Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I concur with my colleagues' assessment that this institute would provide a valuable addition in the research area of plant genomics. It would let us avoid redundant genomics research in crop species and leverage information for crop improvement. Funding for this institute would augment existing skills and resources, rather than building new bioinformatics infrastructure.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you all for the clarification. saint croix island

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like to clarify that it is your intent that $5 million of the emergency funds available through amendment 3782 will be used to implement the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program in New Mexico. This program will be authorized by a bill, S. 1288, that Senator Domenici and I introduced together. It already passed the Senate last November and will be considered by the full House Resources Committee next week. This program creates a mechanism through which people with varied interests will be able to work cooperatively with the Forest Service to conduct forest restoration and value-added projects. Improving communication and joint problem solving among individuals and groups who are interested in restoring the diversity and productivity of forested watersheds can assist us in our efforts to address the problem posed by communities at risk from catastrophic wildfire.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to express the sense of the Senate that repayment of the judgment fund for the partial settlement in the Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan case from Indian program funds within BIA and IHS would significantly reduce the funds appropriated to benefit Tribes and individual Native Americans across the country. This unprecedented partial settlement was the result of a lawsuit filed in 1990, pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act against the United States, the Secretary of Interior Manuel Lujan, and others. The Ramah Chapter of the Navajo Nation in northwest New Mexico initiated the lawsuit to recover damages for the alleged non-payment or underpayment of indirect costs, related to 638 contracts it entered into with several federal agencies. This suit became a class action suit and currently involves over 326 class members made up of tribal contractors and tribal consortia from across the country. In 1997, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the tribes involved were underpaid and that several federal agencies were involved in the non-payment and underpayment of indirect costs. Last year, the federal agencies and the plaintiffs negotiated a partial settlement totaling $76,200,000, plus applicable interest. This partial settlement was paid by the United States in September 1999. Many people do not realize that Congress established a Judgment Fund to pay for legal judgments awarded to plaintiffs who sue the United States. This enables plaintiffs to be paid the amount of their judgment without having to wait for Congress to appropriate funds for each case. Years later, in 1978, Congress passed the Contract Disputes Act and required that the Judgment Fund be reimbursed by the responsible agency after an award is paid from the judgment fund. The problem we have today is the Department of Interior, namely the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has been billed for the entire amount of the partial settlement in the Ramah case. With interest, this totals approximately $83 million. Many tribes are concerned that if BIA has to pay back the judgment fund from available funds, Indian programs will be significantly impacted. I share their concern. I introduced this amendment to shed some light on this issue and to encourage the federal agencies to resolve this matter in a way that does not severely impact Indian programs. It does not seem appropriate to me that Indian program funds--funds that benefit tribes and individual Indians--should be used to pay for a lawsuit brought by tribes and tribal entities. Because there were many agencies involved in the underpayment of the contract support costs, I believe the Secretary of Interior should work with the OMB to find the funding from within the budgets of all of the agencies involved. Any other result would be unjust and unfair to Native Americans across the country. I encourage my colleagues to support this sense of the Senate and I thank Senator Campbell for his leadership in this area and his support of this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to engage Senator Domenici, Senator Gorton, and Senator Byrd in a brief colloquy at this time.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Helm's resolution that commends Mexico on the results of their elections. There is no doubt that this was an event of historic proportions. The Mexican people have, through careful consideration and a peaceful political process, ended over seven decades of rule by a single political party. By doing so they have turned their country into a true democracy. They deserve this recognition. My colleague's resolution captures the significance of this vote to the United States in terms of our national interest and our social welfare. As my state sits right across the border from Mexico, New Mexicans are well aware that the destinies of our two countries have been, and will be, intertwined. We have always shared similarities in heritage and language with the Mexican people, and this has established the means by which cultural and economic interaction can increase rapidly and consistently over time. It is clear that the new President of Mexico, Vincente Fox, faces a broad range of tough challenges as he assumes office and plots a course for the future. Expectations are high and the obstacles are great. Privatization, corruption, education, economic growth, narcotics, crime and health--all these issues require immediate attention. It is encouraging to see President Ernesto Zedillo already working in tandem with the new government to ensure a successful transition. This will inevitably benefit the Mexican people. I concur with the goals of the resolution, specifically the pledge for increased cooperation with the Government of Mexico so that we might confront the threats that our countries face and improve the quality of life for our people. I wish President-elect Fox luck in his efforts, and I look forward to working with him in the future.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act for consideration of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is focused on education. It is an effort to put our priorities straight, to get our priorities in line with the priorities of the American people, to get back to talking about how do we improve the lot of the average American, instead of talking about the lot of the 400 wealthiest families in the country. I believe this will put funds where they are needed the most, where the American people want to see them spent. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment I offer on behalf of myself, Senators Kennedy, Murray, Dodd, Kerry, Schumer, and Dorgan. It will do a fairly simple thing. It will provide for the relief from estate tax that is proposed as the Democratic alternative on which we voted earlier today so that there will be a substantial reduction in the amount of estate tax over a period of time. It would, however, take some of the additional revenue that would not be going to estate tax relief under the Republican plan and would dedicate that instead to education. This is an important issue. This is an amendment, as were several others we voted on already, that relates to our priorities and what we would like to do with revenue over the next several years, how much of it should be returned, to which group of taxpayers, how much should be spent on needs we have here in the country. Those of us who are proposing this amendment believe it should be a higher priority for us to improve our schools and the future of all of the children in this country--rich and poor, black and white, metropolitan and rural--than it is to assist inordinately a relatively small group of people beyond the $8 million that is provided for as an exemption from the estate tax under the Democratic plan. The amendment makes a commitment to invest some of the savings from the elimination of the Republican estate tax proposal into our public schools. The amendment would guarantee that parents and communities have the support they need to provide every child with a good public education, to send every qualified student to college. I was reading the paper yesterday. I noticed that the first day of the Republican National Convention has the theme of ``leave no child behind.'' That is a worthy theme. I commend them for adopting it. I believe this amendment could be characterized as the ``leave no child behind'' amendment. Instead of dedicating huge resources toward providing very wealthy individuals with a tax break--I think it has been discussed several times and is agreed to by all, the Republican plan does provide over $100 billion of tax relief over the next 10 years, $750 billion over the following 10 years--instead of providing that much in the way of tax relief for the very wealthiest in our society, the amendment ensures that small businesses and family farms receive a significant tax break. It also provides funds for programs that have been proven to improve student achievement in public schools, to assist students seeking postsecondary education. Let me clear up one misconception I have uncovered in my home State of New Mexico. I spoke to one of my good friends there this last week. He said: I don't see why you object to repeal of the estate tax. It does not involve a significant amount of Federal revenue. It is mainly an irritant to people to have an estate tax or to pay an estate tax. What we have been talking about with the Republican proposal is $100 billion over the next 10 years, $750 billion over the following 10 years. We are spending in this current fiscal year $14.4 billion total on elementary and secondary education in this country. That is Federal money. We are talking about tax cuts in the Republican plan which are substantially greater than the amount the Federal Government is spending on education each year. It is an important item. In my view, it is very much a statement about our priorities. One of the critical elements in this amendment is school construction. We would fund a program to increase safety and decrease overcrowding in our schools. We would provide $1.3 billion in grants and loans for urgent repair of 5,000 public elementary and secondary schools in very high-need areas. These programs would provide over $200 million to my home State of New Mexico where current estimates for school repair and modernization approach $2 billion. Accountability: We would support tough accountability for results by setting aside $250 million for title I accountability grants. That is something we have been trying to do at several points in this session of Congress. We still have not succeeded. That would be accomplished if we adopted this amendment. Dropout prevention: The amendment provides crucial support for programs designed to prevent students from dropping out of school. This is a vital issue in my State, particularly for the Hispanic community. Many of our Hispanic young people do not complete high school. The percentage of people who do complete high school is appallingly low. We need to deal with that. It is a crisis situation. Teacher quality: Senator Kennedy has led the way on trying to improve teacher quality in this session of the Congress. This amendment would provide $2.2 billion for teacher quality programs so we can ensure that every child is taught by a qualified instructor. Class size: We would continue progress in achieving smaller classes by providing $1.75 billion to fulfill our commitment to hire 1 million teachers to reduce class size in the early grades. Afterschool programs: Again, we would try to expand those by adding $1 billion to that funding. Meeting our commitments to special education: Again, we would try to add a billion dollars in this amendment for the IDEA funding, which I know many Members of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, support. Affordable college opportunities: Higher education makes a huge difference in earnings and general mobility, even more in subsequent generations of a family. This amendment provides $3 billion for college opportunity tax credits. It would increase funding for the GEAR UP program by $325 million. I know some critics say this amendment is not related to the underlying tax reduction. I point out that exactly the opposite is true. The real issue for us is, what are our national priorities? Are we going to reduce the revenue coming into the Government by enormous amounts here in order to assist those who are wealthiest in our society, at the expense of adequately funding these education programs that I believe are desperately needed? The truth of the matter is that Americans want better educational outcomes for their children, not more tax cuts for the wealthy. I challenge anyone to pose the option before us to the voters: Should Congress exercise its leadership by providing $50 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of the population each year? Or should Congress, instead, exercise its leadership by using some of that revenue to improve the educational outcomes in our public schools? I believe the American public is clear in their answer on that. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I will yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes and then the remainder of the time to the Senator from Massachusetts. Let me respond to a couple of statements that were made. First of all, this amendment was referred to as a diversion because it tries to bring into this debate the discussion about education and what we ought to be investing in education. Hopefully, we can persuade the Senate to take some of the revenue that the Republican estate tax repeal proposal contemplates eliminating and put it into education. I do not see it as a diversion at all. I would love to have us back on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We had that act before us. We offered some amendments. Those amendments were Democrat amendments. One was for class size reduction. We talked about teacher quality. We had an amendment on that. It was pending, in fact, at the time the bill was taken down by the majority leader. I hope very much that next week we can go back to ESEA and have more debate on that. But regardless of whether we are able to do that, I think it is important that we consider and adopt this amendment as a statement about what we think the priorities of this Nation are. I do not shy from discussing the estate tax repeal proposal that is before us. In my State, frankly, the Democratic alternative, in my view, is a very enlightened and generous proposal which would substantially reduce the estate tax. It would reduce to fewer than 100 estate tax returns that would be filed in my State each year. That is the estimate I have received. It is something I think I can be proud to cosponsor and support. I do not see why we have to go the full route the Republicans are proposing, as the Senator from Massachusetts said, and eliminate this tax entirely for those 2,400 wealthiest Americans. I do not think we are visiting any hardship upon them by maintaining in place some estate tax. Let me get back to the subject of my amendment, which is education. People of this country support more investment in teacher quality, more investment in reducing the class sizes, more investment in eliminating or reducing the number of students who drop out of our schools before they graduate, more investment in accountability of our schools so we can be sure the schools are performing to standard, and more investment in school construction. There are enormous needs in all these areas. This is an opportunity to address those enormous needs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it would be a major statement of our priorities. We would not, in fact, leave one child behind if we do this. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment being offered by my colleague, Senator Durbin, calling for effective testing of the National Missile Defense (NMD) program now under development by the Department of Defense. When the President signed H.R. 4, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, into law a year ago, he made the statement that ``any NMD system we deploy must be operationally effective, cost-effective, and enhance our security.'' The key word in the President's statement, Mr. President, is ``effective.'' In other words, before we decide to move ahead with the NMD program, among other important considerations, we must be confident that the system will be an ``effective'' one. Last year, when we debated this matter in the Senate, I spoke with my colleague, Senator Cochran, who agreed with me that we shouldn't buy the system until we know that it will work. It's common sense, of course, to hold back on a decision to purchase something until we know that it will work as advertised. We know that as private consumers. The same is true for the government as a consumer. Indeed, that is the policy of the Department of Defense (DoD) with respect to its purchase of ALL major weapon systems. DoD's policy instruction governing acquisition of all major weapon systems, DoD Directive 5000.1, contains a number of provisions intended to ensure that the customer, DoD as well as the nation as a whole, will get what we pay for. The bottom line for the Department of Defense regarding ``effectiveness'' is whether a weapon system is tested successfully in realistic operating situations. The DoD instruction states that ``before purchasing a weapon system from the production line, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation must report to the Secretary of Defense that the system is operationally effective and suitable for use in combat.'' That should be true for missile interceptors as well as for conventional guns, tanks, and airplanes. Mr. President, the Congress has on many occasions expressed its commitment to the taxpayer that the billions spent on weapons will provide the nation with the real military capability we may need. The provision of DoD Instruction 5000.1 that I have cited is one such example. Another was legislation enacted during the 1980's requiring warranties on all major weapon systems and their components. We also, know, Mr. President, that when we fail to require that a system meet operational standards, we pay a heavy price. In the early 1980's, the Congress appropriated over $20 billion dollars to purchase 100 B-1B bombers. The problem was that we had never tested them. The B- 1B looked like the B-1A, but in fact was a far different weapon. It needed to be tested. We didn't do it and went ahead with the purchase. Mr. President, we now know the unfortunate history of that purchase. It wasn't until recently that the DoD used the B-1B in combat, and even then under very special operational circumstances. In the intervening decade and a half, the Air Force chose other ways to get the job done. I'm convinced that, in part, it was because the Air Force knew that the B-1B would not have been capable of getting the job done. There are other expensive examples I could use to illustrate the price we've paid for inadequate testing. Design flaws in the C-5 and F-18 have ended up costing the taxpayer a bundle. I'm sure you've recently read the news reports about flaws in the protective suits for our troops to use in a chemical or biological warfare environment. They weren't adequately tested either. The amendment Senator Durbin is sponsoring today seeks simply to affirm Congressional commitment to the taxpayer, to the men and women in uniform who must operate our weapons, and to the nation that must depend on it for our defense. I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment that would require that the NMD system be tested against possible countermeasures that are likely, or at least realistically possible, to be used to accompany attacking warheads that potential enemies could launch against us. The amendment calls for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) to plan ground and flight tests to address those threats, to seek funds to support what's needed to meet them, and to report annually on the status and progress of the NMD program regarding countermeasures. In short, Mr. President, the amendment proposes concrete actions to ensure that we know the exact nature of the threat, that we plan appropriate technical responses, and that we test adequately to make sure that those responses work. We are all aware of the recent outcome of the latest NMD flight test, IFT-5. In that test, a developmental test, the kill vehicle failed to separate from its booster to engage the incoming target warhead. Mr. President, this was a test designed and conducted under very controlled, hardly realistic, conditions. It was a test in which all the pieces of the complex NMD system were given special capabilities to carry out their job in a controlled, experimental environment. I think we can all agree that it's appropriate to walk before we run. In ``walking'' through this test, IFT-5, we have discovered once again how difficult it is to ``hit a bullet with a bullet'' even though we think we know how each piece of the system will function. I'd like to emphasize, Mr. President, that this was not an operational test under realistic conditions that DoD requires for every other major weapon system before it decides to go ahead and buy it. This was a controlled, laboratory test in which one of the pieces we thought we know most about failed. I believe that although the NMD test program to date indicates that we are developing some amazing capabilities, we are a very long way from being confident that the NMD system as a whole will work. Indeed, in order for an NMD test to be truly realistic, there are a whole host of variables that must differ significantly from the conditions that were present during the IFT-5 test. In order to be more realistic, for example, future tests should reorient the basic geographic direction of the test from West to East rather than East to West. The flight test envelope would have to be greatly enlarged. Various types of countermeasures, the subject of the amendment, should be used. Actual military personnel who would operate the system should be at the controls. Information from the warning system should reflect likely warning times. We are a very long way from realistic testing the NMD system in those regards and a number of others. This amendment addresses only one of those variables, albeit a very important one. Adopting this amendment will provide us with critical information about the feasibility of the NMD system to get the job done. Committing ourselves to procuring and deploying the NMD system until we know the answers to questions regarding key operational capabilities would be premature and ill-advised. There are other critical factors that will play important and necessary roles in determining whether the President will commit the nation to deploying NMD. Surely the nature of the threat must be assessed and reassessed to make sure that this program is warranted. Surely the possible responses of our allies and potential adversaries will play an important part in the President's calculation. At the end of the day, the President will have determined whether the nation is more or less secure as a result of deciding to deploy the NMD system. In the meantime, as responsible stewards for public expenditures, it behooves us to take all measures necessary to ensure that the billions we are spending for NMD are giving the taxpayer real dividends. This amendment is an important means to make that happen. I urge all of my colleagues to support realistic testing before committing the nation to procurement and deployment of NMD. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me mention one other aspect of this which I think is significant, and that is the Forest Service has a program called a Cooperative Fire Protection Program which they try to use to educate people who own homes in or near the forests and also to work with people who have private homes in our forests, that are private property, so the benefits of some of this clearing, some of this thinning we are talking about can also be realized by the people who have those homes, and those homes can be better protected as a result. One thing that became obvious to me as a result of the Los Alamos fire was that there had been a thinning that had taken place around the laboratory itself, around many of the structures of the Los Alamos National Laboratory; and because of that, because of that thinning activity, there was a dramatic reduction in the fire risk to those facilities. We had much less damage there than we wound up having in the town of Los Alamos, where, of course, no similar thinning or no similar fire risk reduction activities had occurred. I think it is very important that we try to take what we have learned about how to reduce the risks of fire and apply that in a responsible way, and do so as soon as possible. For that reason, I am very pleased to see this amendment being considered. Again, I compliment my colleague for proposing the amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, DC, June 16, 2000. Hon. Pete Domenici. Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Domenici: With the Senate in final stages of completing the fiscal year 2000 emergency supplemental appropriation, I want to provide you with the information you requested on Forest Service capability to significantly reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in wildland-urban interface areas. I know you agree that the tragic fires in New Mexico and those currently burning in Colorado, are focusing our attention on the critical need to reduce hazardous fuels throughout the national forests and particularly areas adjacent to urban interface areas. The emergency supplemental appropriation gives us an opportunity to immediately take action to avoid similar fire disasters in the future. Enclosed is information identifying agency capability to respond in the immediate and near future based on estimates for completing environmental assessment work. This work can be accomplished within existing authorities. We have established projected implementation based on the date that all planning under the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and other statutes will be completed: Acres: Implementation date 59,722........................................................(\1\) 189,098..................................................12/31/2000 291,575..................................................09/30/2001 \1\ Currently ready. I want to be sure that as the supplemental bill moves through the appropriations process, you have all the information you need to provide focus on the need to address this critical issue without letting the legislation get overburdened and consequently threatened by other agendas. My staff and I are ready to respond in order to assure you have all necessary information available. Mike Dombeck, Chief. Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fuel Treatment Projects Listed below are the acres by Region grouped by the date all NEPA, ESA, review, and other planning actions will be completed and the projects will be completed and the projects will be ready for implementation. For the last two groups, planning is well underway and may be completed prior to the date listed. Includes all costs for implementation and monitoring. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Implementation Region Acres cost ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I commend my colleague, Senator Domenici, for this amendment and indicate I am very glad to be a cosponsor of it. It is an important amendment which is much needed in my State and throughout much of the country. The problem has been well described by Senator Domenici, Senator Feinstein, Senator Craig, and others. I do not need to elaborate on that to a great extent, except to say there are many communities in our State of New Mexico which genuinely feel threatened because of the fact that they are adjacent to our national forests and the forests have been allowed to build up underbrush in a way which makes them a fire hazard--communities such as Santa Fe and Los Alamos, which have been mentioned, Ruidoso, Cloudcroft, and Weed. I know my colleague was visiting with citizens in the small community of Weed, NM, about this very issue. There is no question the time has come when it needs to be addressed, and this amendment will allow us to do that on an emergency basis. It is, as I said before, much needed. Let me give a little background. Even before this year's catastrophic fires, which have really been a wake-up call to all of us about the significance of this problem, particularly the fire at Los Alamos, the Cerro Grande fire, but the Scott Able fire in the southern part of New Mexico, the Cree fire in the southern part of New Mexico, and the Viveash fire in northern New Mexico--we have had a series of fires. Over, I believe, 65,000 acres in my State have burned so far this year. That does not begin to approach the number of acres perhaps in California, as cited by the Senator from California, but it is a great many acres for our State considering the amount of forests we have. Well over 400 homes have been destroyed in our State. So the problem is very real. Last year, in the first session of this Congress, I was very pleased that, on a bipartisan basis, Senator Domenici and I cosponsored a bill, S. 1288, entitled the Community Forest Restoration Act which attempted a demonstration project in New Mexico to begin dealing with this problem of the urban wild land interface, to begin thinning of forest areas near these communities. In putting this legislation together, we were able to get the cooperation not only of the communities themselves but of many of the groups which take a great interest in the health of our national forests, including several of the major environmental groups. I thought this was major progress. The bill passed the Senate unanimously. It went to the House of Representatives. It has been marked up in subcommittee. It will go to the full committee next week. This legislation was very small. It was a demonstration project. It was aimed only at New Mexico communities, but it set a good precedent for the type of thing we are talking about, where the Forest Service and the other Federal land management agencies could make grants available to community groups to deal with this problem in a very real and responsible way. I particularly appreciate the statement Senator Domenici made in his presentation that this amendment, to provide substantial additional funding to the land management agencies to deal with the problem, does not involve any change in environmental laws. Also, this amendment does not involve any change in NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. This does not waive that law. This amendment is consistent with those laws. We are providing resources and directing that a substantial effort take place to deal with this problem around the communities that are adjacent to our national forests. It is very important that this happen. I want to have printed in the Record three documents that are important as background. One is a letter that the New Mexico delegation sent to Mike Dombeck, the Chief of the Forest Service, on May 19 of this year, urging that the Forest Service come forward with a proposal for how they will begin to address this problem. The second document is a response by Chief Dombeck to me on the subject. And the third is a followup response to Senator Domenici from Chief Dombeck, also alluding to what the Forest Service thought they could do to address this very real problem. I ask unanimous consent that these three letters be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the ``Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2000. This bill will facilitate a land exchange between the Federal government and a private landowner that will benefit the Pecos National Historical Park in my State of New Mexico. Specifically, the bill will enable the Park Service to acquire a private inholding within the park's boundaries in exchange for the transfer of a nearby tract of national forest system land. The national forest parcel has been identified as available for exchange in the Santa Fe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and is surrounded by private lands on three sides. Pecos National Historical Park posses exceptional historic and archaeological resources. Its strategic location between the Great Plains and the Rio Grande Valley has made it the focus of the region's 10,000 years of human history. The park preserves the ruins of the great Pecos pueblo, a major trade center and the ruins of two Spanish colonial missions dating from the 17th and 18th centuries. The Glorieta Unit of the park protects key sites associated with the 1862 Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass, a significant event that ended the Confederate attempt to expand the war into the west. This unit will directly benefit from the land exchange. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill I have introduced today be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the ``Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2000. This bill will facilitate a land exchange between the Federal government and a private landowner that will benefit the Pecos National Historical Park in my State of New Mexico. Specifically, the bill will enable the Park Service to acquire a private inholding within the park's boundaries in exchange for the transfer of a nearby tract of national forest system land. The national forest parcel has been identified as available for exchange in the Santa Fe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and is surrounded by private lands on three sides. Pecos National Historical Park posses exceptional historic and archaeological resources. Its strategic location between the Great Plains and the Rio Grande Valley has made it the focus of the region's 10,000 years of human history. The park preserves the ruins of the great Pecos pueblo, a major trade center and the ruins of two Spanish colonial missions dating from the 17th and 18th centuries. The Glorieta Unit of the park protects key sites associated with the 1862 Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass, a significant event that ended the Confederate attempt to expand the war into the west. This unit will directly benefit from the land exchange. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill I have introduced today be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Domenici, Murray, Gorton, Thompson, Frist, and Murkowski in offering this amendment. This amendment, which is based on my bill, S. 1756, will strengthen the ways the Department of Energy's national labs and facilities can collaborate with industry to achieve their mission-- something that's increasingly important now that industry funds 70 percent of our national R&D. The labs simply cannot stay on the cutting edge of technology and do their national security and science missions without rich and effective collaborations with industry. A key provision of this amendment is a three year pilot program, called the Technology Infrastructure Program, authorizing the national labs to promote the development of ``technology clusters''--the phenomena seen most famously in Silicon Valley--that will help the labs achieve their national security and science missions. The basic idea is for the labs to harness the innovative power of technology clusters to do their missions by strengthening collaboration in the regions around the labs. Mr. President, let me explain this a little more. We know from places like Silicon Valley, or our own states, that a special innovative process can get started when enough institutions in an industry or technology come together in one place. For example, if you're interested in Internet businesses, Northern Virginia is an excellent place to be. For cars and, I believe, office furniture, you ought to think about Michigan. Paradoxically, the Internet makes these regional processes more important, not less. Why? Because when it's cheap and easy to move information around, less mobile things like your labor force and special research facilities and how they interact with each other will be what makes the difference in how well you turn information into innovation. Consider how Silicon Valley has not dissipated, despite its many high costs. And, if companies move from there, they may go to Austin or Northern Virginia, but not just anywhere they can plug in a modern. Now, the Technology Infrastructure Program will support projects that will help the labs do their missions by strengthening the institutions and relationships that aid collaborative innovation. Every project funded under this program must, as a threshold test, show that it will help a lab ``achieve technical success in meeting'' DOE missions. Here are some possible example projects: a small business incubator or a research park by the lab; a special training program for technicians in a technology used by the lab and local businesses; or a specialized design and research facility at a local university in a technology of interest to the lab and local businesses. I think you can see from my examples that it would be hard to link these sorts of projects to the labs' missions unless they are done near the labs. So, that's what will happen in most cases. The money authorized for the pilot program is modest--no more than $10 million a year. But, I believe it could well prove to have an immodest result. Here is another way to think about what we're trying to do with the Technology Infrastructure Program. Given the mission of the labs, the reason they exist as organizations with all sorts of sophisticated equipment and scientists is that they together in one place people working on related subjects, so they can collaborate with each other and share special facilities. Well, the Technology Infrastructure Program will help extend that collaboration to outside a lab's gates, to firms and other institutions that are not part of the lab but that can help it do its mission better because they're nearby. Because the projects will be cost shared. DOE can save the taxpayer's money while effectively building out the labs beyond their gates. And, because the projects will help the labs leverage commercial technology, the labs will get more cutting edge technology at a lower cost. In short, the labs' interest in collaborating with industry to achieve their missions means that they also have an interest in promoting a strong network of local collaborators. Other provisions of this amendment will: create a small business advocate at the labs to get small businesses more involved in lab research and procurement; create a ombudsman at the labs to informally settle disputes over technology partnerships; establish a series of studies to investigate other ways to improve collaboration between the labs and industry; give DOE a highly flexible ``other transactions'' research authority like the one DoD has; and establish a DOE Office of Arctic Energy to focus on the special energy problems and opportunities in Arctic regions of the United States. Of course, I'm well aware this amendment would be good for the communities around the labs. But, just as those of us with labs in our states have seen that what's good for the labs can be good for our communities, what's good for our communities can also be good for our labs. In summary, this amendment takes the next steps in improving the ability of DOE's national labs to collaborate with academia and industry, and I think it will prove of great benefit to our national security, the labs, and the labs' communities. I greatly appreciate the support of Senators Warner and Levin for including it in this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Ms. Madelyn Creedon, who has been nominated by the President to become the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs of the new National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) at the Department of Energy. Ms. Creedon has a distinguished career with broad and deep experience regarding Department of Energy defense programs over which she will have oversight and management responsibilities in her position as ``second in command'' at the NNSA. My colleagues should be aware that before joining the staff of the Armed Services Committee in 1990, Ms. Creedon worked for ten years with the Office of the General Counsel at the Department of Energy (DOE). She returned to DOE after serving as counsel to the Armed Services Committee during 1990 through 1994 during which time she had oversight and review responsibilities of DOE national security and environmental programs. At DOE, Ms. Creedon served as Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy for National Security Programs from 1995 to 1997 when she resumed her position on the Armed Services Committee, once again with oversight responsibilities for DOE defense and environmental programs. In short, Mr. President, Ms. Creedon's professional credentials for this position are impeccable. Let me add, Mr. President, that I have worked closely with her during the past several years in my capacity as ranking member of the Strategic and Emerging Threats Subcommittees of the Armed Services Committee. I've found Ms. Creedon to be fully knowledgeable about the issues we have discussed, and to be a person of sound judgment regarding possible solutions in the interest of improving our national security. Her professional capabilities and commitment to public service and national security are plain to see for all of us on both sides of the aisle who have worked with her. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Ms. Creedon's nomination to assume this important new position as Deputy Administrator to NNSA. Her experience and know-how will be key to ensuring a smooth transition to a successful NNSA.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I respond by thanking the Senator from Washington for his comments and indicate that I think his leadership on this issue is extremely important, particularly so given the wrongheaded action the House of Representatives has taken in their bill of essentially zeroing out the funding for this very important program after 6 successful years of progress in a 10-year program. I am encouraged by the Senator's statements. I will certainly do anything I can to assist the Senator in seeing to it that this is adequately funded in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, PNGV represents the best of America's minds working together on one of the most important issues we face today. I again thank Chairman Gorton, and Senator Byrd for their work on this bill and especially for the funding they've provided for energy conservation and PNGV. Exhibit I [From the National Academies, June 15, 2000] Fuel Economy, Cost May Be Compromised To Meet Tougher Emission Standards in Next-Generation Cars Washington.--A public-private partnership to create a highly fuel-efficient car reached a major milestone earlier this year with the unveiling of concept vehicles, but the ability to meet both fuel-economy objectives and emission standards by a 2004 deadline remains a monumental challenge, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's new emissions standards for vehicle exhaust, which will be phased in beginning in 2004, are significantly more stringent than those that were in place when the public-private program, called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), was initiated six years ago. All of the demonstrated concept vehicles--DaimlerChrysler's ESX3, Ford's Prodigy, and GM's Precept--use hybrid electric technology, which incorporates electric power from a battery with a small diesel engine. While the concept vehicles can achieve a fuel economy in the range of 70 to 80 miles per gallon, none meet the new emission standards. ``Though confronted with enormous technological problems, PNGV has made significant progress in meeting its objectives, and reaching the 2000 milestone represents an outstanding effort,'' said Trevor O. Jones, chair of the committee that wrote the report and chairman and chief executive officer of Biomec Inc., Cleveland. ``As the program moves toward the 2004 deadline to introduce production prototype vehicles, major attention will need to be devoted to meeting the new emissions standards while simultaneously attaining cost and fuel economy objectives, which continue to elude PNGV engineers.'' In the committee's judgment, EPA's ``Tier 2'' standards for nitrogen oxides and particulate matter will delay the use of the diesel engine--and its significant fuel-economy benefit-- until systems can be developed that meet the new standards. PNGV also may have to shift its attention to other internal combustion engine designs with greater potential for extremely low emissions and high fuel efficiency. The partnership should develop models that can predict the type and amount of emissions for a variety of engines and exhaust treatment systems in different versions of hybrid electric vehicles, the report says. These efforts will assist researchers in evaluating the feasibility of meeting the Tier 2 standards and provide data that could then be used to establish an appropriate plan for the next phase of the program. Currently, fuel cells--an alternative power source--have the greatest potential to meet emissions standards and energy-efficiency requirements. All of the vehicle manufacturers are building concept vehicles powered by fuel cells that are estimated to get up to an equivalent of 100 mpg. Though notable progress has been made, the automotive fuel cell remains a long-range development facing significant hurdles, including the need to substantially reduce costs, which are running about five times higher than the program projected. The fuel cells are targeted for production automobiles sometime after 2004 by some vehicle builders. New types of fuel and the infrastructure of refineries, distribution systems, and service stations are extremely important considerations in developing both internal combustion engines and fuel cells. The committee recommends that PNGV and the petroleum industry more fully address fuel issues and strengthen their cooperative programs. As the program moves closer to commercially viable vehicles, the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration should support major safety studies to determine how lightweight cars perform in collisions with heavier vehicles, the report says. These activities are critically important because PNGV vehicles, although similar in size to today's vehicles, will weigh much less with lighter bodies, frames, interior components, and window glass. Although substantial accomplishments have been made, high cost is a serious problem in almost every area of the PNGV program, the committee said. The costs of most components of the concept vehicles are higher than their target values. For example, research continues to be conducted on aluminum and other composite materials for use in major vehicle components, but costs still are not competitive with steel. Battery costs are at least three times greater than the program's target. And DaimlerChrysler has estimated that its ESX3 concept vehicle would cost $7,500 more than a traditional vehicle in its class. Given the complexity of the assignment and the tight timeline, the committee lauded PNGV's technical teams for their overall achievements and effectiveness in meeting project goals and their ability to develop solid industry- government-academia working relationships despite their competitive positions. And while the individual car manufacturers took different approaches in building their concept vehicles, all have made significant contributions and benefited by using technologies developed through the collaborative program. Further, many of the technologies-- such as lightweight body materials--are being incorporated into vehicles that are in production today. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles is an alliance of U.S. government agencies and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR), whose members are the country's three major automakers--DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors. PNGV was formed in late 1993 to develop an affordable midsize vehicle by 2004 with a fuel economy of up to 80 mpg-- three times more efficient than today's vehicles--while meeting or exceeding government safety and emission requirements. Since 1994, the Research Council has conducted annual reviews of the program's goals and progress at the request of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The study was sponsored by the U.S. departments of Commerce, Energy, and Transportation. The Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides independent advice on science and technology issues under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows. standing committee to review the research program of the partnership for a new generation of vehicles Trevor O. Jones (chair), Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Biomec Inc., Cleveland. Craig Marks (vice chair), President, Creative Management Solutions, Bloomfield Hills, Mich. William Agnew, Director, Programs and Plans, General Motors Research Laboratories (retired), Washington, Mich. Alexis T. Bell, Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. W. Robert Epperly, President, Epperly Associates Inc., Mountain View, Calif. David E. Foster, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Norman A. Gjostein, Clinical Professor of Engineering, University of Michigan, Dearborn. David F. Hagen, General Manager of Alpha Simultaneous Engineering, Ford Technical Affairs, Ford Motor Co. (retired), Dearborn, Mich. John B. Heywood, Sun Jae Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Fritz Kalhammer, Consultant, Strategic Science and Technology, and Transportation Groups, and Former Vice President, Strategic Research and Development, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif. John G. Kassakian, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, and Director, Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Harold H. Kung, Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill. John Scott Newman, Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. Roberta Nichols, Manager, Electric Vehicles External Strategy and Planning Department, Ford Motor Co. (retired), Plymouth, Mich. Vernon P. Roan, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and Director, Center for Advanced Studies in Engineering, University of Florida, Palm Beach Gardens. Research Council Staff James Zucchetto, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems. Exhibit 2 The Secretary of Energy, Washington, DC, June 15, 2000. Hon. Ralph Regula, Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my concern regarding yesterday's House action to effectively terminate Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) activities. I thank you for your efforts to defeat this amendment. I know you agree that especially now, during this current spike in energy prices, is not the time to reduce the U.S. commitment to cutting-edge research and development that will reduce our dependence on petroleum. The Sununu amendment virtually eliminates the entire budget for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). This is a matter of great concern to the Department, since PNGV has been a highly successful program aimed at reducing our country's growing consumption of petroleum products for transportation. As gasoline prices exceed $2.00 per gallon in the mid-west, we are reminded that the United States has become increasingly vulnerable to oil price shocks and supply disruptions. Other impacts of this growing petroleum consumption are greater air pollution and increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Technologies from PNGV results have already appeared in cars available for sale today. Earlier this year, the three PNGV year 2000 concept cars demonstrated the technical feasibility of 80 mile per gallon 5-passenger sedans. Each of these cars represents a unique approach to the challenges addressed by PNGV and showcases the progress made in advanced technology research and development through the partnership. The work is not finished, however. Major challenges remain to be addressed during the final four years of this program, especially the size, weight, cost and emissions performance of individual components. The reliability of these technologies, both individually and in the context of a system, also needs to be demonstrated. In its sixth review of the PNGV, released today, the National Research Council (NRC) notes that, measured against the magnitude of the challenge, ``PNGV is making good progress.'' The NRC characterizes meeting the PNGV 2000 concept vehicle milestone as ``an outstanding . . . effort.'' Given projections of substantial growth in the number of vehicles worldwide in the years ahead, combined with uncertainty about the ability of worldwide petroleum production to keep up, it would be extremely unwise to terminate this program that is key to developing high energy efficiency vehicles without compromising the features that make them attractive to U.S. consumers. Also, it is vital, during a period of increasing worldwide competition to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles, that we maintain support for U.S. producers. In view of significant support being provided by governments in Europe and Japan, it seems particularly ill-advised for us to abandon our leadership. Any reduction in PNGV funding would jeopardize achievement of our objectives. I appreciate your leadership in protecting energy research and development funding. If you have further questions, you may contact me or have a member of your staff contact Mr. John C. Angell, Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, at (202) 586-5450. Yours sincerely, Bill Richardson.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the NRC's report went on to describe the major challenges that remain in the final four years of the program. PNGV's goal is ambitious but achievable: to develop production vehicles that meet all safety and emissions standards while simultaneously maintaining current vehicle cost levels. The increase in federal funding in the bill before us today will help ensure that PNGV can meet its goal. Last month, Chairman Gorton lead a debate here on the Senate floor about fuel efficiency standards, and I want to thank him for his effort. I do believe it is an important issue. How ever that debate eventually plays out, it should be clear that we are not going to be able to reduce our dangerous dependence on imported foreign oil without vehicles that are more efficient. And the American public is not going to stand for vehicles that do not provide the same levels of safety, comfort, and performance they've come to expect. That's exactly what PNGV is all about. I'd like to make one last point. Both Europe and Japan have recently taken steps to raise the average fuel economy of their vehicles. In Europe, automakers are committed to increasing fuel economy by 33 percent by 2008. In Japan, fuel economy levels are set to increase 23 percent by 2010. I do believe fuel efficiency is an issue of international economic competitiveness. We must aggressively pursue efforts like PNGV, or risk falling behind in the global automotive market. In closing, I am pleased that the Senate bill provides adequate funding for PNGV. However, I am concerned this year about maintaining the Senate's funding level for PNGV in conference. In what I believe was a very wrongheaded action, the House all but eliminated funding for this vital program. Mr. President, this is not the time to reduce our commitment to cutting-edge research that offers the promise of dramatic reductions in our need for oil. I hope all senators will want to work with the committee to maintain the Senate's funding level for PNGV as the bill moves to conference. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Secretary Richardson opposing the House's actions be printed the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to talk about the energy conservation programs in this Interior appropriations bill that we are now considering. First, I want to thank Chairman Gorton and Senator Byrd for their fine work on this bill. In particular, I am very glad to see that funding for energy conservation is 5 percent above last year's level. I firmly believe that every dollar spent on research and development for energy efficiency pays back many times in the real value for the American consumer. These programs are saving the Nation an estimated $20 billion per year in energy costs at this time. I would like to focus my comments today on one particular program in the energy conservation budget, and that is, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. This is generally referred to as PNGV. It is a cost-shared, industry-government partnership. It is working to improve the fuel economy of passenger cars with the ultimate goal of developing midsized cars that will get up to 80 miles per gallon. Talking about energy efficiency in the transportation sector I believe is especially timely given the high gasoline prices that we are all concerned about throughout the Nation. I believe every Senator needs to understand why gasoline prices are rising, why the days of cheap oil are unlikely to return anytime soon, and why programs such as PNGV are so important to our economic competitors. During the last couple of weeks, we have heard a lot on the Senate floor about the decline in domestic oil production and various proposals to stimulate new production. But production is only one side of the coin. A far more important factor in the long-term increase in oil prices is the dramatic upsurge in worldwide demand for petroleum products. The steep increase in consumption here in the United States compounds the worldwide situation. Today, the U.S. transportation sector--this includes air, boat, rail, and highway travel, all of our transportation sector--is 95-percent dependent on oil. Transportation accounts for two-thirds of our Nation's oil consumption and a quarter of our total energy use. While over the last 25 years the residential, the commercial, and industrial sectors have all been able to reduce their dependence on oil, the transportation sector consumption of oil has skyrocketed. I show you this chart. This shows petroleum use increases mainly occurring in the transportation sector. This chart goes back 30 years-- from 1970 to the year 2000--and then forward for 20 years. If you look at these other areas, it tries to show the industrial use, and the residential, commercial, or electric generation use of petroleum products. They are all relatively stable. The increases are not excessive in those areas. In fact, there are declines in electric generation and residential and commercial. But in transportation the increase is very substantial. From the first gas price shock in 1973 until 1998, oil use for transportation grew an astounding 37 percent. If that is not bad enough, according to this chart from the Energy Information Agency--let me show you this second chart. The demand for oil in the transportation sector is anticipated to increase another 46 percent over the next 20 years. Another key point from the chart is that over half of our oil consumption for transportation is used for light-duty vehicles; that is, passenger vehicles and pickup trucks. Today, more people are driving more miles in vehicles that use more fuel per mile. As you can see, unless something is done, our passenger cars will consume half again more fuel in 2020 than they do today. I think all Senators agree on the need to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Today, America imports more than half of its oil. The cost of importing oil is a dangerous drag on our economy. Reducing our dependence on imported oil is a daunting and long-term challenge that will require a variety of measures. Surely efforts to increase domestic production need to play a role in that strategy. However, I am afraid there is no silver bullet. Increased domestic production alone will not meet America's skyrocketing demand for oil. With transportation accounting for two-thirds of our oil use, I believe the key is to reduce transportation demand through a wide range of measures, including technology advances that squeeze more useful energy out of every drop of oil. That's where PNGV comes in. Started in 1993, PNGV brings together the expertise of the nation's colleges and universities, government agencies, national laboratories, suppliers, and the auto industry in a 10-year effort to dramatically improve the fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles. PNGV research efforts are focused on developing breakthrough technologies that are key to improving fuel economy. Work is underway on lightweight materials, aerodynamics, tires, power electronics, energy storage, combustion science, fuel cells, and hybrid propulsion systems. The long-term goal of the program is to develop mid-size passenger sedans with up to three-times better fuel economy in a vehicle that retains all the performance, comfort, safety, and cost of today's comparable models. In the past seven years, a number of PNGV's innovations have started to improve the fuel economy of today's production vehicles. Many of these innovations originated in our national laboratories. I am pleased to see our laboratories are playing a major role in PNGV. Let me cite a few examples of recent accomplishments: One automaker is now using a technology developed at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, in my state of New Mexico, to produce axle shafts that are stronger, lighter, and less expensive. The Pacific Northwest Laboratory in the Chairman's home state of Washington helped develop a hydroforming technique that is being used to shape door, deck and hood panels in current model vehicles. Using analytical methods developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, automakers are now producing pickup truck boxes from lightweight composite materials. And Los Alamos National Laboratory, also in my state, is one of the world leaders in fuel cell technology. Through PNGV, the lab's unique capabilities are being brought to bear on what may well be the automobile technology of the future. A fuel cell offers the highest possible efficiency with near zero emissions--certainly a goal worth striving for. In addition to producing immediate fuel savings, PNGV is a program that is meeting its milestones. Earlier this year, and on schedule, all three domestic automakers rolled out high efficiency concept vehicles: the Ford Prodigy, DaimlerChrysler's ESX-3, and GM's Precept. These cars demonstrated, for the first time, the technical feasibility of a 5- passenger, 80-mile per gallon vehicle. This is truly a remarkable achievement. I believe all Senators agree that the views of the National Academy of Sciences carry considerable weight in this body. Just last month, the Academy's National Research Council completed its sixth annual review of PNGV. It had this to say about the program: Though confronted with enormous technological problems, PNGV has made significant progress in meeting its objectives, and reaching the 2000 milestones represents an outstanding effort. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the National Research Council's sixth report on PNGV be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Alpert, a fellow in my office, be allowed floor privileges during the pendency of this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I concur with the clarification by the chairman.