Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time does the Senator from Oregon require?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe the order Senators appeared was Senator Wyden, then Senator Feinstein from California, then Senator Breaux from Louisiana, and I believe Senator Stevens from Alaska. That is the order they appeared.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will give a short statement that relates to the nomination of Gale Norton myself, and then I know there are three other Democratic Senators here who have indicated a desire to speak briefly. I know Senator Murkowski wishes to speak, and there are others on his side as well. As the principal steward of our public lands, the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for overseeing and protecting the natural and cultural treasures of our Nation, including all units of our National Park System, national wildlife refuges, most national monuments, national conservation areas, and many of our wilderness areas. When the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which Senator Murkowski chairs, and which I serve on as the ranking Democrat, began its hearings on the nomination of Gale Norton to be Secretary of the Interior, I indicated that I had serious doubts about whether Ms. Norton's past views on the role of the Federal Government in enforcing environmental protection laws were consistent with the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior. In her many published articles, Ms. Norton had amassed a record that championed the rights of individuals over the public interest in many natural resource issues; she had argued that key environmental protection laws--including critical provisions of the Endangered Species Act and the Surface Mining Act-- were unconstitutional; and she had often supported the interests of economic development over environmental protection. During two days of hearings, however, Gale Norton presented a much different picture of her future actions as Secretary of the Interior, a different picture than her previous writings would have suggested. She testified that she was, as she put it, a ``passionate conservationist'' and that her ``top priority'' will be the ``conservation of America's natural resources.'' She recognized that--this is a quote from her testimony--``the great wild places and unspoiled landscapes of this country are the common heritage of all Americans'' and she pledged to work to conserve them for present and future generations. She testified in support of laws she had previously opposed. She proposed the committee--this is a quote from her testimony--she ``will be fully committed to ensuring that our nation's environmental laws and laws for the protection of natural resources will be fully enforced.'' With respect to the Endangered Species Act, she testified that she supports not only the goals of the act, but also that she ``will apply the Act as it is written, and as the courts have interpreted it.'' When specifically asked whether she will support the protection of critical habitat for threatened and endangered speices--a provision she had previously opposed while attorney general of Colorado--Ms. Norton replied that ``the courts have decided that, in addition to things that affect the species directly, the Fish and Wildlife Service has the ability to regulate on private land, and I will enforce that provision.'' When questioned about another key environmental law she had earlier opposed, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, Ms. Norton testified that ``I will certainly enforce the law in the way it has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.'' Contrary to some of her critics' past accusations, Ms. Norton testified that it will be her responsibility to enforce Federal environmental laws, and that she will ensure that all parties comply with those laws. She expressly refuted a previous statement written long ago suggesting that corporations had a ``right to pollute.'' She made it very clear that both President Bush and she support continuing the moratoriums on offshore oil and gas leasing off the coasts of California and Florida, and that she would work with other States opposing drilling activities off their coastlines. Finally, she recognized the Secretary's special responsibility to Native Americans, and promised to improve Indian education programs. In addition to answering two days of questions before our committee, she responded in writing to another 227 questions that were submitted to her by committee members and other Senators. It is clear that the Gale Norton who testified before our committee presented different views about the Federal Government and its role in protecting the environment than the Gale Norton who authored controversial articles challenging that same Federal authority previously. Frankly, reconciling some of her past views with her current testimony is not that easy. However, I take Gale Norton at her word when she testified under oath in front of our committee that she will uphold our Nation's environmental laws, and that she will be a strong defender of our natural and cultural heritage. I listened to all of her testimony and have reviewed all of her written responses to our questions. Based on her testimony and those written responses, to our questions, and because of the promises she made at the hearing, I am supporting her nomination. While I will vote to confirm her nomination tomorrow, I still do have reservations about some issues that Ms. Norton declined to provide specific answers for. For example, she did not take a position on whether she would work to ensure the protection of those areas designated as national monuments by President Clinton, or whether she would support efforts to modify or repeal the Antiquities Act. She did not give us specifics as to how she will balance the Secretary of the Interior's resource protection responsibilities against the need to ensure continued energy resources from public lands. She avoided answering questions on whether she will support and enforce Federal reserved water rights for wilderness areas or endangered species. In the final analysis, Gale Norton's actions on these and other issues as Secretary of the Interior will ultimately speak louder than any statements made during her confirmation hearing. While I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, I know that other Senators--and some who will speak here--still have reservations about whether she will be able to set aside her past policy positions and be a strong advocate for protecting the critical Federal resources under her domain. But, based on the assurances she gave our committee, I will support her confirmation. I expect her to honor the commitments she has made to me and to other Senators to justify the trust that the Senate is going to place in her when she is confirmed tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board recently completed a review of the Department of Energy's (DOE) nonproliferation programs with Russia and released a report card assessing the contributions and needs of those programs. Two renowned Americans, former Senator Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler, served as co- chairmen of a bipartisan task force comprised of technical experts, respected academicians and distinguished Congressmen and Senators from both political parties representing both chambers of the Congress. My colleagues will be interested to know that former Senators on the task force included Senators Baker, Boren, Hart, McClure, Nunn, and Simpson. Former House Members included Representatives Derrick, Hamilton, and Skaggs. In short, this task force brought together an experienced bipartisan group of esteemed experts whose views are well respected to examine the status of DOE's nonproliferation programs with Russia. The report they have produced should be required reading for everyone concerned about what the nation needs to do to meet our most important national security requirements. No one could question that the greatest risks of proliferating weapons and materials of mass destruction (WMD) come from the massive WMD infrastructure left behind when the Soviet Union dissolved. Experts estimate that the former Soviet Union produced more than 40,000 nuclear weapons and left behind a huge legacy of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium---enough to build as many or more than 40,000 additional nuclear weapons. We are just now beginning to comprehend the vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons produced in the former Soviet Union. We have learned much about the stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical materials that still exist in today's Russia. We have a fuller understanding of the extensive industrial infrastructure in Russia which is still capable of conducting research and producing such weapons. We are anxiously aware of the thousands of experienced Russian scientists and technicians who worked in that complex, many of whom are in need of a stable income. Those huge numbers assume frightening implications when one considers that two years ago, conspirators at a Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy facility were caught trying to steal nuclear materials almost sufficient to build a nuclear weapon. At the same time, the mayor of Krasnoyarsk, a closed ``nuclear city'' in the Russian nuclear weapons complex, warned that a popular uprising was unavoidable in his city since nuclear scientists and other workers had not been paid for many months and that basic medical supplies were not available to serve the population. In December, 1998, Russian authorities arrested an employee at Russia's premier nuclear weapons laboratory in Sarov for espionage and charged him with attempting to sell nuclear weapon design information to agents from Iraq and Afghanistan. I am certain that many of my colleagues in the Senate have heard the stories regarding attempted smuggling of radioactive materials by Russian Navy personnel aboard their decaying submarine fleet. There are numerous other incidents that bring the Russian proliferation threat from incomprehensible quantities to real life threats of massive destruction. In reviewing those threats and the various DOE programs underway to meet those dangers, the task force drew several major conclusions and recommendations on how we should proceed to reduce and ultimately eliminate the proliferation threats posed by Russia. Mr. President and colleagues of the Senate, let me cite those findings and recommendations for you. The task force found that 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 and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home.'' They noted that ``current nonproliferation programs in the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense (DoD), and related agencies have achieved impressive results (in supporting nonproliferation objectives) . . ., but their limited mandate and function fall short of what is required to address adequately the threat.'' The task force calls for the new Administration and the 107th Congress to increase our efforts to meet the proliferation threat, the dimensions of which we are only beginning to fully understand. In so doing, the report recommends that we undertake a net assessment of the threat, develop a strategy to meet it using specific goals and measurable objectives, establish a centralized command of our financial and human resources needed to do the job, and identify criteria for measuring the benefits to the United States of expanded nonproliferation programs. In particular, the task force urges the President in consultation with the Congress and in cooperation with the Russian Federation to quickly formulate a strategic plan to prevent the outflow of Russian nuclear weapons scientific expertise and to secure or neutralize all nuclear weapons-usable material in Russia during the next eight to ten year period. The task force estimates that it would take less than one percent of the U.S. defense budget or less than $30 billion over the next decade to do the job. In short there is no more cost effective way to achieve our own national security goals than by investing in the DOE and DoD nonproliferation programs being conducted in cooperation with Russia. I urge the President, members of his administration, and my colleagues in the Senate to understand the importance of these programs to the nation. As we proceed in the uncharted waters of relations between the United States and Russia in the coming months and years, I hope we will be mindful of the central importance of these programs to our national security and to their great significance to cooperative relationships between our countries. I urge all of you to read this report carefully and support its recommendations during the forthcoming legislative cycle.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill for consideration in the context of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Earlier this week, I introduced my accountability bill designed to ensure that the taxpayers' investment in education is adequately protected and that the finest education is provided to our children by attaching performance-based accountability to the federal education programs encompassed in the ESEA. I believe the issue of accountability for results will be at the center of our debate this year so I introduced and spoke about that bill separately. Nevertheless, I believe that our efforts to ensure that schools are accountable for the education of our children requires that we provide resources to schools so that they can make full use of available teaching tools. Training teachers to use technology in their classrooms is a high priority in this regard if we are to help our children become full and active members of the global community. The bill I am introducing today addresses that priority. I am pleased that my colleagues Senator Cochran and Senator Rockefeller have joined me in cosponsoring this bill that I believe will generate bipartisan support. Educational technology can enlarge the classroom environment in ways that were unimaginable only a decade ago and can empower students to develop independent thinking and problem solving skills. The Technology for Teachers Act is designed to address the need to provide teachers with the skills to use this valuable resource in the classroom. Experts urge us to increase our investment in training teachers to use technology in the classroom and point out that at least 30 percent of our technology budget should be used for this purpose. Yet few of the nation's teachers have had more than one or two courses in educational technology, and those courses are usually designed as an add-on to other methods courses instead of being well-integrated into their teacher preparation program. The Training for Technology Act would provide grants to consortia of higher education institutions and public school districts so that they can integrate technology into their teacher training programs at the pre-service level. In addition, the bill requires recipients of Technology Literacy Challenge grants--an existing program which I sponsored in the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA--to demonstrate that they are using at lest 30% of their technology funding on in-service training in the use of technology. In order to ensure that our children are well-prepared to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and challenging world, it is critical to address improving our Nation's schools with a comprehensive effort. The bills I have introduced are designed to build on the progress we have made in the past few years to raise standards and increase accountability in America's schools. This bill seeks to provide educators with the resources to meet these increased demands. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider supporting passage of this bill. I ask unanimous consent to have the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, Alan Cranston was here in the Senate when I first arrived in 1983. He was a staunch advocate not only for California but also for a host of progressive policies at the national level. He was dedicated to protecting the environment, to expanding voter opportunities for all Americans, to closing the gap in our society between the rich and the poor. He was a champion of equal rights for all. He was a foe of bigotry in all its forms. Perhaps his greatest passion during the years he served in the Senate was reducing the threat of nuclear war. He led the fight for arms control. Even after he left the Senate, he continued his work and spoke out for arms control and for the de-alerting of nuclear weapons. I remember meeting with Alan last year at Ricky's Hyatt House in Mountainview, CA. I was in the Bay area, and I called ahead to see if he was available for breakfast. He said it was near his home and that he would meet me there. He was a little less vigorous during that breakfast than he had been in earlier visits, but his commitment to arms reduction was undiminished. I remember thinking at the time how impressive it was to see someone who felt strongly enough about his views to find a way to continue advocacy of those views after leaving public office. It was clear that although he had left public office, he had not left public service. Alan Cranston lived a remarkable life, and we are all fortunate that he devoted so much of that life to public service. I, for one, will miss Alan's wise counsel and his passionate commitment to making the world a better place. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I want to say a few words about our former colleague, Senator Alan Cranston. I ask unanimous consent that following my statement, Senator Dorgan be recognized to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill for consideration in the context of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Earlier this week, I introduced my accountability bill designed to ensure that the taxpayers' investment in education is adequately protected and that the finest education is provided to our children by attaching performance-based accountability to the federal education programs encompassed in the ESEA. I believe the issue of accountability for results will be at the center of our debate this year so I introduced and spoke about that bill separately. Nevertheless, I believe that our efforts to ensure that schools are accountable for the education of our children requires that we provide resources to schools so that they can make full use of available teaching tools. Training teachers to use technology in their classrooms is a high priority in this regard if we are to help our children become full and active members of the global community. The bill I am introducing today addresses that priority. I am pleased that my colleagues Senator Cochran and Senator Rockefeller have joined me in cosponsoring this bill that I believe will generate bipartisan support. Educational technology can enlarge the classroom environment in ways that were unimaginable only a decade ago and can empower students to develop independent thinking and problem solving skills. The Technology for Teachers Act is designed to address the need to provide teachers with the skills to use this valuable resource in the classroom. Experts urge us to increase our investment in training teachers to use technology in the classroom and point out that at least 30 percent of our technology budget should be used for this purpose. Yet few of the nation's teachers have had more than one or two courses in educational technology, and those courses are usually designed as an add-on to other methods courses instead of being well-integrated into their teacher preparation program. The Training for Technology Act would provide grants to consortia of higher education institutions and public school districts so that they can integrate technology into their teacher training programs at the pre-service level. In addition, the bill requires recipients of Technology Literacy Challenge grants--an existing program which I sponsored in the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA--to demonstrate that they are using at lest 30% of their technology funding on in-service training in the use of technology. In order to ensure that our children are well-prepared to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and challenging world, it is critical to address improving our Nation's schools with a comprehensive effort. The bills I have introduced are designed to build on the progress we have made in the past few years to raise standards and increase accountability in America's schools. This bill seeks to provide educators with the resources to meet these increased demands. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider supporting passage of this bill. I ask unanimous consent to have the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I put forward last year to remove the inequity that continues to exist in retirement pay benefits for critical personnel, referred to as ``Dual Status Technicians,'' who serve in our National Guard and Reserve. The Senate approved my proposed legislation last year by including it in the FY 2001 Defense Authorization bill. This year, I urge my colleagues in the Senate and House to join with me to see that this important initiative is enacted into law. There are about 40,000 Dual Status Technicians covered by retirement requirements and restrictions contained in Title 32 of the United States Code. The designation ``Dual Status'', Mr. President, refers to the fact that these technicians serve the government simultaneously both as military and civilian employees. These men and women are the backbone of our National Guard and Reserve structure. They are the mechanics, pilots engineers, equipment operators, supply and support technicians who keep things running so that the Guard is able to respond to natural disasters and national emergencies, as well as serve on active duty in accordance with the ``total force concept'' that integrates active and reserve forces in the military. These hardworking men and women are often the first called to duty in an emergency. They played on essential role, for example, in the major firefighting efforts that took place in New Mexican and throughout western states last summer. As essential as Dual Status Technicians are, they suffer from the worst of two employment worlds. These technicians are by statute both military and civilian employees. Guard technicians must maintain their military job and grade in order to keep their technician status and remain a federal employee. In the event of separation from military service, however, under existing law they are denied the retirement benefit options extended to those who serve in the same grade and time in service in the active military. Frequently, Dual Status Technicians who are separated from the Guard and Reserve must wait years to qualify to receive their Federal Service retirement benefits. The bill I am introducing in the Senate today corresponds to a companion bill being introduced on the House side by Representative Abercrombie. It seeks to eliminate retirement inequities--a problem we just addressed head on in the Armed Services Committee when we include a provision in the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Bill eliminating retirement inequities between active duty personnel who retire before or after 1986. We voted by that provision to effectively eliminate the ``Redux'' retirement benefit program because of the lower benefits it offered to personnel who retired after 1986. The action I am proposing in this legislation is similar. The bill will permit Dual Status Technicians to retire at any age with 25 years of service or at age 50 with 20 years of service. Those criteria reflect benefit options now extended to Federal police and fire employees. They also replicate those offered to federal employees who retire from the Congress. Last year, I was pleased to see, Mr. President, that the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Act took a step to extend more equitable retirement benefits to Dual Status Technicians. In doing so, however, the Congress created an inequity within the Technician community itself. A provision in that Act authorized early retirement after 25 years at any age, or at age 50 with 20 years of service--but only for those employed as Dual Status Technicians after 1996. Those same benefits are withheld from those employed before 1996. In other words, Mr. President, we created a situation similar to the one the Senate dealt with regarding the ``Redux'' retirement program in the FY 2001 Defense Authorization Act. The bill I offer today would remove that inequity in the same way the Congress voted to remove the inequity for active duty personnel who retired under the ``Redux'' program. Mr. President, the cost of achieving retirement equity for Dual Status Technicians would not be high. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that this bill could cost about $74 million over a five year period. That estimate may be on the high side, I believe, since it is based on the assumption that nearly all technicians eligible for retirement under those criteria would choose to do so. The actual number who would choose to retire would vary, of course, depending on individual circumstances. It is important to note, Mr. President, that we're not only providing for equity here. We're authorizing appropriate compensation, well deserved, to the men and women who have devoted their careers to service for the nation both at home and abroad--the men and women of our National Guard and Reserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and urge my fellow members to support this effort through cosponsorship. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that I first introduced in 1999. This bill will establish much needed accountability for our education system so that the taxpayers' investment in education is adequately protected and our children receive the best possible education. I am pleased to offer this bipartisan bill on behalf of myself and my colleague Senator Lugar. The provisions of this bill are also included in S. 7, introduced yesterday by Senator Daschle and 18 other senators. I think that we can all agree that greater accountability in our public schools is an imperative. I am encouraged that President Bush and our new Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, have both expressed a strong commitment to increased accountability and have implemented strong school accountability standards in Texas. I understand accountability is a central piece of the administration's proposal being released today. In 1994, we made some important changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We created an accountability system for the program receiving most of the ESEA funds--the program, for disadvantaged students called the Title I program. This accountability framework--along with the Goals 2000 program--have driven the standards-based reform efforts across the nation. During the last 5 years, however, experience in many States has demonstrated that we must do more. At this point, only 11 states have fully approved assessment systems in place as required under Title I. The federal government has succeeded in targeting funds on those most in need better than any state or local government. And over the last three decades we have had success--albeit only partial success--in closing the achievement gap between economically disadvantaged students and their peers. Our bill builds on the existing strengths of the accountability structure in the current Title I programs and also establishes accountability for teacher quality and other federal education programs encompassed in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In particular, our bill (1) establishes aggressive but achievable performance objectives for all students linked to each state's own standards and assessments; (2) directs resources to the students and objectives most in need and (3) provides maximum flexibility for educators in devising strategies that meet our shared goals, but ultimately having real consequences and sanctions for states, districts, and schools that do not meet agreed-upon performance objectives for student achievement. Through amendments to Title I and Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, our bill establishes aggressive but achievable performance objectives for all students. We require rigorous statewide accountability systems based on each state's standards and assessments holding states, districts, and schools accountable for real achievement progress for all students, by requiring states, districts and schools to set specific, numerical goals for improvement which will ensure that all students will be proficient on state standards within 10 years. We also require public reporting of not just the results of the assessment but also the number of students excluded from assessments. Most importantly, Mr. President, this bill demands results for all students, by no longer tolerating existing achievement gaps between minority and non-minority students, poor and non-poor students, and LEP and English-speaking students. The achievement gap between low-income students and their more advantaged peers has narrowed significantly from 1970 until the mid-1980's. This was a central goal of the Title I program and its success in this regard is underrated. But we have not done enough to accelerate those results. Accountability systems that depend upon average student achievement data--data in the aggregate--will not close the achievement gaps that separate low-income students from more affluent students or minority students from white students. For example, in my home State of New Mexico, in 1994 4th grade reading data show that an average of 21 percent of the 4th graders in my state were reading at the proficient level. This is distressing enough, but the disaggregated data tells an even more depressing story. In New Mexico only 11 percent of the African American 4th graders and just 15 percent of the Latino 4th graders were reading at the proficient level. The 1996 4th grade NAEP data show that 13 percent of all students in New Mexico were proficient in math while only 3 percent of African American students and 6 percent of Latino students were proficient. The fact that these students are in the minority means that their performance data is swamped by data of the majority when an accountability system that depends on averages is used. To remedy this--to close the gaps and to make good on the promises of Title I--our bill would demand that states use disaggregated data and goals to hold schools and school districts accountable for the use of Title I funds. Mr. President, recognizing that increased accountability and increased results will not be easy to accomplish, our bill also directs additional resources to the students and objectives most in need. First, our bill would set aside a pot of funds (3 percent of Title I funds--about $250 million at current funding levels--and 5 percent after three years) for school improvement. 80 percent of these funds would be sent to the local level to support efforts to turn around failing schools. Schools can use these funds to implement research- based comprehensive school reform programs. An example of a comprehensive school reform model used widely in my State and throughout the nation with great results is Success for All. This program is a proven early grade reading program, which if implemented properly can ensure results. At the end of the first grade, Success for All schools have average reading scores almost three months ahead of those in matching control schools, and by the end of the 5th grade, students read more than one year ahead of control peers. The program can reduce the need for special education placements by more than 50 percent and virtually eliminate retention. Our bill provides new funding of $500 million per year to states and school districts to implement comprehensive, research-based school reform programs, such as Success for All, that have proven effectiveness. Second, the state may use the remaining State funds to provide assistance to districts and schools as they implement their accountability system and develop school improvement plans. Finally, we also support an increased authorization level for Title I--$15 billion--and will continue to fight for substantial increases in the appropriations process. Mr. President, the bill does not provide additional resources without asking for something in return. The bill would ensure that if states, districts or schools fail to demonstrate returns on the federal investment through increased student performance, real consequences and sanctions will result. On the school and district level, if grant recipients do not meet required performance standards, changes in the governance structure of the school or district must be implemented; and students must be allowed to transfer to higher performing schools. The states and districts must provide the necessary resources for transportation with state and local funds; state administrative funds will be withheld; and Title VI funding (current block grant program) will be reduced and States will be ineligible for the Ed-Flex program. This bill also would establish aggressive but achievable performance objectives to ensure that every class has a qualified teacher. Our bill does this by first, requiring states receiving federal funds to ensure that all teachers are fully qualified by December 2005; second, requiring states and districts receiving federal teacher quality funds to set specific numerical performance goals and targets for reducing the number of unqualified and out-of-field teachers; and third, ensuring that low income and minority students are not taught by unqualified teachers at higher rates than other students. The bill would ensure that resources are directed to these objectives first, by ensuring that federal funds are not used to hire unqualified teachers and second, by ensuring that resources are provided for, and school improvement plans incorporate, high-quality, research-based professional development for instructional staff. Again, in exchange for increased resources, our bill would provide consequences for failing to meet performance objectives. States failing to meet their performance objectives would lose State administrative funding. Districts and schools failing to meet performance objectives would be ineligible for continuing grants. This bill also ensures that the other Federal Education Programs in the ESEA incorporate performance-based accountability measures by: First, requiring that all plans submitted with grant applications incorporate performance-based objectives for increased student performance or other relevant program objectives. Second, providing additional funding through the Title VI block grant program in the ESEA to achieve performance-based objectives. Third, providing consequences for failing to meet performance-based objectives, including ineligibility for continuing grants in the case of competitive programs and in the case of formula programs, reductions in administrative funds and Title VI, and fourth, mandating that states failing to meet goals would also be ineligible for flexible funding programs in current law (``Ed Flex''). In addition, this bill recognizes the critical role played by parents in improving performance and ensuring accountability. The bill provides parents the right to know their child's teachers' qualifications; it requires that parents be notified when their child's school is failing; it requires school improvement plans be published and parents be included in their development; and it requires school report cards to inform parents about the quality of their schools and their programs in meeting student achievement goals. Finally, our bill authorizes $200 million dollars for States to reward high performing schools and districts so that these schools and districts are recognized and encouraged to strive for high performance. Mr. President, our bill would use an output-based rather than an input-based system of accountability for the various programs authorized by this bill. A shift that my colleagues on the both sides of the aisle have repeatedly endorsed. Indeed, Both President Bush and Secretary Paige have expressed support for the measures incorporated in this bill and implemented many of them with some success in Texas. Both have endorsed closing the achievement gap at the school level with real consequences for failure--the key component for accountability under Title I. They have indicated support for report cards, a rewards program for successful schools, and using performance-based accountability for all education programs. At his confirmation hearing, Secretary Paige also endorsed providing additional resources to struggling schools to help them turn around before corrective actions are taken. So I am very hopeful that this will be a bill that receives strong bipartisan support and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on it. In conclusion, Mr. President, many schools that educate hard-to-serve students have shown success by setting high standards for staff and students and mobilizing educators and the community around a clear set of educational goals. In fact, there are successful schools all over the country, in every type of community, that are living proof that all children have the ability to achieve beyond our wildest expectations, no matter what their economic or social background. Success is not yet the rule in all of our schools. Our job, in this Congress, is to support parents and educators in every community as they apply these lessons and leverage federal funds so that they create change in areas where success continues to lag. We know what works. Now we must dedicate the resources needed to apply what works and hold the system accountable for real results. Again. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Lugar, for his cosponsorship of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in deference to the other people who are here and waiting, I will certainly wait until they conclude their statements.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise first to speak about one of the critical pieces of education legislation that the Congress is scheduled to consider this year. I believe we have wide agreement, now, on the need to increase school accountability, with new systems that will put real teeth into improving school performance for all students, and school districts, and for each State. I have spoken for several years, now, about the need to improve school accountability. I introduced school accountability legislation in 1999. President Bush has spoken frequently about it. His new Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, whom we confirmed on Saturday, has spoken about its importance. I believe there is strong support from those colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, on the HELP committee. The provisions that we developed this last year to ensure accountability are included in S. 7, which Senator Daschle introduced yesterday. In addition, I am introducing later today a bipartisan bill which contains those same accountability provisions. I am very pleased that my colleague and friend, Senator Lugar from Indiana, has joined me as a cosponsor of that bill. This will be a bipartisan effort which will demonstrate the bipartisan nature of these proposals. These accountability provisions demand results of all students so the existing achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, between poor and wealthier students, between limited English and English-speaking students, are eliminated and they are eliminated at the individual school level, at the school district level, and at the State level. Mr. President, I do believe there is now widespread consensus on the need for rigorous school accountability in key areas that are addressed in this bill that Senator Lugar and I are introducing. The bill establishes aggressive performance objectives for all students that are linked to each school's standards and assessments. It directs resources to the students and objectives most in need. It provides for significant consequences for failure so that States and school districts must take full responsibility for turning around those schools that have chronically failed to adequately educate the students in the schools. Our bill provides maximum flexibility for educators to develop strategies to meet the basic goals of school improvement, and it ensures that every class have a fully qualified teacher. The bill provides an expanded role for parents. Finally, the bill provides new funding for school improvement strategies that have been proven to work. These are strategies such as the Success for All Program, which Senator Lugar and I strongly support. I am very pleased that school accountability is finally getting the attention it deserves in Congress from both sides of the aisle. With widespread agreement now on the need for strong school accountability legislation--and sanctions for schools that do not live up to basic standards--I am very optimistic that this Congress can move quickly to develop a consensus package. I believe this bipartisan bill I referred to can serve as a starting point for working with the White House and with all colleagues on this vital area of meeting the needs of our schoolchildren. Mr. President, I yield the floor, but I indicate I do want to speak as in morning business at some time after the majority leader speaks to pay tribute to our former colleague, Senator Cranston.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr President, today I am pleased to introduce a package of bills related to education for consideration in the context of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (``ESEA''). I believe the issue of accountability for results will be at the center of our debate this year so I will introduce and speak about that bill separately. Nevertheless, I believe that we need to increase our investment in education while increasing our expectations for results from our schools. In that context, we should be sure to target that investment on problems with national implications and strategies and programs that we know work. At this time, I am introducing three bills that I believe meet that criteria: The Quality Teachers for All Act, The National Dropout Prevention Act and the Access to High Standards Act. All of these bills provide support for efforts on the local level to raise standards for our schools, our teachers and our students. Improving teacher quality continues to be one of my top priorities in the Senate because research indicates that teacher quality is one of the most important factors in student achievement. The Quality Teachers for All Act addresses the fact that, although the vast majority of our teacher's are dedicated, professional and competent, far too many schools in America allow classrooms to be lead by teachers with insufficient training and qualifications. Unfortunately, it is the schools and classrooms with the neediest children who have the largest number of unqualified teachers. While we are demanding increased levels of performance for our schools and our children, we must also set high standards for all our teachers, including those who instruct student who must overcome the greatest barriers to learning. The Quality Teachers for All Act requires that all teachers in schools that receive Title 1 funds be fully qualified. This means that they possess necessary teaching skills and demonstrate mastery in the subjects that they teach. It provides that an elementary school teacher must have state certification, hold a bachelor's degree and demonstrate subject matter knowledge, teaching knowledge and teaching skills required to teach effectively in reading, writing, mathematics, social studies, science and other elements of a liberal arts education. Middle and secondary school teachers must have state certification, hold a bachelor's degree, and demonstrate competence in all subject areas that they teach. This demonstration of competence may be achieved by a high level of performance on a rigorous academic subject area test, completion of an academic major (or an equal number of courses). The bill ensures that low income students are not disproportionately impacted by low teaching standards by requiring that teachers in high poverty schools be at least as well-qualified, in terms of experience and credentials as the instructional staff in schools served by the same local educational agency that are not high poverty schools. In order to help states and LEAs meet these requirements, the bill will provide grants to assist states and LEAs in providing the necessary education or training for individuals who are teaching without full qualifications. In addition, recognizing that some communities have difficulty attracting qualified teachers, the bill allows funds to be used to provide financial incentives (i.e., signing bonuses) for fully qualified teachers. In addition, the bill supports efforts to recruit new teachers by providing allowing funds to be used to develop alternative means of certification for highly qualified individuals with college degrees wishing to teach, including mid-career professionals and former military personnel. The bill also authorizes funds to support State efforts to increase the portability of teacher's pensions, certification and years of experience so that teachers have greater mobility and school districts can fill vacant teaching positions with teachers who are fully-qualified. The funds may also be used for programs of support for new teachers to ensure that they are more likely to remain in the nation's teaching force. In order to make parents our partners in our efforts to raise teaching standards, this bill requires districts and schools to provide parents with information about the qualifications of their child's teacher. These provisions build on legislation I authored that became part of the Higher Education Act of 1998 requiring a national report card on teacher training programs. The parental right to know provision in the Quality Teachers for All Act will empower parents by informing them of the strengths and weaknesses of their children's teachers, helping them to support the push for fully-qualified teachers in every classroom. The National Dropout Prevention Act is a bill designed to reduce the dropout rate in our nation's schools through the use and dissemination of effective dropout prevention programs. While much progress has been made in encouraging all student to complete high school, the nation remains far from its goal of a 90 percent graduation rate for students, a goal that was to be attained in the year 2000. In fact, none of the states with large and diverse populations have yet come close to this goal and dropout rates approaching 50 percent between ninth grade and the senior year are commonplace in some of the most disadvantaged of our nation's communities. This bill is based on many of the findings of the National Hispanic Dropout Project, a group of nationally recognized experts assembled in 1996-97 to help find ways of reducing the high dropout rates among Hispanic and other at-risk students. The group pointed out that there are widespread misconceptions about why so many student drop out of school and that there is little familiarity with proven drop out prevention programs. Most problematic is the fact that there is currently no concerted federal effort to provide or coordinate effective and proven dropout prevention programs or oversee the multitude of programs that include dropout prevention as a component. The Act makes lowering the dropout rate a national priority. A national clearinghouse on effective school drop out prevention, intervention and reentry programs would be created and efforts to prevent students from dropping out would be identified and disseminated. The bill provides support and recognition for schools engaged in effective dropout prevention efforts. In addition, this bill provides funds to pay the startup and implementation costs of effective, sustainable, coordinated and whole school dropout prevention programs. Funds can be used to implement comprehensive school wide reforms, create alternative school programs or create smaller learning communities. In addition, grant recipients could contract with community-based organizations to assist them in implementing necessary services. The Access to High Standards Act is intended to help foster the continued growth of advanced placement programs throughout the nation and to help ensure equal access to these programs for low income students. Advanced placement programs already provide rigorous academics and valuable college credits at half the high schools in the United states, serving over 1.5 million students last year. Many states that have advanced placement incentive programs have already had tremendous success in increasing participation rates, raising achievement and increasing the involvement of low-income and under served students. Nevertheless, students, especially low-income students, continue to be denied or have limited access to this important educational resource. Over forty percent of our nation's public schools still do not offer any Advanced Placement courses. As many of my colleagues know, college costs have risen many times faster than inflation over the last decade, making it difficult for many students to afford the high costs of obtaining a college education. Advanced placement programs address this issue by giving students an opportunity to earn college credit in high school by preparing for and passing AP exams. In fact, a single AP English test score of 3 or better is worth approximately $500 in tuition at the University of New Mexico and the credits granted to AP students nationwide are worth billions of dollars in savings each year. By promoting AP courses, we also address the need to raise academic standards. AP courses provide schools with high academic standards and standardized achievement measures. Participating in AP courses helps student prepare for college as they serve to connect curriculum between high school and post secondary institutions. And, because the vast majority of AP teachers teach several non-AP courses as well, AP programs have the effect of raising school wide standards and achievement. Of course, there is no single remedy or federal program that can hope to address all of the issues that public education must face in order to improve the achievement of our students. However, I believe that high college costs and low academic standards deserve our close attention and I am confident that expansion of advanced placement programs will help states address these issues effectively. In order to ensure that our children are well-prepared to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and challenging world, it is critical to address improving our nation's school with a comprehensive effort. The bills I introduce today are designed to build on the progress we have made in the past few years to raise standards and increase accountability in America's schools. I ask unanimous consent to have the bills printed in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider supporting passage of these bills.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce a bill authorizing the Secretary of Energy to provide for a long term commitment in its Office of Science to the area of nanoscience and nanoengineering. This new area is of fundamental importance for maintaining our global economic leadership in energy technology as well in areas such as microchip design, space and transportation, medicines and biomedical devices. The fields of nanoscience and nanoengineering as so new and broad in their reach that no one industry can support them. They are a perfect example how we in Congress can make a difference to support our nation's technological leadership, a key element of the 21st century global economy. The fields of nanoscience and engineering encompass the ability to create new states of matter by prepositioning the atoms that make up their structure. The physical features that nanoscale R&D will develop are on the order of about 10 nanometers or 1000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. What we are talking about is making materials and devices not be miniaturization, which is a top down approach. Nanoscience is the bottom up fabrication of materials, atom by atom. When you build materials at this level, amazing things begin to happen. We are talking about microchips whose features will shrink by a factor of 100 below where industry projects they will be in the year 2010. These chip features will lead to radical breakthroughs in speed, cost and density of information storage. In the field of medicine and health, we are talking about drugs whose routes of delivery are literally at the molecular level. It will be possible to custom build proteins and other biological materials for future biomedical devices. In the field of energy efficiency, batteries and fuel cells can be built with storage capacities far exceeding our current state of the art. In the transportation industry, it will be possible to make ultra strong and light materials reducing the weight in airplanes, cars and space vehicles. All these breakthroughs in the diverse industries I have discussed will keep the United States' as a global leader in the 21st century economy. The Department of Energy and its Office of Science are uniquely suited to support this critical research. The Office of Science has been at the forefront of conducting nanotechnology research for the past decade through its broad array of materials, physics, chemistry and biology programs. This authorization bill will carry forth four broad objectives of the Office of Science's existing nanotechnology effort, (1) attain a fundamental understanding of nanoscale phenomena, (2) achieve the ability to design bulk materials with desired properties using nanoscale manipulation, (3) study how living organisms produce materials naturally by arranging their atomic structure and implement it into the design process for nanomaterials, (4) develop experimental and computer tools with a national infrastructure to carry out nanoscience. Let me briefly comment on the fourth area in this list. The Office of Science is the nation's leader in developing and managing national user facilities across the broad range of physical sciences. It would be a natural progression for the Office of Science to develop similar user facilities to advance nanoscience. These facilities, located across the United States, will contain unique equipment and computers which will be accessible to individuals as well as multi-disciplinary teams. In the past, Office of Science national user facilities have served as crossing points between the transition from fundamental science to industrial capability. I expect that these nanoscience user facilities will serve as a similar transition point from long term fundamental research into applied industrial know-how. Accordingly, in this authorization bill I have allotted portions of the yearly budget towards developing these unique user facilities. This bill is an important first step in a combined national nanoscience effort which will help to maintain the technological edge of our U.S. industry. I encourage my House colleagues in the Science Committee to also consider this bill with the possibility of joint hearings so that we may be enlightened on nanoscience's full potential. I also hope that the other federal R&D agencies will make similar commitments in their areas of expertise. Maintaining this edge, by promoting these long term and high risk investigations is something which we cannot expect in the short time frame world of today's industry. It is critical that our U.S. government step into this void, particularly in the area of nanoscience, and provide the necessary intellectual capital to propel our national economy as a leader in the 21st century.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr President, today I am pleased to introduce a package of bills related to education for consideration in the context of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (``ESEA''). I believe the issue of accountability for results will be at the center of our debate this year so I will introduce and speak about that bill separately. Nevertheless, I believe that we need to increase our investment in education while increasing our expectations for results from our schools. In that context, we should be sure to target that investment on problems with national implications and strategies and programs that we know work. At this time, I am introducing three bills that I believe meet that criteria: The Quality Teachers for All Act, The National Dropout Prevention Act and the Access to High Standards Act. All of these bills provide support for efforts on the local level to raise standards for our schools, our teachers and our students. Improving teacher quality continues to be one of my top priorities in the Senate because research indicates that teacher quality is one of the most important factors in student achievement. The Quality Teachers for All Act addresses the fact that, although the vast majority of our teacher's are dedicated, professional and competent, far too many schools in America allow classrooms to be lead by teachers with insufficient training and qualifications. Unfortunately, it is the schools and classrooms with the neediest children who have the largest number of unqualified teachers. While we are demanding increased levels of performance for our schools and our children, we must also set high standards for all our teachers, including those who instruct student who must overcome the greatest barriers to learning. The Quality Teachers for All Act requires that all teachers in schools that receive Title 1 funds be fully qualified. This means that they possess necessary teaching skills and demonstrate mastery in the subjects that they teach. It provides that an elementary school teacher must have state certification, hold a bachelor's degree and demonstrate subject matter knowledge, teaching knowledge and teaching skills required to teach effectively in reading, writing, mathematics, social studies, science and other elements of a liberal arts education. Middle and secondary school teachers must have state certification, hold a bachelor's degree, and demonstrate competence in all subject areas that they teach. This demonstration of competence may be achieved by a high level of performance on a rigorous academic subject area test, completion of an academic major (or an equal number of courses). The bill ensures that low income students are not disproportionately impacted by low teaching standards by requiring that teachers in high poverty schools be at least as well-qualified, in terms of experience and credentials as the instructional staff in schools served by the same local educational agency that are not high poverty schools. In order to help states and LEAs meet these requirements, the bill will provide grants to assist states and LEAs in providing the necessary education or training for individuals who are teaching without full qualifications. In addition, recognizing that some communities have difficulty attracting qualified teachers, the bill allows funds to be used to provide financial incentives (i.e., signing bonuses) for fully qualified teachers. In addition, the bill supports efforts to recruit new teachers by providing allowing funds to be used to develop alternative means of certification for highly qualified individuals with college degrees wishing to teach, including mid-career professionals and former military personnel. The bill also authorizes funds to support State efforts to increase the portability of teacher's pensions, certification and years of experience so that teachers have greater mobility and school districts can fill vacant teaching positions with teachers who are fully-qualified. The funds may also be used for programs of support for new teachers to ensure that they are more likely to remain in the nation's teaching force. In order to make parents our partners in our efforts to raise teaching standards, this bill requires districts and schools to provide parents with information about the qualifications of their child's teacher. These provisions build on legislation I authored that became part of the Higher Education Act of 1998 requiring a national report card on teacher training programs. The parental right to know provision in the Quality Teachers for All Act will empower parents by informing them of the strengths and weaknesses of their children's teachers, helping them to support the push for fully-qualified teachers in every classroom. The National Dropout Prevention Act is a bill designed to reduce the dropout rate in our nation's schools through the use and dissemination of effective dropout prevention programs. While much progress has been made in encouraging all student to complete high school, the nation remains far from its goal of a 90 percent graduation rate for students, a goal that was to be attained in the year 2000. In fact, none of the states with large and diverse populations have yet come close to this goal and dropout rates approaching 50 percent between ninth grade and the senior year are commonplace in some of the most disadvantaged of our nation's communities. This bill is based on many of the findings of the National Hispanic Dropout Project, a group of nationally recognized experts assembled in 1996-97 to help find ways of reducing the high dropout rates among Hispanic and other at-risk students. The group pointed out that there are widespread misconceptions about why so many student drop out of school and that there is little familiarity with proven drop out prevention programs. Most problematic is the fact that there is currently no concerted federal effort to provide or coordinate effective and proven dropout prevention programs or oversee the multitude of programs that include dropout prevention as a component. The Act makes lowering the dropout rate a national priority. A national clearinghouse on effective school drop out prevention, intervention and reentry programs would be created and efforts to prevent students from dropping out would be identified and disseminated. The bill provides support and recognition for schools engaged in effective dropout prevention efforts. In addition, this bill provides funds to pay the startup and implementation costs of effective, sustainable, coordinated and whole school dropout prevention programs. Funds can be used to implement comprehensive school wide reforms, create alternative school programs or create smaller learning communities. In addition, grant recipients could contract with community-based organizations to assist them in implementing necessary services. The Access to High Standards Act is intended to help foster the continued growth of advanced placement programs throughout the nation and to help ensure equal access to these programs for low income students. Advanced placement programs already provide rigorous academics and valuable college credits at half the high schools in the United states, serving over 1.5 million students last year. Many states that have advanced placement incentive programs have already had tremendous success in increasing participation rates, raising achievement and increasing the involvement of low-income and under served students. Nevertheless, students, especially low-income students, continue to be denied or have limited access to this important educational resource. Over forty percent of our nation's public schools still do not offer any Advanced Placement courses. As many of my colleagues know, college costs have risen many times faster than inflation over the last decade, making it difficult for many students to afford the high costs of obtaining a college education. Advanced placement programs address this issue by giving students an opportunity to earn college credit in high school by preparing for and passing AP exams. In fact, a single AP English test score of 3 or better is worth approximately $500 in tuition at the University of New Mexico and the credits granted to AP students nationwide are worth billions of dollars in savings each year. By promoting AP courses, we also address the need to raise academic standards. AP courses provide schools with high academic standards and standardized achievement measures. Participating in AP courses helps student prepare for college as they serve to connect curriculum between high school and post secondary institutions. And, because the vast majority of AP teachers teach several non-AP courses as well, AP programs have the effect of raising school wide standards and achievement. Of course, there is no single remedy or federal program that can hope to address all of the issues that public education must face in order to improve the achievement of our students. However, I believe that high college costs and low academic standards deserve our close attention and I am confident that expansion of advanced placement programs will help states address these issues effectively. In order to ensure that our children are well-prepared to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and challenging world, it is critical to address improving our nation's school with a comprehensive effort. The bills I introduce today are designed to build on the progress we have made in the past few years to raise standards and increase accountability in America's schools. I ask unanimous consent to have the bills printed in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider supporting passage of these bills.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce a bill authorizing the Secretary of Energy to provide for a long term commitment in its Office of Science to the area of nanoscience and nanoengineering. This new area is of fundamental importance for maintaining our global economic leadership in energy technology as well in areas such as microchip design, space and transportation, medicines and biomedical devices. The fields of nanoscience and nanoengineering as so new and broad in their reach that no one industry can support them. They are a perfect example how we in Congress can make a difference to support our nation's technological leadership, a key element of the 21st century global economy. The fields of nanoscience and engineering encompass the ability to create new states of matter by prepositioning the atoms that make up their structure. The physical features that nanoscale R&D will develop are on the order of about 10 nanometers or 1000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. What we are talking about is making materials and devices not be miniaturization, which is a top down approach. Nanoscience is the bottom up fabrication of materials, atom by atom. When you build materials at this level, amazing things begin to happen. We are talking about microchips whose features will shrink by a factor of 100 below where industry projects they will be in the year 2010. These chip features will lead to radical breakthroughs in speed, cost and density of information storage. In the field of medicine and health, we are talking about drugs whose routes of delivery are literally at the molecular level. It will be possible to custom build proteins and other biological materials for future biomedical devices. In the field of energy efficiency, batteries and fuel cells can be built with storage capacities far exceeding our current state of the art. In the transportation industry, it will be possible to make ultra strong and light materials reducing the weight in airplanes, cars and space vehicles. All these breakthroughs in the diverse industries I have discussed will keep the United States' as a global leader in the 21st century economy. The Department of Energy and its Office of Science are uniquely suited to support this critical research. The Office of Science has been at the forefront of conducting nanotechnology research for the past decade through its broad array of materials, physics, chemistry and biology programs. This authorization bill will carry forth four broad objectives of the Office of Science's existing nanotechnology effort, (1) attain a fundamental understanding of nanoscale phenomena, (2) achieve the ability to design bulk materials with desired properties using nanoscale manipulation, (3) study how living organisms produce materials naturally by arranging their atomic structure and implement it into the design process for nanomaterials, (4) develop experimental and computer tools with a national infrastructure to carry out nanoscience. Let me briefly comment on the fourth area in this list. The Office of Science is the nation's leader in developing and managing national user facilities across the broad range of physical sciences. It would be a natural progression for the Office of Science to develop similar user facilities to advance nanoscience. These facilities, located across the United States, will contain unique equipment and computers which will be accessible to individuals as well as multi-disciplinary teams. In the past, Office of Science national user facilities have served as crossing points between the transition from fundamental science to industrial capability. I expect that these nanoscience user facilities will serve as a similar transition point from long term fundamental research into applied industrial know-how. Accordingly, in this authorization bill I have allotted portions of the yearly budget towards developing these unique user facilities. This bill is an important first step in a combined national nanoscience effort which will help to maintain the technological edge of our U.S. industry. I encourage my House colleagues in the Science Committee to also consider this bill with the possibility of joint hearings so that we may be enlightened on nanoscience's full potential. I also hope that the other federal R&D agencies will make similar commitments in their areas of expertise. Maintaining this edge, by promoting these long term and high risk investigations is something which we cannot expect in the short time frame world of today's industry. It is critical that our U.S. government step into this void, particularly in the area of nanoscience, and provide the necessary intellectual capital to propel our national economy as a leader in the 21st century.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation, to amend the National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1986. This legislation, the ``Energy Efficient Cost Savings Improvement Act of 2001,'' which I previously introduced on December 14, 2000 as S. 3277 and was accepted by unanimous consent, will improve the current law by enhancing and extending the authority relating to energy savings performance contracts of the Federal Government. The benefit to the taxpayer will be not only the realization of greater cost savings as they pertain to older, inefficient Federal buildings but, more importantly, the reduction in the waste of monies spent trying to improve these buildings when other, more cost effective alternatives are available. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, established a mandate for energy savings in Federal buildings and facilities. Aggressive energy conservation goals were subsequently established by Executive Order 12902, stating that, by 2005, Federal agencies must reduce their energy consumption in their buildings by 30 percent per square foot when compared to 1985 levels. Executive Order 13123 increased this goal to 35 percent by 2010. To help attain these objectives, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 created Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC), which offered a means of achieving this energy reduction goal at no capital cost to the government. That's right--no capital cost to the government, since ESPC is an alternative to the traditional method of Federal appropriations to finance these types of improvements in Federal buildings. Under the ESPC authority, Federal agencies contract with energy service companies (ESCO), which pay all the up-front costs. These costs relate to evaluation, design, financing, acquisition, installation, and maintenance of energy efficient equipment; altered operation and maintenance improvements; and technical services. The ESCO guarantees a fixed amount of energy cost savings throughout the life of the contract and is paid directly from those cost savings. Agencies retain the remainder of the cost savings for themselves and, at the end of the contract, ownership of all property, along with the additional cost savings, reverts to the Federal government. Currently, contracts may range up to 25 years. Over the entire contract period, Federal monies are neither required nor appropriated for the improvements. But, as innovative as the ESPC alternative may be, there is one area in which it falls short--and that is, how to avoid wasting valuable funds improving energy efficiency in a building that has long since passed its useful life. How do you justify energy conservation measures in buildings that are in constant need of maintenance or repair? Facilities that, no matter how much money is invested for renovation, will never meet existing building code requirements? You may save money by improving energy efficiency, but then turn around and reinvest even larger amounts in operating and maintaining a very old facility. Somewhere there has to be a point where we decide there must be other alternatives--and that is exactly what my legislation offers. Mr. President, the most important element of my legislation is in the way it proposes to fund the construction of replacement Federal facilities. The legislation builds upon the existing Energy Savings Performance Contracting and takes it one logical step further--to include savings anticipated from operation and maintenance efficiencies of a new replacement Federal building. Perhaps the easiest way to explain the benefits of this change is by citing an example. In my home state of New Mexico, the Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations office resides in a complex of buildings constructed originally as Army barracks during the Korean War. Although these facilities have been renovated and modified throughout the years, they remain energy inefficient and require high maintenance and operation costs when compared to more contemporary buildings. What's more, over the next seven years, the Operations office will institute additional modifications to meet compliance requirements for seismic, energy savings, and other facility infrastructure concerns (maintenance, environmental, safety and health, etc.) at a cost of $34.2 million. Even with these modifications, we end up with a modernized 50-year old building that will continue to require expensive maintenance dollars. The estimate to replace the office complex with a new facility, by the way, is $35.3 million. While Congress cannot afford to appropriate funds to build a new facility, we're willing to spend--no, we're forced to waste--almost as much in maintaining an old one. As requested by the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000, the Department of Energy conducted a feasibility study for replacing the Albuquerque Operations office using an ESPC. The results of the study are enlightening, for it demonstrated that by using anticipated energy, operations, and maintenance efficiencies of a new replacement building over the old one, the cost savings alone pay for the new facility. What's more, the analysis forecasts that after the annual ESPC loan payment is made to the contractor, there is a $1 million per year surplus. Over a 25-year contract, the savings to the taxpayer is $25 million. Finally, Mr. President, I want to draw your attention to the broader implications that this legislation has for Federal agencies and taxpayers alike. The application of authority created by this legislation in the replacement of other Federal buildings could result in billions of dollars of avoided waste. Simply by considering operation and maintenance cost savings, we would reap a double benefit of newer facilities and much needed improvements to the Federal infrastructure at a fraction of the cost. And, since ESCOs typically use local companies to provide construction services, this type of program would have a very beneficial effect on local economies. There is certainly enough work within the Federal government to move forward on this ESPC legislation. To this end, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, January 18, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, and will continue, if necessary, on Friday, January 19, 2000, at 9 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the intent to nominate Gale A. Norton to be the Secretary of the Interior. Those wishing to submit written statements on the nomination should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Vicki Thorne at (202) 224- 4103. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, January 18, 2000, at 9 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the intent to nominate Spencer Abraham to be the Secretary of Energy. Those wishing to submit written statements on the nomination should address them to the Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Vicki Thorne at (202) 224- 4103.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John M. Shalikashvili, released his report reviewing the major issues regarding ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which was rejected by the Senate in a vote last fall. His review of the brief debate in the Senate over this critical matter of national security is thorough in its scope and balanced in its recommendations. I urge President Bush and his national security advisory team to review General Shalikashvili's report closely and undertake to address his observations and recommendations immediately. When it comes to the proliferation or improvement of nuclear weapons, time is NOT on our side. The CTBT, when ratified and in force, will discourage non-nuclear weapons states from creating their own nuclear arsenals and prevent current nuclear states from building new capabilities that can endanger American and international security. The hearings held in the Senate last fall, although not nearly as comprehensive as they should have been, did serve to articulate issues of greatest concern to those who are uncertain or opposed to the treaty. Those issues must be addressed head-on in order for the nation to proceed in a bipartisan way regarding further consideration of the Treaty. The international community of nations is watching us closely to see what direction the United States will choose to take. In his report, General Shalikashvili has identified the key controversial issues and calls for specific actions to meet primary concerns before the President and the Senate reconsider the Treaty. President-elect Bush has clearly stated that he seeks to unify the country and is committed to enhancing our national security. Given the divisions in the electorate and in the Congress itself, the challenge of gaining bipartisan support on key legislative matters including defense matters is a daunting one for the new administration. Given the outstanding work of General Shalikashvili in reviewing last year's debate on the CTBT, President-elect Bush has a very important opportunity to pursue bipartisan national security policy by committing to review General Shalikashvili's thoughtful assessment and to undertaking the recommendations he has put forward. As a member of the bipartisan Senate working group that has been examining the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support General Shalikashvili's effort on this critical national security matter.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding Act, deals with an issue that I believe must be addressed in the next Congress. The bill is a measure to make permanent funding for two important programs managed by the Department of the Interior: the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program (or PILT) in the Bureau of Land Management and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program in the Fish and Wildlife Service. These programs provide support to local governments in areas in which these two agencies hold land. Under the authorizations for these programs, the funds are to be provided as an offset to the local property tax base lost by virtue of the Federal ownership of these lands. Federal ownership of lands in the American West, in states like New Mexico, does not come without its share of burdens for local governments. If there is a fire or other emergency, they must help respond. If there is increased traffic to and from the site, they must maintain the public roads that provide the necessary access to the public. In enacting the original authorizing legislation, Congress decided that, as a matter of policy, it was appropriate for the Federal Government to bear a fair share in paying for these costs, in lieu of the taxes that would be levied on any private landowner in these localities. But in setting up these programs, Congress decided to make them subject to annual appropriations, either partially (in the case of Refuge Revenue Sharing) or completely (in the case of PILT). In retrospect, this was a mistake. The annual appropriations process has never come even close to providing the funds agreed upon by the underlying authorizing law. Moreover, the amount made available has changed significantly from one year to the next, frustrating the ability of localities to plan effectively for the use of these funds. Many of the burdens they face as a result of Federal land ownership require expenditures and commitments that are long-term. If you want to have a reasonable system of country roads, you need to have a consistent multi-year plan. If you want adequate fire protection, you can't be hiring a dozen new firefighters in one year and firing them the next, as appropriation levels gyrate up and down. The Federal Government needs to be a better neighbor and a more reliable partner to local governments in the rural West. Since the system of meeting our obligations to these localities through the annual appropriations process has not worked, I am proposing that we start treating our payments in lieu of taxes in the same way that we account for incoming tax revenues to the Federal Government--on the mandatory side of the Federal ledger. By making the funding for these crucial programs full and permanent, we will be keeping the commitments to rural communities throughout the West made in the original PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing authorizing legislation. It's a matter of simple justice to rural communities. I hope that enacting legislation along the lines of what I am proposing today will receive high priority in the next Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record following this statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce a bill authorizing the Secretary of Energy to provide for the Office of Nuclear Science and Technology to reverse a serious decline in our nation's educational capability to produce future nuclear scientists and engineers. Let me outline how serious this decline is, after doing so I will outline its impact on our nation and then discuss how this bill attempts to remedy this situation. As of this year, the supply of four-year trained nuclear scientists and engineers is at a 35-year low. The number of four-year programs across our nation to train future nuclear scientists has declined to approximately 25--a 50 percent reduction since about 1970. Two-thirds of the nuclear science and engineering faculty are over age 45 with little if any ability to draw new and young talent to replace them. Universities across the United States cannot afford to maintain their small research reactors forcing their closure at an alarming rate. This year there are only 28 operating research and training reactors, over a 50 percent decline since 1980. Most if not all of these reactors were built in the late 1950's and early 60's and were licensed initially for 30 to 40 years. As a result, within the next five years the majority of these 28 reactors will have to be relicensed. Relicensing is a long, lengthy process which most universities cannot and will not afford. Interestingly, the employment demand for nuclear scientists and engineers exceeds our nation's ability to supply them. This year, the demand exceeded supply by 350, by 2003 it will be over 400. These human resource and educational infrastructure problems are serious. The decline in a competently trained nuclear workforce affects a broad range of national issues. We need nuclear engineers and health physicists to help design, safely dispose and monitor nuclear waste, both civilian and military. We rely on nuclear physicists and scientists in the field of nuclear medicine to develop radio isotopes for the thousands of medical procedures performed everyday across our nation--to help save lives. We must continue to operate and safely maintain our existing supply of fission reactors and respond to any future nuclear crisis worldwide--it takes nuclear scientists, engineers and health physicists to do that. Our national security and treaty commitments rely on nuclear scientists to help stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons whether in our national laboratories or as part of worldwide inspection teams in such places as Iraq. Nuclear scientists are needed to convert existing reactors worldwide from highly enriched to low enriched fuels. Nuclear engineers and health physicists are needed to design, operate and maintain future Naval Reactors. The Navy by itself cannot train students for their four year degrees--they only provide advance postgraduate training on their reactor's operation. Basically, we are looking at the potential loss of a 50 year investment in a field which our nation started and leads the world in. What is worse, this loss is a downward self-feeding spiral. Poor departments cannot attract bright students and bright students will not carry on the needed cutting edge research that leads to promising young faculty members. Our system of nuclear education and training, in which we used to lead the world, is literally imploding upon itself. I've laid out in this bill some proposals that I hope will seed a national debate in the upcoming 107th Congress on what we as a nation need to do to help solve this very serious problem. It is not a perfect bill, but I think it should start the ball rolling. I welcome all forms of bipartisan input on it. My staff has worked from consensus reports from the scientific community developed by the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee to the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Science and Technology, in particular its Subcommittee on Education and Training. The report is available on the Office's website. I encourage everyone to read and look at these startling statistics. Here is an outline of what is in the bill. First and foremost, we need to concentrate on attracting good undergraduate students to the nuclear sciences. I have proposed enhancing the current program which provides fellowships to graduate students and extends that to undergraduate students. Second, we need to attract new and young faculty. I've proposed a Junior Faculty Research Initiation Grant Program which is similar to the NSF programs targeted only towards supporting new faculty during the first 5 years of their career at a university. These first five years are critical years that either make or break new faculty. Third, I've proposed enhancing the Office's Nuclear Engineering Education and Research Program. This program is critical to university faculty and graduate students by supporting only the most fundamental research in nuclear science and engineering. These fundamental programs ultimately will strengthen our industrial base and over all economic competitiveness. Fourth, I've strengthened the Office's applied nuclear science program by ensuring that universities play an important role in collaboration with the national labs and industry. This collaboration is the most basic form of tech transfer, it is face-to-face contact and networking between faculty, students and the applied world of research and industry. This program will ensure a transition between the student and their future employer. Finally, I've strengthened what I consider the most crucial element of this program--ensuring that future generations of students and professors have well maintained research reactors. I've proposed to increase the funding levels for refueling and upgrading academic reactor instrumentation. I propose to start a new program whereby faculty can apply for reactor research and training awards to provide for reactor improvements. I have proposed a novel program whereby as part of a student's undergraduate and graduate thesis project, they help work on the re- licensing of their own research reactors. This program must be in collaboration with industry which already has ample experience in relicensing. Such a program will once again provide face-to-face networking and training between student, teacher and ultimately their employer. I have proposed a fellowship program whereby faculty can take their sabbatical year at a DOE laboratory. Under this program DOE laboratory staff can co-teach university courses and give extended seminars. This program also provides for part time employment of students at the DOE labs--we are talking about bringing in new and young talent. In making all of these proposals, let me emphasize that each one of these programs I have described is intended to be peer reviewed and to have awards made strictly on merit of the proposals submitted. This program is not a hand out. Each element that I am proposing requires that faculty innovate and compete for these funds. If they do not win, then their reactors will simply be shut down by their institutions. I have outlined a very serious problem that if not corrected now will cost far more to correct later on. If the program I have outlined is implemented, then it will strengthen our reputation as a leader in the nuclear sciences, strengthen our national security and our ability to compete in the world market place. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.