leadership role of commercial lighting while promoting energy efficiency that can either be ten times that of incandescent lights or twice that of fluorescent lights. We need to enact this legislation now. The Next Generation Lighting Initiative authorizes the Department of Energy to grant up to $480 million over ten years to a consortium of the United States lighting industry and research institutions. The goals of the Act are to have a 25 percent penetration of solid state lighting into the commercial markets by the year 2012. The Next Generation's consortium, will perform the basic and manufacturing research. The lighting industry will take this R&D and develop the necessary technologies to make it commercially viable. This is precompetitive research. It is research that no one industry by itself can achieve and which we have a duty to promote together with industry. It has implications for our country's energy policy far broader than economic competitiveness. It is the reduction in energy consumption that makes it a national initiative. Once the pre- competitive research is transitioned to industry then it should be terminated, we think that will take about 10 years. If this initiative is successful, then by 2025, it can reduce our energy consumption by roughly 17 billion watts of power or the need for 17 large electricity generating plants. That's as much as 17 million homes consume in a single day. That's more homes than in California, Oregon, and Washington combined. So let me conclude that the Next Generation Lighting Initiative will carry the U.S. lighting industry into the twenty first century. It capitalizes on technologies that have emerged only five years ago but have the potential to quickly displace our lighting industry. This Initiative will reduce our nation's energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission. The research necessary to advance this technology requires a national investment that must be in partnership with industry. I encourage my colleagues to review this bill, offer their comments, and, join Senator DeWine and me in its bipartisan support. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 26, 2001, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 423, to amend the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the establishment of Fort Clatsop National Memorial in the State of Oregon,'' and for other purposes: S. 817, to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail; S. 941, to revise the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the State of California, to extend the term of the advisory commission for the recreation area, and for other purposes; S. 1057, to authorize the addition of lands to Puuhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park in the State of Hawaii, and for other purposes; S. 1105, to provide for the expeditious completion of the acquisition of State of Wyoming lands within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park, and for other purposes; and H.R. 640, to adjust the boundaries of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, 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 Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact David Brooks of the committee staff at (202) 224-9863.

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 Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 17, 2001, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 281, to authorize the design and construction of a temporary education center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial; S. 386 and H.R. 146, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic District in the city of Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 513 and H.R. 182, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes; S. 921 and H.R. 1000, to adjust the boundary of the William Howard Taft National Historic Site in the State of Ohio, to authorize an exchange of land in connection with the historic site, and for other purposes; and S. 1097, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue right- of-way permits for natural gas pipelines within the boundary of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 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 National Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact David Brooks of the committee staff at (202) 224-9863. subcommittee on national parks

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing to receive testimony on S. 976, the California Ecosystem, Water Supply, and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001. The hearing will take place on July 19 at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to submit written statements on the legislation should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Patty Beneke, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Patty Beneke at 202/224-5451.

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 proposals related to global climate change and measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emission, including S. 597, the Comprehensive and Balanced Energy Policy Act of 2001; S. 388, the National Energy Security Act of 2001; and S. 820, the Forest Resources for the Environment and the Economy Act. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 24, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to submit written statements on the legislation should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Shirley Neff, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Shirley Neff at 202/224-6689. subcommittee on water and power

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 legislative hearing to receive testimony on proposals related to removing barriers to distributed generation, renewable energy, and other advanced technologies in electricity generation and transmission, including section 301 and title VI of S. 597, the Comprehensive and Balanced Energy Policy Act of 2001; sections 110, 111, 112, 710, and 711 of S. 388, the National Energy Security Act of 2001; and S. 933, the Combined Heat and Power Advancement Act of 2001. In addition, the hearing will consider proposals relating to the hydroelectric relicensing procedures of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, including title VII of S. 388, title VII of S. 597; and S. 71, the Hydroelectric Licensing Process Improvement Act of 2001. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 19, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to submit written statements on the legislation should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Deborah Estes, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Deborah Estes at (202) 224- 5360 or Mary Katherine Ishee at (202) 224-7865. committee on energy and natural resources

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 legislative proposals related to energy and scientific research, development, technology deployment, education, and training, including sections 107, 114, 115, 607, title II, and subtitle B of title IV of S. 388, the National Energy Security Act of 2001; titles VIII, XI and Division E of S. 597, the Comprehensive and Balanced Energy Policy Act of 2001; sections 111, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 204, 205, title IV and title V of S. 472, the Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001; and S. 90, the Department of Energy Nanoscale Science and Engineering Research Act; S. 193, the Department of Energy Advanced Scientific Computing Act; S. 242, the Department of Energy University Nuclear Science and Engineering Act; S. 259, the National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 2001; and S. 636, a bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a decommissioning pilot program to decommission and decontaminate the sodium-cooled fast breeder experimental test-site reactor located in northwest Arkansas. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, July 18, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to submit written statements on the legislation should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Robert Simon, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Robert M. Simon at 202-224-4103. committee on energy and natural resources

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 legislative proposals related to reducing the demand for petroleum products in the light duty vehicle sector, including titles III and XII of S. 597, the Comprehensive and Balanced Energy Policy Act of 2001; title VII of S. 388, the National Energy Security Act of 2001; S. 883, the Energy Independence Act of 2001; S. 1053, Hydrogen Future Act of 2001; and S. 1006, Renewable Fuels for Energy Security Act of 2001. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 17, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to submit written statements on the legislation should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Shirley Neff, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Shirley Neff at 202/224-6689. committee on energy and natural resources

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 legislative proposals related to energy efficiency, including S. 352, the Energy Emergency Response Act of 2001; title XIII of S. 597, the Comprehensive and Balanced Energy Policy Act of 2001; sections 602-606 of S. 388, the National Energy Security Act of 2001; S. 95, the Federal Energy Bank Act; S.J. Res. 15, providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to the postponement of the effective date of energy conservation standards for central air conditioners. The hearing will take place on Friday, July 13, at 9:30 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to submit written statements on the legislation 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. committee on energy and natural resources

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 legislative hearing on provisions to protect energy supply and security (title I of S. 388, the National Energy Security Act of 2001); oil and gas production (title III and title V of S. 388; and title X of S. 597, the Comprehensive and Balanced Energy Policy Act of 2001); drilling moratoriums on the Outer Continental Shelf (S. 901, the Coastal States Protection Act; S. 1086, the COAST Anti-Drilling Act; and S. 771, a bill to permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf of the State of Florida, and for other purposes); energy regulatory reviews and studies; and S. 900, the Consumer Energy Commission Act of 2001. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 12, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to submit written statements on the legislation should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Mary Katherine Ishee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Mary Katherine Ishee at (202) 224-7865. committee on energy and natural resources

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. 1006, the Renewable Fuels for Energy Security Act of 2001. The hearing, chaired by Senator Tim Johnson, will take place on Friday, July 6, at 9:30 a.m., at the Minnehaha County Administration Building, 415 N. Dakota Avenue, 2nd Floor, County Commission Meeting Room, Sioux Falls, SD. Those wishing to submit written statements on the legislation should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Shirley Neff, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Shirley Neff at 202/224-6689. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to promote the future economic vitality of the communities in Union and Colfax Counties, and throughout Northeast New Mexico. Our bill designates the route for New Mexico's section of the Ports-to-Plains High Priority Corridor, which runs 1000 miles from Laredo, Texas, to Denver, Colorado. I am pleased to have my colleague, Senator Domenici, as a cosponsor. I am certain every senator recognizes the importance of basic transportation infrastructure to economic development in their State. Roads and airports link a region to the world economy. In New Mexico, it is well known that regions with four-lane highways and economical commercial air service will most readily attract new jobs. I have long pressed at the Federal level to ensure our communities have the roads and airports they need for their long-term economic health. That is why this bill I am introducing today is so important. With the passage of NAFTA, the Ports-to-Plains corridor is centrally situated to serve international trade and promote economic development along its entire route. In 1998 Congress identified the corridor from the border with Mexico to Denver, CO, as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System. Last year, a comprehensive study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of creating a continuous four-lane highway along the corridor. Alternative highway alignments for the trade corridor were also developed and evaluated. The study was conducted under the direction of a steering committee consisting of the State departments of transportation in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Colorado. It is important to note that public input was an important facet at every stage of the study. The steering committee sponsored public meetings in May of last year in Clayton, NM, and five other locations along the corridor. A final series of seven public meetings was held this year. I note that the level of public interest and participation was highest in New Mexico. Over 600 citizens attended the public meeting in Raton, NM, on March 6, 2001, while a total of only 700 people attended all six of the other public meetings in Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado clearly demonstrating the importance of this trade corridor designation to Northeast New Mexico. A final report has just been prepared and a summary can be found on the web at www.wilbursmith.com/portstoplains. The study evaluated two routes for the trade corridor between Amarillo, TX, and Denver, CO. One route ran along U.S. Highway 64/87 between Clayton and Raton, NM. The other followed U.S. Highway 287, bypassing New Mexico. The feasibility study found that either route between Amarillo and Denver would result in favorable conditions. However, the alignment through New Mexico, from Clayton to Raton, along U.S. Highway 64/87, was dramatically more favorable than the alternative in terms of travel efficiency, benefits and feasibility, including travel time savings and accident cost reduction. In particular: The benefit-to-cost ratio of the New Mexico route was 75 percent better than for the route bypassing New Mexico. The traffic volume in 2025 would be 150 percent higher on the New Mexico corridor than on the alternative, including 25 percent more trucks. Two thirds of the New Mexico alignment is already four lanes wide or is soon slated to be widened to four lanes, compared to only one-third of the alternative alignment. The alternative would require acquisition of more than twice the right-of-way and would displace nearly three times more residential and commercial facilities. The New Mexico alignment would serve a population of nearly 2 million persons, compared to 1.5 million for the alternative. Finally, the construction costs of the New Mexico alignment are $175 million less than the route bypassing New Mexico. The alternative route had a very slight advantage over the New Mexico alignment only in economic development benefits. With the feasibility study results now complete, The New Mexico Highway Commission last week voted unanimously to support the designation New Mexico's portion of the Ports-to-Plains Trade High Priority Corridor along U.S. Highway 64/87 between Clayton and Raton. The designated route connects into Texas along Highway 87 to Dumas, and to Denver along Interstate 25. Very simply, this bill advances the same goal, to designate the route between Clayton and Raton in New Mexico as part of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor. As the huge turnout for the public meeting in Raton in March clearly demonstrates, there is overwhelming public support for this route throughout Union and Colfax Counties in New Mexico. There is also very strong support in neighboring Las Animas and Pueblo Counties in Colorado, including the cities of Trinidad and Pueblo. In Texas, the state already plans to widen to four lanes its portion of the route between Dumas and the New Mexico state line. In New Mexico, the Citizens' Highway Assessment Task Force identified the route between Clayton and Raton as a priority to upgrade to four lanes. The initial needs and purposes study for the project is currently listed in New Mexico's five-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Study, STIP. In addition to possible routes north of Amarillo, TX, I should also note that the feasibility study considered a variety of alternative routes south of Amarillo, on down to Laredo. However, Congress already indicated its preferred southern leg in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2001, though the Congressional designation of the southern route was enacted long before we had the results of the feasibility study. The Texas Transportation Commission is voting today to confirm Congress' designation of the southern leg. The studies have now been completed. The results are in. The route south of Amarillo has been set. Congress should now complete the designation of the final leg of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor by passing our bill. The time to act is now. Once the route is established the States can move forward with their regional and statewide transportation plans, environmental studies, design work, acquisition of rights of way, and initial construction of the most critical segments. I thank Senator Domenici for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope all senators will join us in support of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the New Mexico State Highway Commission's resolution and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to promote the future economic vitality of the communities in Union and Colfax Counties, and throughout Northeast New Mexico. Our bill designates the route for New Mexico's section of the Ports-to-Plains High Priority Corridor, which runs 1000 miles from Laredo, Texas, to Denver, Colorado. I am pleased to have my colleague, Senator Domenici, as a cosponsor. I am certain every senator recognizes the importance of basic transportation infrastructure to economic development in their State. Roads and airports link a region to the world economy. In New Mexico, it is well known that regions with four-lane highways and economical commercial air service will most readily attract new jobs. I have long pressed at the Federal level to ensure our communities have the roads and airports they need for their long-term economic health. That is why this bill I am introducing today is so important. With the passage of NAFTA, the Ports-to-Plains corridor is centrally situated to serve international trade and promote economic development along its entire route. In 1998 Congress identified the corridor from the border with Mexico to Denver, CO, as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System. Last year, a comprehensive study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of creating a continuous four-lane highway along the corridor. Alternative highway alignments for the trade corridor were also developed and evaluated. The study was conducted under the direction of a steering committee consisting of the State departments of transportation in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Colorado. It is important to note that public input was an important facet at every stage of the study. The steering committee sponsored public meetings in May of last year in Clayton, NM, and five other locations along the corridor. A final series of seven public meetings was held this year. I note that the level of public interest and participation was highest in New Mexico. Over 600 citizens attended the public meeting in Raton, NM, on March 6, 2001, while a total of only 700 people attended all six of the other public meetings in Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado clearly demonstrating the importance of this trade corridor designation to Northeast New Mexico. A final report has just been prepared and a summary can be found on the web at www.wilbursmith.com/portstoplains. The study evaluated two routes for the trade corridor between Amarillo, TX, and Denver, CO. One route ran along U.S. Highway 64/87 between Clayton and Raton, NM. The other followed U.S. Highway 287, bypassing New Mexico. The feasibility study found that either route between Amarillo and Denver would result in favorable conditions. However, the alignment through New Mexico, from Clayton to Raton, along U.S. Highway 64/87, was dramatically more favorable than the alternative in terms of travel efficiency, benefits and feasibility, including travel time savings and accident cost reduction. In particular: The benefit-to-cost ratio of the New Mexico route was 75 percent better than for the route bypassing New Mexico. The traffic volume in 2025 would be 150 percent higher on the New Mexico corridor than on the alternative, including 25 percent more trucks. Two thirds of the New Mexico alignment is already four lanes wide or is soon slated to be widened to four lanes, compared to only one-third of the alternative alignment. The alternative would require acquisition of more than twice the right-of-way and would displace nearly three times more residential and commercial facilities. The New Mexico alignment would serve a population of nearly 2 million persons, compared to 1.5 million for the alternative. Finally, the construction costs of the New Mexico alignment are $175 million less than the route bypassing New Mexico. The alternative route had a very slight advantage over the New Mexico alignment only in economic development benefits. With the feasibility study results now complete, The New Mexico Highway Commission last week voted unanimously to support the designation New Mexico's portion of the Ports-to-Plains Trade High Priority Corridor along U.S. Highway 64/87 between Clayton and Raton. The designated route connects into Texas along Highway 87 to Dumas, and to Denver along Interstate 25. Very simply, this bill advances the same goal, to designate the route between Clayton and Raton in New Mexico as part of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor. As the huge turnout for the public meeting in Raton in March clearly demonstrates, there is overwhelming public support for this route throughout Union and Colfax Counties in New Mexico. There is also very strong support in neighboring Las Animas and Pueblo Counties in Colorado, including the cities of Trinidad and Pueblo. In Texas, the state already plans to widen to four lanes its portion of the route between Dumas and the New Mexico state line. In New Mexico, the Citizens' Highway Assessment Task Force identified the route between Clayton and Raton as a priority to upgrade to four lanes. The initial needs and purposes study for the project is currently listed in New Mexico's five-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Study, STIP. In addition to possible routes north of Amarillo, TX, I should also note that the feasibility study considered a variety of alternative routes south of Amarillo, on down to Laredo. However, Congress already indicated its preferred southern leg in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2001, though the Congressional designation of the southern route was enacted long before we had the results of the feasibility study. The Texas Transportation Commission is voting today to confirm Congress' designation of the southern leg. The studies have now been completed. The results are in. The route south of Amarillo has been set. Congress should now complete the designation of the final leg of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor by passing our bill. The time to act is now. Once the route is established the States can move forward with their regional and statewide transportation plans, environmental studies, design work, acquisition of rights of way, and initial construction of the most critical segments. I thank Senator Domenici for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope all senators will join us in support of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the New Mexico State Highway Commission's resolution and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, earlier today I sent a letter to the oldest daily newspaper in the West, ``The New Mexican'' regarding the death of its publisher, Robert McKinney. Robert McKinney was well known to the Senate. His decades of service to this country, in one capacity or another, and his remarkable career in business and publishing brought him into contact with many of us, and with colleagues who have preceded us in this body. He and Clinton Anderson, late a Senator for New Mexico, were great friends, and worked together on the San Juan-Chama water project for our State. Five presidents called on him for service from Harry Truman through Richard Nixon. He put his prodigious skills to work at various times at the Department of the Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Department of the Treasury. Under President Kennedy, he served as our Ambassador to Switzerland. He was a fine citizen, and a good friend who will be missed, but whose influence, I know, is ``a widening ripple, down a long eternity.'' The world is a better place for his having lived. I ask that my letter be printed in the Record. The letter follows: Letter to the Editor of ``The New Mexican'' To the Editor: With so many others, I was saddened earlier this week when word came of the death of Robert McKinney whose American life made him one of the world's distinguished citizens. When he died in New York on Sunday night, this man of the American West had forged great successes in business, journalism, international diplomacy, public service and public policy in the course of his ninety years. His was the ``life well lived'' and much of it was lived in New Mexico where he was the deeply respected publisher of this newspaper. He was a singular individual with a wide-ranging mind, vast talents, and varied interests. He brought his considerable energy to bear on issues from architecture to atomic energy, war to peace, land use to poetry. He was most certainly a force for good in this world. I was honored to have the benefit of his counsel and the gift his friendship. I will miss him. Jeff Bingaman, United States Senator.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, extreme forms of hunger in American households have virtually been eliminated, in part due to the Nation's nutrition-assistance safety net. Less severe forms of food insecurity and hunger, however, are still found within the United States and remain a cause for concern. The Food Stamp Program provides benefits to low-income people to assist with their purchase of foods that will enhance their nutritional status. Food stamp recipients spend their benefits, in the form of paper coupons or electronic benefits on debit cards, to buy eligible food in authorized retail food stores. Food stamp recipients, or those eligible for food stamps, cross the life cycle. They include individuals of all ages, races and ethnicity in both urban and rural settings. As a result of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990, the nutritional state of the American people has been closely monitored at State and local levels. We know that food insecurity is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon which varies through a continuum of successive stages as the condition becomes more severe. As the stage of food insecurity and hunger progresses, the number of affected individuals decreases. It is important for us to identify the stages of food insecurity and hunger as early as possible and, thus, continue to avoid the more severe stages of hunger. This means that we will need to focus on a much larger population base with a less dramatic stage of the condition which may be more difficult to identify. Fortunately, current tools to document the extent of food insecurity and hunger caused by income limitations are sensitive and reliable. We must continue developing tools to document the extent of poor nutrition attributable to factors other than income limitations, like inadequate consumption of fruits and vegetables and overconsumption of sugar, fat, and empty calories. In the meantime, The State Hunger Assistance in Response to Emergency Act of 2001 (SHARE) would take information which is already being collected by the Department of Agriculture and allow the 10 States with the greatest rate of hunger to access funds to perform enhanced outreach activities for the food stamp program. The goal of the food stamp nutrition education program is to provide educational programs that increase the likelihood of all food stamp recipients making healthy food choices consistent with the most recent dietary advice. States are encouraged to provide nutrition education messages that focus on strengthening and reinforcing the link between food security and a healthy diet. Currently USDA matches the dollars a State is able to spend on its Food Stamp nutrition education program. This nutrition education plan is optional but participation has increased from five State plans in 1992 to 48 State plans in FY 2000. This bill expands the allowable outreach activities for the States with the worst statistics and would allow up to $1 million per State with 0 percent match requirement. In exchange for this unmatched money, the State must submit a report that measures the outcomes of food stamp informational activities carried out by the State over the 3 years of the grant. In addition, up to five States with innovative proposals for food stamp outreach could be selected by the Secretary of Agriculture for a demonstration project to receive the same amount of money over 3 years. I have always been proud to represent my home State of New Mexico in the United States Senate. Unfortunately New Mexico has one of the worst hunger statistics in the nation. I think it is my duty to advocate for the New Mexicans that I represent as well as all Americans who are at risk for experiencing hunger, including those from Oregon, Texas, Arkansas and Washington who share similar statistics.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, extreme forms of hunger in American households have virtually been eliminated, in part due to the Nation's nutrition-assistance safety net. Less severe forms of food insecurity and hunger, however, are still found within the United States and remain a cause for concern. The Food Stamp Program provides benefits to low-income people to assist with their purchase of foods that will enhance their nutritional status. Food stamp recipients spend their benefits, in the form of paper coupons or electronic benefits on debit cards, to buy eligible food in authorized retail food stores. Food stamp recipients, or those eligible for food stamps, cross the life cycle. They include individuals of all ages, races and ethnicity in both urban and rural settings. As a result of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990, the nutritional state of the American people has been closely monitored at State and local levels. We know that food insecurity is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon which varies through a continuum of successive stages as the condition becomes more severe. As the stage of food insecurity and hunger progresses, the number of affected individuals decreases. It is important for us to identify the stages of food insecurity and hunger as early as possible and, thus, continue to avoid the more severe stages of hunger. This means that we will need to focus on a much larger population base with a less dramatic stage of the condition which may be more difficult to identify. Fortunately, current tools to document the extent of food insecurity and hunger caused by income limitations are sensitive and reliable. We must continue developing tools to document the extent of poor nutrition attributable to factors other than income limitations, like inadequate consumption of fruits and vegetables and overconsumption of sugar, fat, and empty calories. In the meantime, The State Hunger Assistance in Response to Emergency Act of 2001 (SHARE) would take information which is already being collected by the Department of Agriculture and allow the 10 States with the greatest rate of hunger to access funds to perform enhanced outreach activities for the food stamp program. The goal of the food stamp nutrition education program is to provide educational programs that increase the likelihood of all food stamp recipients making healthy food choices consistent with the most recent dietary advice. States are encouraged to provide nutrition education messages that focus on strengthening and reinforcing the link between food security and a healthy diet. Currently USDA matches the dollars a State is able to spend on its Food Stamp nutrition education program. This nutrition education plan is optional but participation has increased from five State plans in 1992 to 48 State plans in FY 2000. This bill expands the allowable outreach activities for the States with the worst statistics and would allow up to $1 million per State with 0 percent match requirement. In exchange for this unmatched money, the State must submit a report that measures the outcomes of food stamp informational activities carried out by the State over the 3 years of the grant. In addition, up to five States with innovative proposals for food stamp outreach could be selected by the Secretary of Agriculture for a demonstration project to receive the same amount of money over 3 years. I have always been proud to represent my home State of New Mexico in the United States Senate. Unfortunately New Mexico has one of the worst hunger statistics in the nation. I think it is my duty to advocate for the New Mexicans that I represent as well as all Americans who are at risk for experiencing hunger, including those from Oregon, Texas, Arkansas and Washington who share similar statistics.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a nominee has been added to the full committee nomination hearing scheduled for Wednesday, June 27, immediately following a 9:30 a.m. business meeting in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The nomination of John Walton Keys III, to be Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, will be considered, along with the nominations of Vicky A. Bailey to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (International Affairs and Domestic Policy) and Frances P. Mainella to be Director of the National Park Service. Those wishing to submit written testimony on these nominations should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Sam Fowler on 202/224-7571.

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 on science and technology studies on climate change. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 28, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to submit written statements on the legislation should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Shirley Neff at 202/224-6689 or Jonathan Black at 202/224-6722. committee on rules and administration