Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise, first, to support the amendment by the Senator from Washington regarding class size reduction. This is a very important amendment. It is one that will result in $13 million of additional funds coming to my State of New Mexico in fiscal year 2001. It is a very important initiative and one that I hope very much we can adopt as part of this bill. I want to also speak more generally about the legislation that is before us and begin by complimenting Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, as well as our staffs for the fine work that has been done on this bill. It is an honor for me to serve on that committee with them and to have participated in the development of this legislation. This legislation, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, contains many provisions that I support and many that I have advocated for some period of time. I am especially pleased with the new accountability requirements that are in title I of the bill and throughout. The bill also maintains several of the most important programs that are targeted to specific problems that we see in my State of New Mexico and many other States. For example, the bill makes a strong commitment to reducing the very high dropout rates that currently affect many in our schools. The bill includes a measure to ensure that all teachers are well equipped to use new technologies in their classrooms, to incorporate it into their teaching to expand opportunities for students in every school. There are also provisions in the bill to encourage more advanced placement instructions to raise the level of academic performance in our high schools and middle schools leading into those advanced placement courses at the high school level. Clearly, the centerpiece of the bill is this section related to accountability. For the first time, States and school districts and individual schools will be held accountable for improving the academic performance of all students. I am pleased the President adopted many of these accountability measures. Senator Lugar and I introduced a bipartisan bill earlier this year. Many of those provisions now are contained in S. 1. Implementation of tough and mandatory accountability standards is now a bipartisan effort. I feel very good about that. What we are implementing in this bill is a rigorous accountability system that demands results from all students, including those whom we have previously classified as disadvantaged students. I want to take a minute to summarize the key components of this new performance-based accountability system. The bill ensures that Federal funds will be directly tied to gains in student performance and, most importantly, it ties these funds to increased student achievement for all children. The accountability system incorporated in the bill goes a long way to ensuring that a primary goal of Federal funding is the elimination of the existing achievement gaps between disadvantaged and advantaged groups. The components of the accountability system include: First, raising standards for all students and providing an objective measure for that progress which can be effectively implemented through a grading system for States, school districts, and schools. Second, focusing on the progress of disadvantaged students by setting separate goals for their achievement so schools must either show gains for those groups or be labeled as failing to make adequate progress as intended under the grading system. Third, identifying schools that are failing to meet their goals in a timely manner so they can receive the additional resources and support to help those schools turn around; also, there are strict consequences if that failure turns out to be chronic. Fourth, working to ensure that every class has a qualified teacher and that low-income and minority students are not taught by unqualified teachers at higher rates than other students. Fifth, providing an expanded role for parents by expanding public school choice, establishing school report cards to inform parents about the quality of their schools, including the right to know their teacher's qualifications. I do believe these strong accountability provisions in the bill are the right thing to do. They will improve academic achievement of all students, and I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, and the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and the administration for joining in promoting these tough new standards. I also thank and acknowledge Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh for the important role they played in supporting these strong accountability standards. I am also glad the committee included three other important measures in the bill as it was reported. The first is the dropout prevention program I mentioned earlier. The second will help train teachers in the use of technology in the classroom. I also mentioned that. And the third expands the opportunities for students to take advanced placement courses while in high school. That I also mentioned. All three of these measures have broad bipartisan support. All were adopted unanimously in the committee. The dropout program makes lowering the school dropout rate a national priority. Parenthetically, lowering the school dropout rate was one of the original goals former President Bush and the 50 Governors agreed upon in Charlottesville in 1989. Including it in this legislation is extremely important. It is well known that the failure to acquire a high school diploma is one of the greatest barriers to future employment, earnings, and advancement. High school completion rates remain distressingly low in many communities across this country and, unfortunately, in many communities in my State of New Mexico. The problem is disproportionately greatest among the minority and low-income students. Over 3,000 students drop out of school each day. Hispanic youth are nearly three times more likely to drop out of school as their Anglo classmates. It does not need to be this way. There is now strong evidence that efforts that are focused on students most likely to drop out, especially at the ninth grade level, can dramatically improve the odds that those students will finish high school. For example, in my State of New Mexico, Cibola High School in Albuquerque is using just such a focused effort and a small Federal grant to reduce its dropout rate from 9 percent to less than 2 percent in just 4 years. Last year, 86 percent of their ninth grade students earned all of their credits and moved on to the 10th grade. The purpose of these dropout provisions in the bill is to try to duplicate Cibola High School's success at schools across the Nation. There are three parts to the dropout program that are included in the bill. First is the creation of a national clearinghouse to get out information on research, best practices, and available resources to help schools implement effective dropout prevention programs. Second, the bill establishes a national recognition program to spotlight schools that do successfully reduce the dropout rate. Third, the bill authorizes a grant program to help schools implement proven approaches to reduce dropouts and put in place prevention programs. I do believe that dropout prevention needs to be a national priority. The need for this program is underscored by the President's increased emphasis on annual testing which is sure to raise concerns that dropout rates will increase as States try to meet their academic performance goals. This is a real danger, that students who are not doing well in the tests will be the ones most likely to drop out. With all the emphasis on test scores, States will not have any incentive to focus resources on keeping these kids in school. That is why the dropout prevention provisions in the bill are so important. In addition, I believe it is critical that States be required to set goals to reduce those dropout rates and report their dropout rates along with their annual test scores. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada has been a long-time champion on this issue and has cosponsored this dropout bill provision with me. I thank him for all his good work. The bill also includes provisions from a bipartisan Technology for Teachers Act, that I introduced along with Senators Cochran, Rockefeller, and Roberts. Technology does promise to transform education. Unfortunately, too many of our schools do not take full advantage of this opportunity simply because the teachers have not been properly trained to use the technology. I am pleased this bill includes our measure to continue the successful ``Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology'' program. The program provides grants to consortia of schools of education and State and local education agencies to develop teacher preparation programs to ensure that new teachers have the tools they need to take full advantage of new teaching technologies in their classrooms. Another important new measure included in the bill is the Advanced Placement Program. This bipartisan program is cosponsored by Senators Hutchison and Collins. Advanced placement programs provide high school students with challenging academic content. They raise the bar for academic standards. They allow students to earn valuable college credits. I believe it is very important that the Federal Government support efforts to expand this program. We have a superb example of what can be done in advanced placement instruction in Hobbs High School in my home State. It increased the participation rates in advanced placement instruction by 550 percent in just 3 years in that school district. A statewide program in New Mexico that helps low-income children pay for the cost of the tests has helped boost participation by 74 percent for Hispanic students, 300 percent for African Americans, and a remarkable 950 percent for Native American students. This is an important provision and one I feel very good about seeing in this bill. I also believe S. 1 is a good bill and reflects a strong bipartisan basis for fundamental reform of Federal education programs. I hope we can maintain this spirit of bipartisanship that has been able to prevail. I am a cosponsor of Senator Murray's class size amendment. I strongly urge the Senate to vote to include that in the bill. I will also be offering two amendments to deal with an issue I believe the States are not in a position to properly address. The first addresses the issue of school security and basic student and teacher safety. Senator Tim Hutchinson is a cosponsor. The other amendment is to expand a successful pilot program to create small learning communities within larger schools, the so-called schools within schools. Both of these have passed the Senate before. I am hopeful the Senate will agree to include them in this BEST bill. I would like to conclude with one final point. I do think it is important for all Senators to remember this is an authorization bill. I expect it will pass with bipartisan support. But the real proof of the will and determination of this Congress to improve education will come in the appropriations process. On the one hand, President Bush has imposed a variety of new requirements on the States including annual testing, but on the other hand the administration's budget, at least so far, does not provide significant increases for education. I support many of the proposed reforms, but so far I have failed to see the commitment of resources needed to make those reforms possible. I, for one, intend to be speaking out. We need appropriate funding levels for education this year and for each of the years covered by this 7-year authorization bill. I do believe that much of what we are proposing in this bill will not be successful unless we are willing to make the full investment of Federal funding required. What is called for now is an investment in our children's future, an investment I believe our children deserve. I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Kennedy, and their staffs for their fine work. I look forward to continuing to work with them and the other members of the committee as this bill moves from the Senate floor and into conference. I hope we will soon see this important legislation signed into law and appropriately funded. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Mr. John Bolton to become the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Many in the Senate disagree with the substantive views of Mr. Bolton on particular policy issues and will oppose his nomination on the basis of those disagreements. I too disagree with Mr. Bolton on a range of important foreign policy issues, but my opposition to his nomination comes from broader and deeper concerns. First among them, I believe that whoever serves in this position should be experienced, knowledgeable, and philosophically compatible with the use of arms control as a legitimate tool of the national security objectives of the United States. Arms control treaties have served our national security interests well during past decades, including important major treaties signed and ratified by Republican administrations. Notable among the many important and effective arms control contributions by Republican administrations are the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the ABM Treaty and Protocol, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. I would hope that Mr. Bolton would uphold this tradition within his party, but I am skeptical that will be the case. If so, our nation stands to become more insecure rather than less in the volatile world of today's international system. Recent testimony by Mr. Bolton suggests that he may not be as knowledgeable about the significant contributions of prior arms control treaties as he should be, and, more importantly, may not be inclined to support arms control as a useful mechanism to achieving national security goals. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for example, when asked about his views regarding whether the ABM Treaty is in force, he withheld his own views on this very important matter which now lies at the center of the most significant national security debate in our country as well as within the international community. It seems to me that if the Senate is to confirm a nominee for this important position as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, it would not be unreasonable to expect that nominee, even if we are in disagreement, to have a well-developed, articulate view of this critical question. I believe that the Senate and the American people have a right to expect that someone who would assume this key advisory position would be able to answer that question in an informed, straightforward way. I'm concerned that we still don't know if Mr. Bolton is well-educated on the validity and utility of the ABM Treaty. I for one am reticent to hand over the keys to a car when I don't know where the driver is going to take me. The ABM Treaty is so vitally important, I believe the American people have a right to know where Mr. Bolton wants to go. In his writings and testimony, Mr. Bolton referred generically to treaties that are unenforceable and that provide only illusory protections. He would include the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in that category, a belief that suggests to me a lack of understanding about our verification capabilities with respect to countries which might seek to initiate a nuclear weapons program as well as nuclear weapons states which might seek to advance their own capabilities in any militarily significant way. Though the Senate has not thoroughly debated this question, the experts I have spoken with assure me that the CTBT is verifiable consistent with our highest priority nonproliferation national security concerns. Before voting to confirm Mr. Bolton, the Senate should know more about the specifics of his views on this and similar matters in order to determine whether his views are well-grounded or simply an expression of a visceral distrust of arms control as a national security tool. I am equally concerned that his views rejecting the binding nature of international treaties is incompatible with the internationally accepted position on this fundamental legal question. In his writings, Mr. Bolton has indicated that although treaties may be politically or morally binding, they are not legally binding. I suspect that while he would demand compliance of other nations to an international treaty as a matter of law, he would defend instances of U.S. non-compliance as our legal right. At a time when the President of the United States has spoken repeatedly of the need for our nation to approach other countries with humility, Mr. Bolton's view on this matter strikes me as completely unacceptable. Perhaps, it comes down to this. Every time the Senate debates an arms control agreement the question is asked, ``Will our nation be more secure with or without this Treaty?'' For those who answer ``without'', they conclude that the nation is more secure without making international commitments. Their crystal ball suggests that without international agreements, national self interest will be sufficient to ensure national security. Given Mr. Bolton's position in opposition to key arms control agreements of our time, I'm very concerned that he believes that U.S. unilateralism is the only reliable means to assure our national security. I strongly reject that view. Unilateralism is reversible and unpredictable, and in my view, portends greater instability among nations. Before I'd vote to confirm Mr. Bolton, Mr. President, I'd like very much to know what Mr. Bolton's view of what a unilateralist world looks like to him without the ABM Treaty, the CTBT Treaty, or any other arms control treaty to which he is opposed. Until he can convince me that it would be a safer world, I'll withhold my vote. I urge my colleagues of the Senate to do the same.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be yielded an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on Monday of this week, the Vice President gave a speech in Toronto laying out some of the broad themes of the Administration's developing energy policy. Some of the points made by the Vice President were valid. I want to comment on some of those. I obviously realize that we are now in the middle of the debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I intend to come back to the floor either later today or next week to talk about that legislation and to commend the sponsor of it and the Democratic ranking member, Senator Kennedy. Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy have done yeoman's work in putting that legislation together. I want to take the opportunity this next week to go through that in some detail. But today I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about energy issues since the Vice President is clearly focused on this and is speaking out strongly on it. I agree with much of what the Vice President has said. For example: I agree with him that we face some serious long-term issues in national energy policy. I agree with him that our response must have comprehensive and long-term focus. I agree with him that we are very dependent on coal and nuclear power for electricity generation, and this dependence will probably continue into the future. There are a number of other points, however, where I fear he may have overstated a particular point of view or missed the mark. Let me just cite some of those. The Vice President seemed to equate energy conservation with rationing for something like rationing. I don't know of anyone advocating energy conservation who supports rationing. He also stated that ``some groups are suggesting that government step in to force Americans to consume less energy.'' That is certainly not any proposal I have made or seen here in the Congress. What I think would be helpful to the discussion is perhaps to identify the questions that need to be asked about energy policy as we proceed over the next few weeks with consideration of the energy policies that the administration is going to recommend as well as those that have been introduced here in the Congress. Let me cite essentially five questions and elaborate on them slightly. The first question that I believe should be asked is whether the energy policy, the one that the Vice President is going to advocate, or that any of us here are advocating, adequately recognizes the enormous differences between energy markets in the 1970s and 1980s and those that we face today. Back in the 1970s, there was a lot of talk about eliminating our dependency on foreign imports with increased domestic production through ``Project Independence.'' Electricity markets were local, electricity suppliers were largely confined within State boundaries and regulated by State public utility commissions. Because a State public utility commission could guarantee its utilities fixed rates of return on their investments in infrastructure, such as large nuclear power plants, there was a market for them. We now face a very different situation. Electricity markets have become regional, and increasingly they are beyond the ability of State public utility commissions to regulate. The nationwide electrical grid is being called upon to transmit large amounts of electrical power across enormous distances, something it was not really designed to do. State regulation of electricity has given way to a system that relies more on market forces, even though electricity markets are far from perfect ones. The old model of a protected and regulated monoply environment for utility investments in new generation has been transformed into a ``wild wild west'' of decentralized generation by a welter of new actors. No where do the changes in energy markets manifest themselves more clearly than in the situation facing energy infrastructure. Attempts to blame Federal environmental regulations for the difficulties of siting and building energy infrastructure are severely off the mark. The most serious obstacle to building new energy infrastructure has been not at the Federal level, though, but at the local level and in capital markets. For example, the Vice President and other Administration officials have often observed over the last several weeks that it has been 20 years since a large refinery has been built in the United States. But the main reason has not been the Clean Air Act. It has been the low rates of return on capital in the refining sector and the refining overcapacity that existed up to a few years ago. You are not going to build a new refinery when there are already too many to serve the market, and up until recently, that was the case. The need for energy infrastructure has provoked serious local concern and opposition. One example, which has been in the news, is the Longhorn pipeline from the Gulf Coast to El Paso, Texas. It has been tied up for nearly 5 years addressing community opposition to its construction. If the energy industry can't build pipelines in Texas, I don't think we should assume it will be any easier to build them anywhere else. The result of these factors--economic and local--have been cited at a hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week by a witness from ExxonMobil, who testified that our largest U.S.-based oil company does not believe that any new refineries will be built in the United States. He predicted that the only additions to U.S. refining capacity would come from expansions at existing facilities. Expanding that capacity will not be easy regardless of federal policies. Most refineries are located in heavily industrialized areas with significant environmental issues regulated at the State and local levels of government. Instead of looking for ways to blame the Federal Government for an energy infrastructure problem which has not been of the Federal Government's making, I think we need to look for creative new ways to respond to the challenges of working with State and local communities on these siting issues. Effective mechanisms for greater regional cooperation are critical to ensure adequate infrastructure investments are made on a timely basis to meet energy demand. Coordinated regional efforts on energy infrastructure can reduce the impact on communities by optimizing infrastructure use and reducing price volatility. If the Vice President's energy policy recognizes this complex reality and starts to address it, then it will be helping the country to make a positive step forward. If the answer from the Vice President's study is simply to try to pit energy needs against environmental protection, then we won't be looking at a comprehensive and balanced energy policy. The second question to ask of the Vice President's comments this week is how this so-called energy policy that we are envisioning will connect planned actions related to energy with climate change policy. Science has been developed showing fairly clearly today that there is a connection between human activity and climate change. We may not be able to prove the exact amount of human causation in the global warming that we see, or to model its precise regional impacts. But we know enough now to realize that our ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases pose substantial risks both to critical and fragile ecosystems around the world and to future generations of humans. The world will have to deal with the issue, and the United States must be a leading contributor to negotiations on any international framework to address global warming. A leadership role for the United States is required not only because we are a major emitter of greenhouse gases, but also because we have the leading capability to harness science and technology both to understand climate change and to respond to it. We, as a country, need to have a climate change policy. We need to put in place some actions to deal with this new science. One part of the positive contributions that the United States has made to international climate change negotiations has been our success in getting flexible, market-based mechanisms and recognition of carbon sinks incorporated into the developing international framework. U.S. industry, particularly in the energy sector, has indicated that these provisions are essential to holding down the eventual energy costs of responding to human- induced climate change. But without the United States as an active insider in the international negotiations, these important flexibility mechanisms will be lost. The decision of the new Bush administration to back away from the Kyoto protocol may doom the flexibility that we have won in the discussions to date. It could also spur other countries to erect new obstacles to American firms wishing to expand into international energy markets, in retaliation for the President's retreat on CO2. While negotiations on an international framework to address global warming continue for the next several years, our domestic industry will have to make significant investment decisions on new energy infrastructure. We have no domestic framework on greenhouse gas emissions that would guide or even inform these investment decisions. Addressing these issues up front would reduce business costs and risks. Maintaining our present course would increase the probability of future economic losses and waste in the energy sector. For these reasons, we need to integrate energy policy and climate change policy. They are inextricably linked--to do one is, by implication, to do the other. U.S. industry deserves to know how we are going to address greenhouse gas emissions before it invests billions of dollars in new energy infrastructure. If the Vice President's answer is that we will do energy policy now and worry about climate change later, then we don't have a truly comprehensive and balanced energy policy. Mr. President, I do not pretend to have the exact answer for what our global climate change policy should be, but I know we need to have one. We cannot continue to look the other way and pretend that the issue does not exist. So I look forward to seeing what the Vice President recommends in his energy recommendations and how it relates to this climate change issue. The third question is to ask what kind of balance is being made between increasing production and increasing efficiency. I know there has been some rhetoric in that connection to the effect there needs to be an adequate balance. I do not believe any of the concrete proposals I have seen coming out of the administration or suggested by people from the administration have in them the necessary balance. We know that the Vice President is all for increasing energy supplies, and most people would agree that increasing supply is one essential part of the big national energy picture. The Senate Democratic energy bill contains numerous measures to improve energy supplies across the entire spectrum--coal, oil and gas, renewables, and nuclear. The other essential part of the energy picture, though, is increasing efficiency. If we use energy more wisely to attain the same amount of economic output, we improve our economy and reduce the burden that energy infrastructure imposes on local communities. Since the 1970s, new technologies have increased our nation's productivity in many ways, including our use of energy. Technologies that increase energy efficiency have allowed the U.S. economy today, compared to 20 years ago, to produce the same output with 30 percent less energy. Even greater savings are possible in the future, with appropriate federal leadership. Consumers really benefit when they get goods and services at cheaper prices because less energy is required to produce them. With that in mind, I was surprised and saddened by the decision at the Department of Energy last month to roll back the proposed efficiency standard for new central air conditioning systems. The rationale given was that the higher standard wasn't cost effective. But the cost-benefit analysis Department of Energy relied upon used average electricity costs from 5 years ago. It is surprising to see the administration, on the one hand, insist that this summer's high electricity costs in the West be passed along to consumers to control peak loads, while in the next breath state that its efficiency policies should be based on the lower electricity costs that prevailed 5 years ago in this country. And if the administration is really worried about the need to build 1300-1900 new power plants, it should realize that its rollback of air- conditioning standards just added 43 more big power plants to whatever number will be needed by 2020. Another area of energy efficiency that cannot be ignored is vehicle fuel efficiency. The Vice President has alluded to the dangers of our increasing dependence on imported oil. Yet that dependence is directly related to our increasing consumption of oil in the transportation sector. The only realistic solution to this problem is to couple efforts to increase domestic production with a concerted effort to reduce fuel use by light duty vehicles--cars, trucks and SUV's. Incentives for hybrid and high efficiency vehicles could be part of a more comprehensive program, but are not adequate by themselves. The Federal fleet, through its choice of vehicles, should be a leader in reversing this trend. All regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms should be employed to stem demand growth to a level we can management as a society. If the Vice President's energy policy does not take a fresh look at the need to improve energy efficiency through forward-looking standards, then it is probably not a truly balanced and comprehensive energy strategy. A fourth question is to ask of the Vice President's energy policy-- and all of these policies floating around in Congress--is whether one of the greatest national resources we have in Ameria--that is, our capacity for scientific and technological innovation--is being stimulated and engaged to solve our energy problems. So far, the administration, in my view, at least, has failed badly on this score. The 2002 research and development budget proposed by the President for the Department of Energy contains severe cuts for a variety of advanced energy technologies, even in areas, like nuclear energy research, that one would expect would be favored by this administration. There has never been a time when increased investments in energy research and development were more needed, or showed more promise for solving some of our problems. I hope very much that will be changed in the deliberations that result in the task force's report. We need to be increasing these investments across the board--in coal, in nuclear, in renewables, in oil and gas, in energy efficiency, and in the basic science that underpins all of those. If the Vice President's energy policy does not dramatically turn around the cuts being proposed for both energy R&D at the Department of Energy, and find additional funds from outside the Department, then we don't have a truly comprehensive and balanced energy strategy.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time under the quorum call be equally divided.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada very much for that courtesy. (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman are located in today's Record under ``Morning Business''.)

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, recently, in a remote area of Vietnam, a helicopter with 16 passengers and crew aboard went down in a central Vietnamese jungle. Vietnamese officials reported that there were no survivors. The passengers on this aircraft included seven American heroes. One of those heroes, I am sad to report, was from New Mexico, Major Charles Lewis II. Major Lewis was an Air Force ROTC graduate of Mayfield High School and New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, NM. He was an outstanding student and deeply committed to his country through his service with the Air Force. We are shocked and saddened at the loss of Major Lewis and these American heroes. In connection with the recent ``National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day'', I salute Major Lewis and his downed colleagues. Moreover, I salute the heroic contributions of all those who serve in the Joint Task Force Full Accounting, JTFFA, and the U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory Hawaii, CILHI, whose noble mission is to resolve the cases of Americans still unaccounted for during America's wars. We especially honor the unsung victims of this tragic accident who were carrying out our nation's abiding commitment to account for and honor the lives of POW-MIAs lost in the conflict in Southeast Asia three decades ago. They were part of an advance team scheduled to begin recovery work at six MIA sites in Vietnam beginning this month. Since 1973, the JTFFA and CILHI have conducted investigations and excavations that have accounted for 603 American POW-MIA personnel. Since 1985, with the full support of cooperative Vietnamese assistants, members of the Joint Task Force and the Central Identification Laboratory have undertaken the most challenging assignments to locate and identify former American prisoners of war or servicemen missing in action. Some excavations have consumed months of painstaking labor under very difficult conditions to retrieve the smallest items of evidence to help identify American casualties. Much of the work is done by hand in order not to disturb potential evidence. Our service personnel such as those who lost their lives last month have routinely exposed themselves to significant dangers in the quest for honoring our former POW-MIAs. Sadly, they lost their lives in their deeply patriotic quest. I call on all Americans to pause and remember Major Lewis and the brave men and women of the Joint Task Force and Central Identification Laboratory who have given their lives in such a noble cause.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Low Income Taxpayer Protection Act of 2001. This legislation, if enacted, will assist low and moderate income taxpayers with the annual task of preparing their tax returns and give them some protection from exploitive refund anticipation loans. RALs are high interest loans offered to taxpayers who are entitled to a refund. Recently, an article ran in the Albuquerque Journal about taxpayer abuses that were particularly acute near the Navajo Reservation in Gallup, New Mexico. While many taxpayers benefit from these loans, many more are hurt by outrageously high interest rates and fees. Worse, many taxpayers get caught with outstanding loans that they can't pay off because a mistake was made on their tax return resulting in a smaller than anticipated refund. Many of these loans, when annualized, have interest rates over 200 percent. The majority of these loan recipients are low to moderate income taxpayers, many of whom receive an earned income tax credit. The EITC has become one of the most effective tools for fighting poverty and benefitting working families, and so it is essential that every dollar of this credit goes to the taxpayer. Congress is not without fault. We have made the EITC so complicated that many taxpayers feel they have to pay to have someone prepare their return. According to the New Mexico Advocates for Children and Families, 83 percent of the low income population in Gallup used a paid preparer. Many of these taxpayers won't have the money to pay for this service unless they are loaned the money up front, hence a proliferation of refund anticipation loans. Although this bill does not include simplification of the EITC, I am going to work with my colleagues to be sure that any tax bill that is passed through this body has made the EITC easier to calculate. To help low and moderate income taxpayers, my bill requires all those involved with RALs to register with the IRS. Treasury will then be required to determine what is a fair amount of interest and fees to be charged based on the benefit to the taxpayer and the risk to the lender. It will also expand the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program by directly giving them funding to operate. VITA clinics are one of the few places low income taxpayers can go to get assistance on their tax returns. We need to expand this program. My bill also directs the IRS to focus its electronic filing services on the taxpayer. I am afraid that our desire to meet Congressional mandates for increasing electronic filing rates may have caused the IRS to forget why we are advancing electronic filing, to benefit the taxpayer. Finally, this legislation will create several mobile electronic tax filing centers, at least one of which must be located near a Native American reservation or pueblo. Currently, many low income taxpayers do not have the ability to file electronically unless they go to a commercial electronic filer where there is a fee to file. This trial program would allow these taxpayers to enjoy the benefits of electronic filing, such as a shorter turn around time for a refund, without having to find the money to pay for it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to expand this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Low Income Taxpayer Protection Act of 2001. This legislation, if enacted, will assist low and moderate income taxpayers with the annual task of preparing their tax returns and give them some protection from exploitive refund anticipation loans. RALs are high interest loans offered to taxpayers who are entitled to a refund. Recently, an article ran in the Albuquerque Journal about taxpayer abuses that were particularly acute near the Navajo Reservation in Gallup, New Mexico. While many taxpayers benefit from these loans, many more are hurt by outrageously high interest rates and fees. Worse, many taxpayers get caught with outstanding loans that they can't pay off because a mistake was made on their tax return resulting in a smaller than anticipated refund. Many of these loans, when annualized, have interest rates over 200 percent. The majority of these loan recipients are low to moderate income taxpayers, many of whom receive an earned income tax credit. The EITC has become one of the most effective tools for fighting poverty and benefitting working families, and so it is essential that every dollar of this credit goes to the taxpayer. Congress is not without fault. We have made the EITC so complicated that many taxpayers feel they have to pay to have someone prepare their return. According to the New Mexico Advocates for Children and Families, 83 percent of the low income population in Gallup used a paid preparer. Many of these taxpayers won't have the money to pay for this service unless they are loaned the money up front, hence a proliferation of refund anticipation loans. Although this bill does not include simplification of the EITC, I am going to work with my colleagues to be sure that any tax bill that is passed through this body has made the EITC easier to calculate. To help low and moderate income taxpayers, my bill requires all those involved with RALs to register with the IRS. Treasury will then be required to determine what is a fair amount of interest and fees to be charged based on the benefit to the taxpayer and the risk to the lender. It will also expand the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program by directly giving them funding to operate. VITA clinics are one of the few places low income taxpayers can go to get assistance on their tax returns. We need to expand this program. My bill also directs the IRS to focus its electronic filing services on the taxpayer. I am afraid that our desire to meet Congressional mandates for increasing electronic filing rates may have caused the IRS to forget why we are advancing electronic filing, to benefit the taxpayer. Finally, this legislation will create several mobile electronic tax filing centers, at least one of which must be located near a Native American reservation or pueblo. Currently, many low income taxpayers do not have the ability to file electronically unless they go to a commercial electronic filer where there is a fee to file. This trial program would allow these taxpayers to enjoy the benefits of electronic filing, such as a shorter turn around time for a refund, without having to find the money to pay for it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to expand this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. No change was made. We included a parenthetical reference to the definition of ``institution of higher education,'' this has no practical effect as both the 1990 and 1998 Perkins laws require that a grant recipient be an institution of higher education. The Department should continue providing grants for Section 117 under the current regulations unless and until new regulations are issued pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. Crownpoint Institute of Technology and United Tribes Technical College were intended to be the only beneficiaries of this section.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Enzi, Baucus, and Wellstone, entitled the ``Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Improvement Act of 2001.'' This legislation is absolutely critical to the survival of many of our nation's safety net hospitals. It would provide additional funding to address their growing burden of providing uncompensated care to many of our nation's 42.6 million uninsured residents, including 463,000 in New Mexico, through the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, program. In recognition of the burden bourne by hospitals that provide a large share of care to low-income patients, including Medicaid and the uninsured, the Congress established the Medicaid DSH program to give additional funding to support such ``disproportionate share'' hospitals. By providing financial relief to these hospitals, the Medicaid DSH program maintains hospital access for the poor. As the National Governors' Association has said, ``Medicaid DSH's funds are an important part of statewide systems of health care access for the uninsured.'' Recent reports by the Institute of Medicine entitled ``America's Health Care Safety Net: Intact But Endangered,'' the National Association of Public Hospitals entitled ``The Dependence of Safety Net Hospitals'' and the Commonwealth Fund entitled ``A Shared Responsibility: Academic Health Centers and the Provision of Care to the Poor and Uninsured'' have all highlighted the importance of the Medicaid DSH program to our health care safety net. As the Commonwealth Fund report, which was released just this last week, notes: ``The Medicaid DSH program has had a beneficial effect on patient access. The average payment rate for Medicaid inpatient services has increased dramatically. Medicaid payments for hospital services were only 76 percent of the cost of providing this care in 1989. By 1994, Medicaid payments had increased to 94 percent of costs.'' Unfortunately, as the Commonwealth Fund report adds, ``. . . there are large inequities in how these funds are distributed among states.'' In fact, for 15 states, including New Mexico, our federal DSH allotments are not allowed to exceed 1 percent of our state's Medicaid program costs. In comparison, the average state spends around 9 percent of its Medicaid funding on DSH. This disparity and lack of Medicaid DSH in ``extremely low-DSH states'' threatens the viability of our safety net providers. In New Mexico, these funds are critical but inadequate to hospitals all across our state, including University Hospital, Eastern New Mexico Regional Hospital, St. Vincent's Hospital, Espanola Hospital, and others. In an analysis of the Medicaid DSH program by the Urban Institute, the total amount of federal Medicaid DSH payments in six states was less than $1 per Medicaid and uninsured individual compared to five states than had DSH spending in excess of $500 per Medicaid and uninsured individual. That figure was just $14.91 per Medicaid and uninsured person in New Mexico. Compared to the average expenditure of $218.96 across the country, such disparities cannot be sustained. As a result, this bipartisan legislation increases the allowed federal Medicaid DSH allotment in the 15 ``extremely low-DSH states'' from 1 percent to 3 percent of Medicaid program costs, which remains far less, or just one-third, of the national average. I would add that the legislation does not impact the federal DSH allotments in other states but only seeks greater equity by raising the share of federal funds to ``extremely low-DSH states.'' Once again, the Commonwealth Fund recommends such action. As the report finds, ``States with small DSH programs are not permitted to increase the relative size of their DSH programs . . . [C]urrent policy simply rewards the programs that acted quickly and more aggressively, without regard to a state's real need of such funds.'' Therefore, the report concludes, ``. . . greater equity in the use of federal funds should be established among states.'' Again, this is achieved in our legislation by raising the limits for ``extremely low-DSH states'' from 1 percent to 3 percent and not by redistributing or taking money away from other states. Failure to support these critical hospitals could have a devastating impact not only on the low-income and vulnerable populations who depend on them for care but also on other providers throughout the communities that rely on the safety net to care for patients whom they are unable or unwilling to serve. As the Institute of Medicine's report entitled ``America's Health Care Safety Net: Intact But Endangered'' states, ``Until the nation addresses the underlying problems that make the health care safety net system necessary, it is essential that national, state, and local policy makers protect and perhaps enhance the ability of these institutions and providers to carry out their missions.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Enzi, Baucus, and Wellstone, entitled the ``Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Improvement Act of 2001.'' This legislation is absolutely critical to the survival of many of our nation's safety net hospitals. It would provide additional funding to address their growing burden of providing uncompensated care to many of our nation's 42.6 million uninsured residents, including 463,000 in New Mexico, through the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, program. In recognition of the burden bourne by hospitals that provide a large share of care to low-income patients, including Medicaid and the uninsured, the Congress established the Medicaid DSH program to give additional funding to support such ``disproportionate share'' hospitals. By providing financial relief to these hospitals, the Medicaid DSH program maintains hospital access for the poor. As the National Governors' Association has said, ``Medicaid DSH's funds are an important part of statewide systems of health care access for the uninsured.'' Recent reports by the Institute of Medicine entitled ``America's Health Care Safety Net: Intact But Endangered,'' the National Association of Public Hospitals entitled ``The Dependence of Safety Net Hospitals'' and the Commonwealth Fund entitled ``A Shared Responsibility: Academic Health Centers and the Provision of Care to the Poor and Uninsured'' have all highlighted the importance of the Medicaid DSH program to our health care safety net. As the Commonwealth Fund report, which was released just this last week, notes: ``The Medicaid DSH program has had a beneficial effect on patient access. The average payment rate for Medicaid inpatient services has increased dramatically. Medicaid payments for hospital services were only 76 percent of the cost of providing this care in 1989. By 1994, Medicaid payments had increased to 94 percent of costs.'' Unfortunately, as the Commonwealth Fund report adds, ``. . . there are large inequities in how these funds are distributed among states.'' In fact, for 15 states, including New Mexico, our federal DSH allotments are not allowed to exceed 1 percent of our state's Medicaid program costs. In comparison, the average state spends around 9 percent of its Medicaid funding on DSH. This disparity and lack of Medicaid DSH in ``extremely low-DSH states'' threatens the viability of our safety net providers. In New Mexico, these funds are critical but inadequate to hospitals all across our state, including University Hospital, Eastern New Mexico Regional Hospital, St. Vincent's Hospital, Espanola Hospital, and others. In an analysis of the Medicaid DSH program by the Urban Institute, the total amount of federal Medicaid DSH payments in six states was less than $1 per Medicaid and uninsured individual compared to five states than had DSH spending in excess of $500 per Medicaid and uninsured individual. That figure was just $14.91 per Medicaid and uninsured person in New Mexico. Compared to the average expenditure of $218.96 across the country, such disparities cannot be sustained. As a result, this bipartisan legislation increases the allowed federal Medicaid DSH allotment in the 15 ``extremely low-DSH states'' from 1 percent to 3 percent of Medicaid program costs, which remains far less, or just one-third, of the national average. I would add that the legislation does not impact the federal DSH allotments in other states but only seeks greater equity by raising the share of federal funds to ``extremely low-DSH states.'' Once again, the Commonwealth Fund recommends such action. As the report finds, ``States with small DSH programs are not permitted to increase the relative size of their DSH programs . . . [C]urrent policy simply rewards the programs that acted quickly and more aggressively, without regard to a state's real need of such funds.'' Therefore, the report concludes, ``. . . greater equity in the use of federal funds should be established among states.'' Again, this is achieved in our legislation by raising the limits for ``extremely low-DSH states'' from 1 percent to 3 percent and not by redistributing or taking money away from other states. Failure to support these critical hospitals could have a devastating impact not only on the low-income and vulnerable populations who depend on them for care but also on other providers throughout the communities that rely on the safety net to care for patients whom they are unable or unwilling to serve. As the Institute of Medicine's report entitled ``America's Health Care Safety Net: Intact But Endangered'' states, ``Until the nation addresses the underlying problems that make the health care safety net system necessary, it is essential that national, state, and local policy makers protect and perhaps enhance the ability of these institutions and providers to carry out their missions.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I believe that this is a good piece of legislation that will promote the cleanup and reuse of business and industrial sites that now stand essentially abandoned. I would just like to clarify one point. I note that throughout much of the Bill any reference to `States' is accompanied by a reference to `Indian Tribes'. However, this is not the case in section 129(b)(1)(B)(ii), as added by section 301 of the Bill, regarding federal enforcement actions in the event of contamination migrating across a State line. Could the Senator confirm that it is the intention of the legislation that references in that section to `States' should extend to `Indian Tribes'?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I learned this morning that Mary Walters, one of New Mexico's most outstanding citizens has died at age 79. She was a pioneering spirit if there ever was one, and many of us who knew and admired her feel this loss keenly. Not yet twenty-one, she served as a WASP, Women's Auxiliary Service Pilots transport pilot during World War II. In a move that would shape her later career, she used her soon-to-expire GI benefits to go to college and then went on to earn a law degree at age forty. For the next half of her life, she went places no woman had gone before in New Mexico. She was President of the New Mexico Women's Political Caucus and served in a leadership position in the Constitutional Convention. She was the first woman named to the district court. Her service on the New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1978-1984, led to the New Mexico Supreme Court where she became the first woman to sit on that bench. During a critical period for women's rights, Mary Walters took the lead in our state and in our profession. She had many admirers. My wife, Anne, and I, were among them. She was a marvelous person whose life was a blessing to all who appreciated her strength and spirit, and whose death reminds us all what a force for good she was.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud one of the many outstanding businesses in New Mexico and one that has distinguished itself remarkably today. Today the Los Alamos National Bank was one of four recipients of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award for the year 2000. Bill Enloe, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Los Alamos National Bank, and Steve Wells, President of the bank, were on hand to receive this distinguished award from President George Bush and former Commerce Secretary Norman Mineta. While I was unable to attend the ceremony, I understand that the employees attending the ceremony from Los Alamos National Bank gave Bill and Steve a rousing reception that matched the magnitude of the award and the weight of the crystal presented to Bill and Steve. Los Alamos National Bank (LANB) is an independent community bank in northern New Mexico that employs 167 employees and serves the communities of Los Alamos, White Rock and Santa Fe. LANB received the Baldrige award in the small business category. While the Baldrige examiners and judges recognized LANB for its quality and business achievements, I would like to recognize LANB for its outstanding response in the wake of the Cerro Grande fire that struck in May 1999. LANB's decision to provide zero interest loans to those who lost their homes in the fire was not something mandated by the government, it was something they felt was the right thing to do. LANB's decision to postpone mortgage payments for residents was also the right thing to do. This type of service is rare in today's business market, but truly reflective of what it means to be a community bank and one that provides exceptional service to its customers in times of prosperity and in times of need. Years ago LANB recognized that if it wanted to remain an independently owned bank, it would have to rise above all other banks and strive for excellence. It's ability to accomplish that goal was recognized today. LANB now stands with only 39 previous Malcolm Baldrige Award recipients. I congratulate Bill, Steve and their fine staff on their accomplishments and commitment to the people of northern New Mexico.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for offering this amendment. This is a very important amendment. We have over 6 million children in this country who do not have health insurance. Of course, their parents do not as well. One way to get those children covered with health insurance is to get their parents eligible, too. This program tries to do that. There are 129,000 of these children who are uninsured in my own State. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, Senators Thomas, Baucus, Enzi, and Johnson are also cosponsors of the amendment. I thank my colleague for his strong support for this effort, as well as Senator Conrad. What this deals with is the payments in lieu of taxes which are very important for counties in States such as our own where there are substantial amounts of Federal property. There is no tax base, essentially. There is no way for those counties to raise the funds needed to operate county government. This has been a program for some years, and we have recognized this, but we have not made the funds permanent. This year in this session of Congress, we are going to try to pass legislation which would authorize permanent funding for this. If we are able to, then we would like to have that permitted here for consideration by the Senate. This is budget neutral. This does not change the figures in the budget, but it is a very important initiative and one that I believe very strongly the Senate ought to approve. I appreciate the support of all my colleagues and all the cosponsors and urge colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the sponsors of the amendment for the opportunity to speak on its behalf. I am a cosponsor of the amendment. I believe very strongly that it is the right thing to do. Of course, it does not actually get the money appropriated for these very important purposes, but it does make it possible for us to do that later in this session of the Congress. We have seen a commitment over several years now by the Congress to adequately fund the National Institutes of Health. I have strongly supported that. But we have not seen the same level of commitment, the same level of appreciation for the importance of maintaining high levels of funding for research and development in the physical sciences area. That is what this amendment would do. It would try to bring funding for research and development in the physical sciences on a par with the funding for the research and development that is pursued in the life sciences through the National Institutes of Health. This is an extremely important effort, particularly as it relates to the Department of Energy's Office of Science, their commitment to developing the necessary user facilities across the Nation in two critical areas. One is the nanosciences that have been mentioned by the Senator from Maryland. The second is in advanced scientific computers. In both of these areas, we need to be the world leader. There is no reason we cannot be. In both of these areas we need to commit funds in order to maintain that leadership position. I strongly support the amendment. I commend the sponsors of the amendment for proposing it and yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. We need to sustain a commitment to all components of the National Fire Plan over a long enough period of time to make a difference, at least 15 years based on recommendations from the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. Your amendment ensures that Congress is doing its part with respect to fire prevention without adversely affecting other important programs funded under Function 300. I thank the Senator for the clarification.