Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me describe to the other Senators what the choice is on these two amendments. I have offered the amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Domenici. I ask unanimous consent that all of those Senators be added as cosponsors.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. As I understand it, following the vote on the Bingaman amendment, the next item of business is the vote on the Voinovich amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about my amendment supporting National Technology Initiatives. I'd like to thank my colleagues for accepting this amendment. My amendment seeks to ensure that a program of research be conducted to identify and disseminate the practices under which technology is effectively integrated into education to enhance teaching and learning and to improve student achievement, performance and technology literacy. During a period when technology has fundamentally transformed America's offices, factories and retail establishments, we have come to understand that if America is to maintain its place in the global economy, we must transform our Nation's classrooms by infusing technology across the curriculum. One common element that almost everyone agrees upon for improving the Nation's schools has been the more extensive and more effective utilization of educational technology. We have made progress. In large part, thanks to Federal funding under the e- rate program and the educational technology funds provided under a program that I sponsored during the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, student to computer ratios-- even in the Nation's poorest schools--have improved and Internet access is no longer reserved just for schools in middle-class or wealthy communities. More and more classrooms are equipped with computers and other kinds of educational technologies. Teachers and students are beginning to make use of the enormous learning potential that educational technology provides. In many schools and classrooms the use of educational technology has contributed in substantial ways to student learning. We know that the use of educational technology in our schools is related to favorable educational outcomes but we need to know more. In 1997, David Shaw, the Chairman of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) outlined critical focus areas for educational technology research. Long term research designed to illuminate how technology might best be used to support the learning process was described. My amendment provides for such longitudinal research conducted through the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. In keeping with my ongoing interest in providing accountability for educational efforts, the research seeks to identify the conditions and practices under which educational technology is effective in increasing student achievement. Further, the research authorized under my amendment seeks to identify the conditions and practices that increase the ability to teachers to effectively integrate technology into the curriculum and instruction, enhance the learning environment and opportunities and increase student performance, technology literacy and related 21st century skills. Research of this nature is deemed critical to guiding our continued efforts to effectively infuse technology into our classroom activities. My amendment provides that the findings of this research be made widely available and sets aside a rather modest .5 percent of the federal technology funds for this purpose. Recommendations from PCAST and other important stakeholder groups, including the Web-Based Commission and the CEO Forum, continue to emphasize the importance of conducting research about how educational technology works to enhance student learning. It seems likely that further experience with the use of educational technology in our schools will result in significant improvements over time in educational outcomes. However, such improvements are critically dependent on long-term rigorous research aimed at assessing the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of various approaches to the use of educational technology in actual classrooms. The questions that remain no longer relate to whether or not technology can be used effectively in schools. Rather the questions relate to how approaches to technology use in the classroom are in fact most effective and cost-effective in practice. I believe that this amendment will ensure that we will continue to find answers to these questions. Thank-you.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The second-degree amendment I will propose, along with Senators Hatch and Kennedy, will provide for coordination between Governors and State education authorities, but it will not have the effect of superseding State-determined decisionmaking. Through consultation, the Governor and the State education authority will review key issues and ensure the plans and applications are consistent with overall State policy for education. It is my understanding Senator Voinovich will modify his amendment to add a new phrase. The phrase is ``unless expressly prohibited by State constitution or law.'' The modification does not solve the problem about which I am concerned. State constitutions and laws do not expressly prohibit any State authority from acting with respect to education. Instead, in my State and all States I am aware of, the State constitution affirmatively assigns responsibility to certain State authorities. They do not prohibit other State authorities from taking action. The amendment with the modification still would have the effect of interfering with State sovereignty by giving Governors a veto power over State plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I believe this second-degree amendment is a better alternative. I urge my colleagues to support it. I appreciate the chance to explain the amendment at this point. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The second-degree amendment I will offer on behalf of myself, Senator Hatch, and Senator Kennedy, in my view, will help clarify that we do not intend to change the basic relationship between the Federal Government and the States by virtue of this Voinovich amendment. Senator Voinovich seeks to accomplish a laudable goal with his amendment. It is my understanding he is striving to ensure coordination between the Governors and the State superintendents of education and the State boards of education in the development and implementation of educational policy as it relates to Federal funding. All Senators in this Chamber will agree that is an admirable objective. The language he has proposed, however, as I understand, even after the modification he is going to offer, effectively gives Governors a veto power over State school boards and superintendents. It supersedes most, if not all, State constitutions and laws on that issue. The Voinovich amendment changes 35 years of Federal education law by giving the Governors of every State joint authority to prepare and prove and submit consolidated plans and applications for all of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs to the U.S. Department of Education. It would explicitly mandate that the Governor of each State sign off on title I plans which include the State's educational accountability system, the content and student performance standards, assessments, definition of adequate yearly progress, and the uses of those funds--and particularly the State's plan for identifying and improving low-performing schools. In my view, we should not violate State sovereignty to determine how the State chooses to structure the governance and administration of education. Federal education policy has long recognized that each State sets its own State educational authority for elementary and secondary education. The bill before us does so by designating the agency or individual given this authority under State law as the person or agency in charge of administering the Federal programs. So elsewhere in the bill we do not in any way try to dictate to the State any requirement it change the way it administers its educational system. In my home State of New Mexico, our State constitution vests the ultimate authority over education in the State school board. We have 10 elected members; we have five members who are appointed by our Governor. This board is given authority under our constitution to determine public school policy and to have control and management over our public school system. The model in our State contemplates coordination between our Governor and the board through the appointment of these five members that the Governor is directed to appoint. The Federal Government should not attempt to undo the balance achieved in the State of New Mexico by giving the Governor federally mandated veto power over what a majority of the board decides. To do so would deprive the voters of New Mexico of the right to vote for the majority of our school board and to have that majority set policy in our State. The impact of the amendment the Senator from Ohio is offering would not be unique to New Mexico. I am not just offering my second-degree amendment because of a problem in New Mexico. Virtually no two States use the same model for education governance. I know of no State that vests ultimate authority solely with the Governor or gives the Governor a veto. Some States vest the authority in a State school superintendent appointed by the Governor. But in most, if not all of these States, this appointment is subject to confirmation by the State legislature. In some States, the Governor sits on or chairs the State's board of education and has a defined role in the development and approval of State education plans. Federal provisions requiring additional signoff and approval by the Governor give the Governor a power to revise or overrule the very board the citizens of the State have established to make these decisions. In those States where the constitution vests autonomy and power in elected State boards and/or State superintendents--there are at least 13 States that do this--the adoption of the Voinovich amendment would substantially override State law and the will of the people of the State. If States want Governors to make these decisions, they can so provide, but we should not be making a provision like that in this bill as a side consequence of our other legislation. As is pointed out in a joint letter signed by 20 major educational organizations that support my second-degree amendment, the amendment by the Senator from Ohio would allow Governors to supersede State- determined authority by requiring Governors' approval of the decisions on applications and plans assigned by the State to the State education authority. I ask unanimous consent this letter by these organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to talk about the Voinovich amendment and a second-degree amendment that I want to offer to that, once the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, has had a chance to modify his amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand the pending amendment is the Voinovich amendment; is that correct?

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to note that on today's vote on the tax reconciliation bill conference report, I will be pairing with my colleague, Senator Domenici. My position on this tax bill is well known, as is Senator Domenici's. Were I actually casting a vote, it would be a ``no'' vote, just as it has been in the Finance Committee and on the Senate floor previously. I have grave concerns about this bill and its implications for our future budgets, and its implications for New Mexico, and I remain opposed to the substance of this conference report. Since he had important commitments in New Mexico during the past 48 hours, Senator Domenici is unable to be here for today's vote, and he has made a personal request that I pair with him. As a courtesy to my colleague. I have agreed to do so, and would ask Senate records to reflect my position on this bill as a ``no'' vote. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my good friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig and a bipartisan group of additional Senators. This legislation, entitled the ``Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Amendment Act of 2001,'' provides for the coverage of nutrition therapy for cardiovascular disease under Part B of the Medicare program by a registered dietitian. This bill builds on provisions in the ``Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act,'' otherwise known as BIPA, which included coverage of Medicare nutrition therapy for diabetes and renal disease taken from my legislation last year, S. 660, the ``Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 1999.'' This bipartisan legislation is necessary because there is currently no consistent Medicare Part B coverage policy for medical nutrition therapy, despite the fact that poor nutrition is a major problem in older Americans. Nutrition therapy in the ambulatory or outpatient settings has been considered by Medicare to be a preventive service, and therefore, not explicitly covered. While it was significant that nutrition therapy coverage was added to Part B of the Medicare program for diabetes and renal disease, it is critical that the Congress also takes action to cover cardiovascular disease through passage of this legislation, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine in its report, The Role of Nutrition in Maintaining Health in the Nation's Elderly: Evaluating Coverage of Nutrition Services for the Medicare Population. The report, which had been requested by Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, found that nutrition therapy has been shown to be effective in the management and treatment of many chronic conditions which affect Medicare beneficiaries, including diabetes and chronic renal insufficiency, but also cardiovascular disease. As the IOM notes, ``Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death and major contributors to medical utilization and disability . . . Furthermore, there is a striking age-related rise in mortality from heart disease such that the vast majority of deaths due to heart disease occur in persons age 65 and older.'' In addition, the costs associated with cardiovascular disease are substantial with regard to the Medicare program. According to the IOM, ``. . . in 1995, Medicare spent $24.6 billion for hospital expenses related to [cardiovascular diseases], an amount that corresponds to 33 percent of its hospitalization expenditures.'' Providing nutrition therapy to Medicare beneficiaries could positively impact the Medicare Part A Trust Fund if hospitalization could be reduced or avoided. The IOM found this would likely occur. As the report notes, ``Such programs can prevent readmissions for heart failure, reduce subsequent length of stay, and improve functional status and quality-of-life . . . In view of the high costs of managing heart failure, particular admissions for heart failure exacerbations, and the rapid response to therapies, there is a real potential for cost savings from multidisciplinary heart failure programs that include nutrition therapy.'' It is exactly the type of cost effective care that we should encourage in the Medicare program. As the American Heart Association adds in their letter of support for this legislation, Dr. Robert Eckel points out that, in one study, ``for every dollar spent on [Medicare nutrition therapy] there is a three to ten dollar cost savings realized by reducing the need for drug therapy.'' With drug costs increasing dramatically, this could potentially result in significant cost savings to Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, both the Medicare program and beneficiaries would benefit from this expanded benefit. As the IOM concludes, ``Expanded coverage for nutrition therapy is likely to generate economically significant benefits to beneficiaries, and in the short term to the Medicare program itself, through reduced healthcare expenditures. . . .'' Most importantly, it would also improve the quality of care of Medicare beneficiaries. As the IOM report adds, ``Whether or not expanded coverage reduces overall Medicare expenditures, it is recommended that these services be reimbursed given the reasonable evidence of improved patient outcomes associated with such care.'' For these reasons, I am pleased to be introducing the ``Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Amendment Act of 2001'' today with Senator Craig. However, as this legislation is introduced, I do want to note that the IOM also recommended nutrition therapy be covered based on physician referral rather than a specific medical condition. The original legislation introduced in the last Congress by Senator Craig and myself did just that but was made disease-specific in conference last year. While I am pleased to introduce this legislation to include cardiovascular disease, I do believe that we need to move toward eliminating this disease-specific approach in the near future. For example, I believe that Medicare should also provide Medicare nutrition therapy for HIV/AIDS, cancer, and osteoporosis, among other things. In the meantime, I urge the Congress to expand Medicare nutrition therapy benefits to cover cardiovascular diseases as soon as possible. I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my good friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig and a bipartisan group of additional Senators. This legislation, entitled the ``Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Amendment Act of 2001,'' provides for the coverage of nutrition therapy for cardiovascular disease under Part B of the Medicare program by a registered dietitian. This bill builds on provisions in the ``Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act,'' otherwise known as BIPA, which included coverage of Medicare nutrition therapy for diabetes and renal disease taken from my legislation last year, S. 660, the ``Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 1999.'' This bipartisan legislation is necessary because there is currently no consistent Medicare Part B coverage policy for medical nutrition therapy, despite the fact that poor nutrition is a major problem in older Americans. Nutrition therapy in the ambulatory or outpatient settings has been considered by Medicare to be a preventive service, and therefore, not explicitly covered. While it was significant that nutrition therapy coverage was added to Part B of the Medicare program for diabetes and renal disease, it is critical that the Congress also takes action to cover cardiovascular disease through passage of this legislation, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine in its report, The Role of Nutrition in Maintaining Health in the Nation's Elderly: Evaluating Coverage of Nutrition Services for the Medicare Population. The report, which had been requested by Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, found that nutrition therapy has been shown to be effective in the management and treatment of many chronic conditions which affect Medicare beneficiaries, including diabetes and chronic renal insufficiency, but also cardiovascular disease. As the IOM notes, ``Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death and major contributors to medical utilization and disability . . . Furthermore, there is a striking age-related rise in mortality from heart disease such that the vast majority of deaths due to heart disease occur in persons age 65 and older.'' In addition, the costs associated with cardiovascular disease are substantial with regard to the Medicare program. According to the IOM, ``. . . in 1995, Medicare spent $24.6 billion for hospital expenses related to [cardiovascular diseases], an amount that corresponds to 33 percent of its hospitalization expenditures.'' Providing nutrition therapy to Medicare beneficiaries could positively impact the Medicare Part A Trust Fund if hospitalization could be reduced or avoided. The IOM found this would likely occur. As the report notes, ``Such programs can prevent readmissions for heart failure, reduce subsequent length of stay, and improve functional status and quality-of-life . . . In view of the high costs of managing heart failure, particular admissions for heart failure exacerbations, and the rapid response to therapies, there is a real potential for cost savings from multidisciplinary heart failure programs that include nutrition therapy.'' It is exactly the type of cost effective care that we should encourage in the Medicare program. As the American Heart Association adds in their letter of support for this legislation, Dr. Robert Eckel points out that, in one study, ``for every dollar spent on [Medicare nutrition therapy] there is a three to ten dollar cost savings realized by reducing the need for drug therapy.'' With drug costs increasing dramatically, this could potentially result in significant cost savings to Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, both the Medicare program and beneficiaries would benefit from this expanded benefit. As the IOM concludes, ``Expanded coverage for nutrition therapy is likely to generate economically significant benefits to beneficiaries, and in the short term to the Medicare program itself, through reduced healthcare expenditures. . . .'' Most importantly, it would also improve the quality of care of Medicare beneficiaries. As the IOM report adds, ``Whether or not expanded coverage reduces overall Medicare expenditures, it is recommended that these services be reimbursed given the reasonable evidence of improved patient outcomes associated with such care.'' For these reasons, I am pleased to be introducing the ``Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Amendment Act of 2001'' today with Senator Craig. However, as this legislation is introduced, I do want to note that the IOM also recommended nutrition therapy be covered based on physician referral rather than a specific medical condition. The original legislation introduced in the last Congress by Senator Craig and myself did just that but was made disease-specific in conference last year. While I am pleased to introduce this legislation to include cardiovascular disease, I do believe that we need to move toward eliminating this disease-specific approach in the near future. For example, I believe that Medicare should also provide Medicare nutrition therapy for HIV/AIDS, cancer, and osteoporosis, among other things. In the meantime, I urge the Congress to expand Medicare nutrition therapy benefits to cover cardiovascular diseases as soon as possible. I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Reid of Nevada. Last Thursday, President Bush made a series of recommendations to the Congress to adopt credits and deductions to encourage the country to do what is needed to deal with the energy crisis that he and many of us see. Many of those same tax proposals are contained in a bill that Senator Murkowski introduced earlier this year and are also contained in a bill I introduced with various Democratic colleagues earlier this year. This is the time that we should step up to that challenge and pass those tax recommendations to deal with our energy situation. There are credits for energy-efficient appliances, energy-efficient commercial buildings, and energy-efficient residential construction. There are credits for hybrid vehicles.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this amendment?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield time to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to offer an amendment, amendment No. 717. It is an amendment related to our energy policy. Its purpose, as provided in the amendment, is to provide energy conservation and production tax incentives. Let me briefly describe the amendment and the reasons I urge my colleagues to support the amendment when we do get the opportunity to vote on it later this evening. Last Thursday, President Bush unveiled his national energy policy. I have a copy. There is a lot in this national energy policy upon which I think all Members can agree. There are proposals that will increase production; there are proposals that encourage conservation; there are proposals that will try to stimulate more innovation in technology to better capture energy and use energy in the future. I commend the President for the initiative he has shown. Obviously, there are provisions in this national energy policy that are going to be very controversial and that I will not support. We will have ample opportunity over the next weeks and months to discuss those and debate them and deliberate on them and vote on them. Members may wonder why I am talking about energy on a tax bill. This is supposed to be a bill to cut taxes. Why bring up the subject of energy? The reason I bring energy up is that the President himself, last Thursday, proposed a whole series of incentives to meet our energy challenges. These are tax incentives, reductions in people's taxes, if they will agree to take certain actions that will then help our country to meet the challenges we face in the energy area. I introduced a bill earlier this year that also contains many tax incentives that we believe will move the country toward a more enlightened energy policy. Senator Murkowski, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which I am the ranking member, introduced a bill early this year containing many tax incentive provisions. There is a great deal of commonality between the bill Senator Murkowski introduced, the ones I introduced, and the ones the President's national energy policy embraces. We have an issue where there is substantial consensus. The question is, Why talk about it on this tax bill? Let me explain the context in which we come to the debate on the tax bill. We are talking about this tax bill because we passed a budget resolution in the Senate which set aside $1.35 trillion over the next 10 years and directed the Finance Committee in the Senate to put together a tax bill that would use up that $1.35 trillion. The tax bill we are talking about today, that we are debating and that we will vote on later tonight, does exactly what the budget resolution told the Finance Committee to do. That is, it uses up all of that $1.35 trillion. There is no more after that. After that, according to the budget resolution, we should not be passing additional tax bills under this budget resolution. I very much believe if we are going to take the recommendations of the President, if we are going to move in the area of energy policy to provide tax incentives for the actions we believe people ought to take, then we need to adopt the amendment I am offering, this energy amendment, and in that way use some of the tax revenue we are proposing to eliminate in the tax cut legislation to provide these incentives. Let me go through a description of what is in the amendment. The amendment tries to speed up the investment in our Nation's energy infrastructure, speed up the investment in high-efficiency equipment in all parts of our economy. As I indicated before, the provisions we have in this amendment I believe all have good bipartisan support. They are nothing that I claim authorship of because many are included in what the President has recommended and many are included in what Senator Murkowski recommended. One large category of these incentives is the investment in infrastructure and highly efficient end use and in generating equipment. For example, one provision shortens the depreciation schedule for transmission lines and natural gas pipelines. We have heard a lot of testimony already in the Energy Committee that we need to move ahead more quickly with building of transmission lines, building of additional pipelines. This will help. There is a provision for incentives to push ultra-high-efficient appliances and equipment in the marketplace and provide incentives for people to purchase these appliances and equipment. It provides incentives for constructing and upgrading homes and upgrading and constructing commercial buildings that are energy efficient, something we all agree ought to be done. It provides incentives for upgrading and building the cleanest, lowest emission coal-fired generation. It provides incentives for purchase of high-efficiency hybrid vehicles. This is an initiative I have heard a lot of people talk about in this Chamber. We recognize we would be better off as a country; we would import less oil, if we would drive more fuel efficient vehicles. One way to persuade Americans to drive more fuel efficient vehicles is to give them a tax incentive so when they buy a hybrid vehicle with an engine that gets 60 or 70 miles per gallon, it will be cheaper for them because of the tax incentive we provide. The amendment I will propose today extends the renewable production credit to include a whole range of items: Steel, cogeneration, geothermal, landfill methane, incremental hydropower. It provides a 7- year depreciation schedule for distributed generation facilities. There are a whole range of provisions that are generally agreed by experts to make sense. We also provide incentives for investment in sophisticated real-time metering, electronic load management, so consumers can better control energy use and costs. All of these are provisions that I think will have broad bipartisan support and do have broad bipartisan support. What I am urging is that we use up the revenue that has been made available through the budget resolution for tax cuts; we do some of these things in the energy area that the President himself last Thursday said he believes we ought to do. It would be irresponsible to pass a large tax cut, cutting rates, eliminating the estate tax, doing a variety of things, without any consideration of the needs we have as a country to move toward a more enlightened energy policy. This amendment tries to ensure we do the right thing. What I proposed as an offset is slowing down the phasing in of the cuts in the marginal tax rates, the top marginal tax rates. That seems a reasonable way to pay for the cost of this amendment. It is something which I strongly believe would be a good procedure. Let me make one more general point. I think a reason it is important to raise this issue now is that a lot of people are being misled into believing there is no limit to the number of tax bills we can pass-- that we can pass this for $1.35 trillion and then we can come back later and pass another one that deals with extending the alternative minimum tax exemption; we can pass another that does the traditional extenders; we can pass a whole variety of bills. I was reading on the Associated Press wire published through the Albuquerque Journal on the Web site before I came over today. The title of the article I thought was very interesting: ``O'Neill: Further tax relief coming.'' It had a picture of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill in a speech he gave today where he said the administration viewed this as only the first tax bill, not the last. He also goes on to say in the future they want to accelerate the tax relief under the estate tax. That is another tax bill they anticipate. It also referred to the fact that in the newspaper interview he indicated they would push for repeal of the Federal corporate income tax. That is not a cut in the Federal corporate income tax; that is elimination of the corporate income tax. The third he mentioned was a Federal tax on capital gains that should be eliminated. Mr. President, I am told before I yield the floor I need to call up my amendment. Let me do that at this time. I ask the amendment be considered.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I speak in opposition to the amendment very briefly. The amendment of the Senator from Arizona is essentially a somewhat indirect way to provide Federal funding for private schools and parochial schools. That is exactly what is involved. It is a tax credit of $250 or up to $500 per couple which is available to any taxpayer who wants to contribute to one of these organizations that provide scholarships to people who go to schools and charge tuition. The schools that charge tuition are the private schools in this country, the parochial schools. Many of them do an excellent job. Clearly, they contribute a tremendous amount to our country. We do not have the votes in the Senate, and I do not support direct appropriations to private and parochial schools. That has not been the tradition in our country. It is generally considered contrary to our Constitution. The Government has stayed out of the business of funding the private elementary and secondary schools. What we are saying is we will not appropriate money directly to those schools, but we will give each taxpayer a $250 credit if they will give that $250 to the private school. That, to me, seems to be a pretty direct way of providing Federal support for private and parochial schools. Private and parochial schools do a tremendous job in educating young people. I support the continuation and the success of our private and parochial schools in the country. We have many in my home State that do an excellent job. But we have a limited amount of Federal tax dollars that we can commit to education. We have had many votes in the Senate and we will have more tonight that try to ensure that adequate money is available for public education in the country. I think while all Members generally agree we are not providing enough funds for public education, it would be foolhardy, at the same time we cannot afford to provide what we want for public education, to turn around and say, OK, we will not appropriate it directly to private education, but we will give this tax credit to anyone who wants to contribute. It is a dollar-for-dollar tax credit, not something where the Federal Government pays part of what someone contributes to the private school. This is a tax credit where the Federal Government pays every single dollar that a person or couple contributes to the private school, up to $500 in the case of a couple. It is a very expensive proposal; $43 billion is the estimate from the Joint Tax Committee. That is an expensive commitment of funds. Frankly, it is one I would be willing to make if the money was going to the public school system to strengthen our public schools. I think that would be a good investment of our dollars. I do not think it is smart when we are unable to make that commitment of an additional $43 billion to the public schools to be turning around and saying we will go ahead and commit that amount of Federal expenditure for the private schools in this indirect way. I hope my colleagues will see this is not good policy. This is not the way in which to proceed. This is something which has some meritorious motives behind it, but clearly we should be doing all we can to strengthen our public school system. This is a way of essentially taking resources that might otherwise be available for the public schools and diverting them into the private schools which I think would be a mistake at this time in our history.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this important legislation with the Chairman of the Finance Committee and several of our colleagues that would reduce the costs incurred by rural letter carriers by allowing them to deduct the actual expenses they incur when using their own vehicle to deliver the mail. For many years, rural letter carriers were allowed to calculate their deductible expenses by using either a special formula or keeping track of their costs. In 1997, Congress simplified the tax treatment for letter carriers, but disallowed them the ability to use the actual expense method (business portion of actual operation and maintenance of the vehicle, plus depreciation) for calculating their costs. The result is that many letter carriers are unable to account for the real expenses they incur when using their own vehicle to deliver the mail. This problem has been exasperated by the increased need for larger vehicles by rural letter carriers, in part, due to the volume and size of parcels. Road conditions and severe weather have also increased vehicle costs because of the necessity to have an SUV or four wheel drive vehicle. These letter carriers must often purchase special vehicles with right hand drive capabilities which are more expensive than the regular counterpart and may have little to no value when it is time to trade them in for a new one. It is important that these mail carriers are not forced to pay these costs out of their own pockets. Although the internet has made the world seem smaller, purchased goods must still be delivered. The benefits of internet purchases in remote locations is limited if the purchased item cannot be delivered. For this reason, in rural states, such as New Mexico, these letter carriers play an important role in delivering the majority of the state's mail and parcels. On a daily basis, across the nation rural letter carriers drive over 3 million miles delivering mail and parcels to over 30 million families. We need to be sure that we have not created a tax impediment for these dedicated individuals. I look forward to working with the Chairman and my colleagues to get this legislation passed this year.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this important legislation with the Chairman of the Finance Committee and several of our colleagues that would reduce the costs incurred by rural letter carriers by allowing them to deduct the actual expenses they incur when using their own vehicle to deliver the mail. For many years, rural letter carriers were allowed to calculate their deductible expenses by using either a special formula or keeping track of their costs. In 1997, Congress simplified the tax treatment for letter carriers, but disallowed them the ability to use the actual expense method (business portion of actual operation and maintenance of the vehicle, plus depreciation) for calculating their costs. The result is that many letter carriers are unable to account for the real expenses they incur when using their own vehicle to deliver the mail. This problem has been exasperated by the increased need for larger vehicles by rural letter carriers, in part, due to the volume and size of parcels. Road conditions and severe weather have also increased vehicle costs because of the necessity to have an SUV or four wheel drive vehicle. These letter carriers must often purchase special vehicles with right hand drive capabilities which are more expensive than the regular counterpart and may have little to no value when it is time to trade them in for a new one. It is important that these mail carriers are not forced to pay these costs out of their own pockets. Although the internet has made the world seem smaller, purchased goods must still be delivered. The benefits of internet purchases in remote locations is limited if the purchased item cannot be delivered. For this reason, in rural states, such as New Mexico, these letter carriers play an important role in delivering the majority of the state's mail and parcels. On a daily basis, across the nation rural letter carriers drive over 3 million miles delivering mail and parcels to over 30 million families. We need to be sure that we have not created a tax impediment for these dedicated individuals. I look forward to working with the Chairman and my colleagues to get this legislation passed this year.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend a friend, Val Diker, for her unflagging efforts in support of the National Dance Institute in New Mexico. As many of my colleagues know, the NDI was founded by the renowned dancer, Jacques d'Amboise, to introduce school children to dance. His dream has been extremely successful in New Mexico in the eight years since it was started here. This year alone there are 2400 students in 32 schools involved in the program. This weekend, five hundred of these students will appear on the stage of the newly-refurbished, historic Lensic Theatre to honor the program and Val Diker, the Founding Chairman. Making our state her ``second home,'' Val is a leading contributor with her time, talent and treasure to institutions New Mexicans love. Her leadership in NDI, however, is particularly appreciated by all who value those who give and do so much to help children. Val has made a difference in lives of children she'll never see, and for that she deserves our heartfelt thanks. She, and this wonderful institute, certainly have mine.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a few observations regarding the President's speech at the National Defense University regarding missile defense and the future security of our nation. The President was quite correct in describing today's world as one that is far different from the days of the Cold War some thirty years ago. However, his prescription for how best to ensure our national security and achieve a more peaceful world is seriously flawed. The President has assigned the nation's highest military priority to building a robust missile defense that will cost tens of billions of dollars during the coming decade with no assurance that the system of interceptors will work. The primary objective of such a system, in his view, is to counteract intercontinental missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction from targeting our nation. I would urge the President to take a step back; a more effective and higher priority approach would be to cut off weapons of mass destruction at their source, before they are in the hands of our potential enemies. The greatest potential source of those weapons, materials, and technological expertise resides in Russia, and therein lies the fundamental key to our national and global security. The President's view of Russia misunderstands this important point. While it is true that, in the President's words, Russia is no longer a communist country and that its president is an elected official, it does not follow that we needn't worry about the security threat which it can pose to the United States and our allies. Indeed, there are very disturbing stories in the press about the internal dynamics of the Russian government and its fragile democratic ways. Its economy remains in dire straits, unemployment is high, and the future, particularly for those who live outside of Moscow, continues to look grim. I'm certain that many of us were alarmed at the recent mutual recriminations and dismissals of dozens of Americans and Russians in an exchange that hearkened back to Cold War days. In Russia's weakened state, I believe it poses an even greater threat to the United States than the ``nations of concern'' that we hear about so often. Why is that? Aside from the United States, Russia is the most advanced nation in the world to possess advanced missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction. Its scientific expertise is second only to our own. Weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, number in the tens of thousands, and materials that go into making those weapons are widely distributed, and poorly guarded, around Russia. If countries of concern pose a serious threat to the United States, it is likely that the tools underlying those threats have been or could most easily be gained from the most likely source, a cash-strapped, antagonistic Russia. Senior advisors to the Secretary of Energy, including former Senators Howard Baker and Sam Nunn, recently released a report that stated, ``The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states . . . .'' Having reviewed the scope of the WMD threat in Russia, the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board recommended that the United States spend $30 billion over the next decade to secure those weapons and materials, and to prevent Russia's technological expertise from finding paychecks in the wrong places. Despite that recommendation, the President has submitted a budget request to the Congress that cuts funding for those programs by $100 million below what was appropriated a year ago. In fact, this year's funding request is over $500 million below what was planned for FY 2002 just twelve months ago. I question why the President would choose to cut funding for programs that constitute the nation's ``most urgent unmet threat.'' In light of the imposing costs of a robust missile defense system, it appears that the Administration has determined that such nonproliferation programs are of secondary importance. Listening to the President's speech, I'm concerned that his vision of missile defense has all the characteristics of the boy sticking his finger in the dike. What's really needed is a new and stronger dike. I believe we must redouble our efforts to support critical nonproliferation programs with Russia as the first line of our own defense and national security interest. Investing tens of billions of dollars in a missile defense program as an alternative approach virtually insures the acceleration of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction if the nation reduces funding for nonproliferation programs as a result. The President and his advisors are missing the forest for the trees. Let me add one additional thought. Countries of concern that may be genuinely interested in using weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies are likely to choose methods that are affordable, effective, and unanticipated. An intercontinental ballistic missile could be one way to achieve their goal, but there are other, less expensive and more probable ways. Potential enemies seeking to disrupt and destroy the U.S. and our friends, for example, could achieve their aims through weapons delivered in suitcases, small boats, or delivery vans. If the United States devotes its attention, resources, and expertise to solve the potential intercontinental missile threat without addressing the possibility of low tech applications of weapons of mass destruction, we will have made a very grave error. I urge my colleagues, Mr. President, not to be lulled into a false sense of security regarding plans for a robust missile defense of our nation. As with the case of the dike, deployment of a missile defense system may simply redirect the flow of the threat. That assumes, that we actually have a missile defense system that works. We are a long, long way from that capability, a fact that I hope that we in the Senate and the American people fully understand. I am pleased that the President did not announce the unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty in that regard. It would be foolhardy, in my opinion, to step back from our legal obligations under that Treaty without having the means to defend ourselves--a missile defense system that works. Make no mistake, my colleagues, the unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty will have major negative security consequences for the United States and our allies and friends. I urge my colleagues, regardless of how they feel about the ABM Treaty, to join me and other senators to insist that any missile defense system be successfully tested in realistic operational conditions before making any decision to deploy it. The American taxpayer being asked to provide tens of billions of dollars to support that effort, not to mention the men and women in uniform who would operate it, deserve nothing less than a system that works. I applaud the President's desire for building cooperative relationships that should be ``reassuring, rather than threatening . . . . premised on openness, mutual confidence and real opportunities for cooperation, including the area of missile defense.'' There are many important ways to achieve those goals that are currently at risk in the worsening climate of U.S.-Russian relations, particularly if the President chooses to abrogate the ABM Treaty either in word or in deed. Cooperation and reassurance are important byproducts of our nonproliferation programs in Russia that have yielded major dividends in preventing the loss of weapons and materials of mass destruction to those who would be our enemies. Greater emphasis, not less, is needed for such programs. In addition, we have made important confidence- building progress in cooperative approaches regarding early warning of missile attacks through the establishment of a data center and research being conducted on the Russian American Observation Satellite program. I am deeply concerned that such confidence-building programs will be at risk should confrontational relations with Russia continue to increase. If that occurs, the ultimate loser could be ourselves in a less secure world of our own making.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the issue of U.S. trade policy, in particular the funds directed toward export promotion in the Bush administration fiscal year 2002 budget. Until only recently, the United States had been experiencing the largest period of sustained economic growth in our history, with over 20 million jobs created, the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, the lowest poverty rate in 20 years, and substantial increases in gross domestic product and productivity. According to nearly every analyst, there is a direct correlation between increased international trade and these statistics, with exporting firms and workers contributing as much as 30 percent to our economic growth. Exports in U.S. goods and services have risen by almost 50 percent over the last eight years. This translates into increased international sales for business of all sizes, increased opportunities for high-wage employment, and enhanced economic security for Americans. Significantly, our trade policy over the last 8 years has included tangible resources directed toward export promotion initiatives, the primary goal being to ensure that exporters, large, medium, and small, could take advantage of market opportunities occurring as a result of international trade negotiations and market liberalization. Included in this trade strategy were a range of policy programs, from trade promotion and financing, to market monitoring and compliance, to database creation and business counseling, all of which were specifically designed to ensure that U.S. firms of all sizes had the information they needed, that they were positioned to take advantage of foreign markets, and, in this manner, that we could unlock the full potential of our national economy. As I examine the current budget I am concerned that this commitment to export promotion has weakened significantly under the new administration. Given the rapid changes occurring in the international political economy, I am concerned that the administration is ignoring the challenges U.S. firms now face with their competition. Given the emphasis placed on these programs by foreign governments at this time, I am concerned about the effect this change will have on the level of our exports. Given the state of our economy at this time, I am concerned this will simply be another factor contributing to a decline in economic growth. Let me give some specific examples of the budget cuts I am referring to. Based on the budget numbers provided by President Bush: Funding for the Trade Development Program, which performs trade investment analyses, works with firms to identify and capitalize on overseas trade opportunities, and conducts export promotion programs, will decrease from $66 million last year to $52 million this year. Funding for the Market Access and Compliance Program, which monitors foreign country compliance with multilateral and bilateral trade agreements, will decrease from $33 million last year to $28 million this year. Funding for the U.S. Foreign and Commercial Services, which maintains databases on markets overseas and counsels U.S. firms on export opportunities, will decrease from $199 million last year to $194 million this year. Funding for the Export-Import Bank, which provides export financing for U.S. companies, will decrease from $865 million last year to $633 million this year. Funding for the International Trade Administration, whose primary goal is to expand opportunities for sales by U.S. firms in foreign markets, falls from $364 million last year to $361 million this year. From where I stand, we should not be cutting back on funding for these programs. On the contrary, we should increase funds for programs designed to translate American productivity, vitality, and ingenuity into sales overseas. Unfortunately, what we see here is a policy that runs contrary to the needs of our own country, and, significantly, the policies of most countries in the global trading system. The Bush administration trade policy incorrectly assumes that market imperfections do not exist, and that assistance to firms represents interference in the way the market works. If you look around the world and examine the trade and export policies of other countries, you will see this policy is an anomaly. If you go down the list of our trading partners anywhere in the world--be it Japan, France, Canada, Mexico, or Brazil--all consider the exports of their goods and services to be a top government priority, and, according to the U.S. Commerce Department, contribute substantial resources, both human and financial, to this goal. The most recent data available shows that the United States ranks dead last among a group of our trading partners, measured in terms of spending on export promotion as a percentage of GDP. And these data were calculated prior to the fiscal year 2002 budget cuts by the Bush Administration. All of these countries--France, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands--understand that trade is not an end in and of itself, but one of the tools by which governments can raise the living standards of its people. In his nomination testimony before the Finance Committee in January, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick stated that President Bush assigned a high priority to trade policy as part of his domestic and international agenda. He argued at that time that trade policy is important not only because it incrementally improves the economic welfare of all Americans, but also because it shapes the basic framework of the international system. Through international trade we not only export goods and services, we also export democratic values and stability. I agree with this statement. But my concern is that the Bush Administration is committed to this kind of trade policy in rhetoric alone. Their budget for export promotion activities suggests that they are unwilling to back up their words with substance--in this case, real funding for the programs that do the work needed to help U.S. firms. From where I sit, it is essential that the United States fund these programs so American business can continue to act as an engine of growth for the country. I am convinced that there is a national economic interest, tangible and beneficial, that needs to be pursued in an effective manner by the United States. While I accept the notion of free markets, I believe there are imperfections and biases in the international trading system that necessitate a commitment of resources to trade and export policy. President Bush has argued that he has focused on the people's priorities in his budget and put first things first. I would argue that his trade policy--the resources directed toward export promotion policy in particular--are simply another example of the fundamental flaws in his strategic goals for the country. There is still time to make a change in direction. There is still time to fund the programs that have done so much for American businesses and the American people. I urge the Administration to reconsider the funding levels for these programs, and bring them back to the appropriate level.