Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent Caroline Chang, a fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor during the pendency of S. 2.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I come to the floor today somewhat uneasy and conflicted about this debate. I am hopeful, on the one hand, that we in the Senate can come together to provide national leadership by legislating what research has proven actually works in improving student performance. On the other hand, I stand having witnessed people from both sides of the aisle devoting a tremendous amount of time during the last year trying to figure out how to help all of the children of this country make it in today's knowledge-based economy. I am somewhat dismayed that the bill we finally arrived at the floor with is not the consensus legislation we were working to achieve. Unfortunately, our efforts to achieve a consensus piece of legislation have not succeeded. We have a bill before the Senate today which is decidedly partisan. I hope that can be changed during the course of this Senate debate. We need to examine this bill carefully because it is very important and not easy to comprehend. The bill gives Governors, who choose to exercise it, control of Federal education dollars and it would abandon the well-cultivated partnership and the powerful national leadership role that has been developed over several years. On the surface, we see it is a very large bill. I am sure several people have held it up. It is similar to a lot of bills, almost incomprehensible in its length. It goes on for nearly 1,000 pages. It seems to be, on first reading, chock full of different programs for promising ideas such as Safe and Drug Free Schools, education technology, afterschool programs, even a rural education initiative. It is the kind of assistance that individual schools and localities in New Mexico tell me they would like and need but they do not have the capacity or the resources to pursue on their own. All of my fellow committee members who worked on this legislation in committee know full well that no matter how well we collaborate on the underlying targeted programs, the two Straight A's block grants that were layered on top of the other language at the ninth hour of our deliberations make a lot of the distinctions in the bill and a lot of the programs described in the bill virtually meaningless in those States that opt to pursue that block grant. The Straight A's proposal at the heart of the bill sounds catchy. However, in my view, it is an empty promise. What does it do? I think we need to step back and ask: What do we mean by the Straight A's proposal? Essentially, it allows every State to spend Federal funds as they wish for 5 years without input from school districts or educators, without accountability for increased school performance. Those who favor the block grants say they are good because they allow for more local control. In the case of Straight A's, this is factually incorrect and ironic because a school district or a school actually will lose control because the control is vested with the Governor to set the priorities for spending within the State. This chart demonstrates that 95.5 percent of the Federal funds for education go to local schools and local districts. State administration takes 4 percent and the Federal administration takes one-half of 1 percent. The rest, over 95 percent, goes to the local schools. Under the Straight A's proposal, a Governor who chooses to do so can change that. The discretion as to how that money is spent is no longer a Federal and a local issue; it becomes a State issue. I think this would be a problem for my State of New Mexico. I know of programs I very much want to see continued. I have trouble seeing how they will be continued under this proposal. I have a list that details some of the programs, and I will go through specific amounts. In contrast to this Straight A's State block grant proposal, which is in the bill we are now considering, the alternative, which we have prepared and we are going to offer on the Democratic side, is not just to throw large sums of money to the States but, instead, to target Federal dollars to the communities with the greatest need and to give them true local control by leaving it to them and not the Governor or Secretary of Education to decide how to set up programs to meet those needs we have identified in those local communities. Let me remind you, it was exactly because the States and the localities were not effectively addressing the needs of students in disadvantaged areas that the Federal Government first stepped in to provide targeted aid through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. And, in subsequent Federal programs, we have followed this same principle. We have focused on areas of national priority, areas such as education technology and improving professionalism in the classroom. These are areas that otherwise would not be funded because of limited resources and that historically have not been funded at adequate levels. Let me show one other chart that I think makes this point. When you look at Federal funds, Federal funds are significantly more targeted to low-income children than are State funds. I think no one disputes this. This is a General Accounting Office study in January 1998. It says: For every dollar provided for all children, $4.73 is given from Federal funds to low-income children, whereas 62 cents of local money actually goes to low-income children. So the Federal Government got into the business of providing assistance to education in order to deal with deficiencies which clearly existed nationwide and to deal with inadequacies that were clearly agreed upon. This is what we are getting away from if we wind up adopting the bill which has been presented to us on the floor today. The Straight A's proposal not only does nothing to ensure the most needy children are protected; it allows Federal dollars to flow out of the public school system in the form of vouchers to private schools. I know that is another debate, but unfortunately it has been brought into this debate about this Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Incorporated into this is authority for a State to take its Federal funds and disburse those in a voucher program to the nonpublic schools as well as the public schools. I think that would be a mistake. I think it would be a mistake in my State. We are short of resources. The Federal funds that come in to help the public schools in New Mexico are very important to those public schools and we do not want to see those funds decreased by virtue of some voucher program, which our Governor today, in all due respect, strongly favors. It has been a major subject of dispute in my State between the Governor and a majority of our legislature. Another feature the proponents of the block grant approach in this bill often talk about is providing greater accountability. In the case of this Straight A's proposal, the only accountability you will find is that States which fail to make progress will lose a year of eligibility. It is similar to benching your star player for one semester for flunking a class but bringing him back once he gets his average back up to a D. That is an analogous situation. There is no real accountability in the bill as it comes before us. Under S. 2, as it now stands, at the extreme--and I don't think this will be done, but clearly there have been examples in the past when we had block grants permitted--you could have States deciding to use Federal dollars to buy swimming pools, to recarpet offices. The State could choose maintaining the status quo as its goal over the 5 years. A less malevolent picture, and one that probably is more likely, is that a Governor would receive pressure from a handful of constituent groups to persuade him or her to pour all of the block-granted Federal funds into something such as an intensive literacy program or a voucher program to send kids to private schools. This will sound good, but the problem is you will find it means there are no longer funds for migrant and homeless children to receive targeted aid; there is no longer money to provide for professional development for teachers so in some classrooms the computer can be used effectively; there is no longer money for afterschool programs; no longer money to hire new teachers. At the end of the day, as long as the wealthier and higher performing schools in the State can do well enough to offset stagnation or even decline in progress at the poorer and lower performing schools, then the Governor would be able to claim he has done his job under the Straight A's proposal. If he did not do the job, if the goal was not met, then no matter; he would probably be out of office at any rate before the 5-year experiment was over. If he is not, the only consequence is that he simply would go back to the status quo we have today. So this Straight A's proposal contains no significant accountability. I have an amendment I intend to offer on the issue of accountability. It will try to correct this. It does so by putting some key provisions in the legislation that would provide resources to States for turning around those schools that are failing. It would demand results of all students so as to eradicate existing achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, between poor and non- poor students, between English-speaking students and those who do not speak English as a first language. It would provide significant consequences for poor performance, so States and districts have to take responsibility for actually correcting the deficiencies in the failing schools. It would require a single system of accountability for all schools in the State and would limit the availability of flexibility options when a system of accountability is not yet in place. The amendment also would ensure that every class would have a qualified teacher. It would do that by requiring States which receive Federal funds to make that a priority, to ensure that resources are provided and school plans incorporate high-quality, research-based professional development for their instructional staff. There will be a chance to debate this particular accountability amendment as we go forward. I hope very much it can be adopted. It would correct many of the deficiencies in the legislation on which I am focused today. But, in addition, as we debate this education bill, I intend to bring attention to some other elements that I do not think are adequately addressed in the bill. I want to remind the Senate of the importance of teacher training in technology. It simply is not good enough that only 20 percent of current teachers are comfortable integrating technology into the subjects they teach or that we currently invest less than a third of what the experts tell us we should spend on technology training for people going into teaching. We need to deal with that. I will be offering an amendment to do that. Also, in response to concerns from school districts, and also a General Accounting Office study that demonstrates there is still a high level of paperwork burden on schools and districts from States and from environmental and nutritional regulations, I urge a close examination. I have an amendment to do so, to urge a close examination of all of those requirements to try to determine how we can achieve those goals without unduly burdening the schools. Today and throughout the discussion of this bill this week, and I believe next week as well, I intend to propose some amendments. I hope the Senate will think hard about what it is doing here. This is extremely important legislation. I acknowledge there are some philosophical differences on the appropriate Federal role in public education. I must call attention to the great shift in attitudes in the Senate since I came here 18 years ago on the proper role of the Federal Government in education. I am very heartened that we are here today with all sides of the debate arguing in favor of a major Federal role and disagreeing about what it should be. I can remember many other debates on the Senate floor where the argument was that the Federal Government should get out of the education field, that we should disband the Department of Education, we should, essentially, shift those funds over to the Department of Defense and be done with it. So we have made progress in our debate in the Senate. But we clearly have not made enough or we would not have this Straight A's proposal in front of us today. Today the Federal Government's contribution to education spending is roughly 7 cents on the dollar. Yet through an understanding that there is, indeed, a national priority, in the 35 years of the partnership there have been significant improvements. That 7 cents on the dollar has been focused on needs we all agreed needed attention. I believe we can strengthen those programs that work, we can reform those that do not work, and there are some which are not working as well as they should. But we need to keep our eye on the ball and continue to target the Federal funds, the scarce Federal dollars that we have to put into education, on the students and the schools that need them the most. We need to rise to the occasion. We need to enact a bill that will help further the goals of education. We need to come together in the Senate and not let partisan differences and the upcoming election divide us in this very important set of issues. There is no more important legislation that will come before Congress this year. I hope very much we can come together on some reasonable changes in this bill so it becomes acceptable and we can send it to the President in a form he will sign. I want to mention several more items. In my home State of New Mexico, we receive over $1 million for migrant education, we receive $10.4 million targeted for class-size reduction, we receive $2.5 million for professional development, and we receive nearly $3.5 million for the technology literacy challenge fund. Those are important programs. Those are programs upon which the school districts in my State have come to depend. I do not want to see the funds for those programs eliminated. I do not want to see a blank check go to the State with discretion vested in the Governor to either continue or discontinue those programs as he sees fit. I believe it is important we amend this bill in significant ways. I will be joining with my colleagues in offering some of those amendments. I hope very much they will be adopted. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before I discuss my position on Senate Joint Resolution 3, the crime victims rights constitutional amendment, I would like to briefly talk about my views on amending the Constitution. A recent letter each of use received from our colleagues Senator Byrd and Senator Leahy provides some of the history of our Constitution and efforts to amend it. They note that, since its ratification, over 11,000 amendments have been proposed to the Constitution. In the last month alone, the Senate has voted on three constitutional amendments. However, while thousands of amendments have been proposed, only 27 amendments have been adopted. Of those, the first 10, the Bill of Rights, were ratified in 1791. Therefore, since ratification some 200 years ago, we have generally heeded the caution of James Madison, one of the architects of the Constitution, that amendments to the Constitution should be reserved for ``certain great and extraordinary occasions''. In other words, amending the Constitution should not be done in response to what is politically popular at the moment or because of passions of the moment. If it was, I'm afraid many of those 11,000 amendments would now clutter our Constitution and undermine the very foundation of the freedoms and liberties it gives each of us. Mr. President, the victims of violent crime are a compelling group of Americans and deserve our supports and our attentions. Nothing is more devastating to a family than loosing a loved one through a senseless, random act of violence. Nothing is more devastating to a community than the kind of violence we see in our schools and on our streets almost daily. Yet it is only in the past few years, perhaps 15 or 20, that our laws and lawmakers have begun to focus on the group of people we now refer to as ``crime victims''. During those years, however, the states have not ignored the legitimate calls of crime victims and their families for more protection and more participation in the criminal justice process. Thirty-three states, including my own, have passed either crime victims rights amendments to their constitution or statutes intended to provide many of the same rights contained in S.J. Res. 3. In New Mexico, the voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1992 that is very similar to S.J. Res. 3 and the legislature subsequently passed enabling legislation. This, I think is appropriate and I am glad that New Mexico recognizes the rights of crime victims to more fully participate in the criminal justice system. In fact, it is particularly appropriate that the states have acted in this area because the states are responsible for approximately 99 percent of the criminal prosecutions in this country. From many indications, these amendments and statutes have worked. Not perfectly perhaps, but they have at least begun to bring victims of violent crime into the judicial process in a meaningful way. Because New Mexico has acted to protect the rights of crime victims, district attorneys who I've spoken with often ask why we need to amend the United States Constitution when New Mexico has already addressed this issue? That, Mr. President, is an extremely important question to ask ourselves before we vote on S.J. Res. 3. Mr. President, the Constitution provides a process for amendment when ``both Houses deem it necessary . . .'' Today I would argue that only when absolutely necessary or, in the words of Madison, for great and extraordinary occasions, should we vote to amend the Constitution. I would also argue that, where doubt exists as to the absolute necessity of the occasion, the Senate should defer on amending that document. While I support the participation of crime victims in our judicial process Mr. President, and support the efforts of New Mexico and other states to give those rights to crime victims, I simply do find the evidence of a great occasion or compelling need to amend the Constitution in the arguments made by the sponsors of the amendment and therefore will vote no on S.J. Res. 3. As others have pointed out, S.J. Res. 3 is almost as long as the entire Bill of Rights. It reads like a statute and not a constitutional amendment. This is significant and more than simply a matter of form. Part of the reason why our Constitution and republican form of government have survived largely intact for over 200 years while virtually every other in the world has undergone radical, revolutionary change is the wisdom of the drafters in setting out clear principles and a coherent system to ensure the liberties that the Constitution guarantees. However, as I read the amendment before us today, I do not see the clarity or the simplicity of principle that I see in the Bill of Rights or the other amendments we've adopted. Because this amendment lacks clarity, I am concerned about the litigation this amendment could potentially spawn and the additional costs to an already overburdened legal system. Litigation over who is a ``victim'' alone would likely fill volumes. Mr. President, one of the biggest concerns with this amendment is that, because of its vagueness, it will inevitably lead to a result which I think none of us, even the proponents, want, the diminishing of the rights of the accused. No where in the amendment does it guarantee that it will not be construed to interfere with the rights of the accused. I understand that an amendment was offered in the Judiciary Committee that would have made that clear but was rejected. That to me is very troubling because, as important as the rights of victims are, we absolutely have to keep in mind that the rights of the accused must be paramount. That is because it is the accused that stands to lose life and liberty at the hands of the government. This is a bedrock principle of our judicial system, without argument the best system in the world, and we must not diminish that principle even in the name of a good cause. Finally, Mr. President, I am concerned by the lack of case law to support the arguments of the proponents of S.J. Res. 3. As I understand it, the proponents are unable to point to any cases in which victims' rights laws or State constitutional amendments were not given effect because of defendants' rights in the Federal Constitution. Nor, as the committee report noted, is there any case law where a defendant's conviction was reversed because of victims' rights legislation or a State constitutional amendment. Why then are we amending the Constitution when there is no body of law that justifies the extraordinary step of amending the U.S. Constitution? This is very different from the situation we were in a few weeks ago when the Senate voted on an amendment to the Constitution on the issue of the desecration of the flag on campaign finance limits. In both of those instances, at least we had a final determination by the Supreme Court with which we could take exception. Without such a body of law I do not find the arguments in favor of a Federal constitutional amendment compelling. Mr. President, I strongly support the right of victims of violent crime to be included in the criminal justice system in a meaningful way. I think it helps bring closure to the inured victims and provides an important balance to a system that admittedly has not always been sympathetic to the rights of victims. I would support additional funding and resources for victims rights programs and to properly train the judiciary in the need to be sensitive to the rights of crime victims. However, before we take the drastic and, for all intents and purposes, irreversible step of amending our Constitution for only the 28th time in our history, I believe we must be absolutely certain that we have exhausted all other avenues. As the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women argues: The Federal constitution is the wrong place to try to ``fix'' the complex problems facing victims of crime, statutory alternatives and state remedies are more suitable. Our Nation's constitution should not be amended unless there is compelling need to do so and there are no remedies available at the state level. Instead of altering the U.S. Constitution, we urge policy makers to consider statutory alternatives and statewide initiatives that would include the enforcement of already existing statutes, and practices that can truly assist victims of crimes, as well as increased direct services to victims. Mr. President, I believe we should give the states additional time to implement their victims rights amendments and statutes. Change occurs slowly, but I am convinced that real change for the victims of crime will be addressed more effectively by the states and that the federal government should not impose a one-size-fits-all, the federal government knows best, solution on the states. Additionally, if we determine that action at the federal level is absolutely necessary, I believe we should try to fashion a legislative solution before we amend the Constitution. I believe that we can do that and provide meaningful rights to victims of crime. If, failing that, we find that victims are still not being afforded reasonable and real participation in the criminal justice system, then perhaps only a constitutional amendment will work but I am not convinced that we have done all that we can do short of that. Mr. President, good intentions do not necessarily produce good results. The intentions of the supporters of S.J. Res. 3 are certainly good and just and I share those intentions, as well as their belief that we should be doing more for the victims of violent crime. However, I do not believe that this amendment will produce good results and may actually harm those it is intended to help and for that reason, I will vote against S.J. Res. 3.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I so yield the time to the Senator from West Virginia. I thank the Senator from Minnesota and yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I yield a half hour from the time I have under cloture to Senator Daschle, the leader on the Democratic side.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert Kern, a longtime professor at the University of New Mexico where he is head of the European section of the history department. With a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, Dr. Kern's studies, teachings, and writings are centered on Iberian history, and the history of labor in various societies. In nearly 35 years of teaching at UNM, he has earned a well-deserved reputation as a thoughtful professor and a distinguished writer. Believing that teaching is just about the noblest profession anyone can undertake, and coming from a family of teachers myself, I admire more than I can say what Professor Kern has done in this career. As a father, I admire more than I can say the fine job he did raising his sons, one of whom, Josh, worked on my staff for several years. The love, care, and attention Robert Kern gave his boys is reflected in their own lives and I suspect that of all of his achievements in a life well-lived, they are his pride and joy.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation, recognizing the heroic contributions of a group of Native American soldiers who served in the Pacific theater during the second World War. This legislation will authorize the President of the United States to award a gold medal, on behalf of the Congress, to each of the original twenty-nine Navajo Code Talkers, as well as a silver medal to each man who later qualified as a Navajo Code Talker (MOS 642). These medals are to express recognition by the United States of America and its citizens of the Navajo Code Talkers who distinguished themselves in performing a unique, highly successful communications operation that greatly assisted in saving countless lives and in hastening the end of the war in the Pacific. It has taken too long to properly recognize these soldiers, whose achievements have been obscured by twin veils of secrecy and time. As they approach the final chapter of their lives, it is only fitting that the nation pay them this honor. That's why I am introducing this legislation today--to salute these brave and innovative Native Americans, to acknowledge the great contribution they made to the Nation at a time of war, and to finally give them their rightful place in history. With each new successive generation of Americans, blessed as we are in this time of relative peace and prosperity, it is easy to forget what the world was like in the early 1940's. The United States was at war in Europe, and on December 7, 1941, we were faced with a second front as the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl Harbor. One of the intelligence weapons the Japanese possessed was an elite group of well-trained English speaking soldiers, used to intercept U.S. communications, then sabotage the message or issue false commands to ambush American troops. Military code became more and more complex--at Guadalcanal, military leaders complained that it took 2\1/2\ hours to send and decode a single message. The idea to use Navajo for secure communications came from Philip Johnson. Johnson was the son of a missionary, raised on the Navajo reservation, and one of the few non-Navajos who spoke their language fluently. But he was also a World War I veteran, and knew of the military's search for a code that would withstand all attempts to decipher it. Johnson believed Navajo answered the military requirement for an undecipherable code because Navajo is an unwritten language of extreme complexity. In early 1942, he met with the Commanding General of Amphibious Corps, Pacific Fleet, and his staff to convince them of the value of the Navajo language as code. In one of his tests, he demonstrated that Navajos could encode, transmit, and decode a three- line English message in 20 seconds. Twenty-seconds! Convinced, the Marine Corps called upon the Navajo Nation to support the military effort by recruiting and enlisting Navajo men to serve as Marine Corps Radio Operators. These Navajo Marines, who became known as the Navajo Code Talkers, used the Navajo language to develop a unique code to communicate military messages in the South Pacific. True to Phillip Johnson's prediction, and the enemy's frustration, the code developed by these Native Americans proved unbreakable and was used throughout the Pacific theater. Their accomplishment was even more heroic given the cultural context in which they were operating: The Navajos were second-class citizens and were discouraged from using their own language; and They were living on reservations, as many still are today, yet they volunteered to serve, protect, and defend the very power that put them there. But the Navajo, a people subjected to alienation in their own homeland, who had been discouraged from speaking their own language, stepped forward and developed the most significant and successful military code of the time: This Code was so successful that military commanders credited the Code in saving the lives of countless American soldiers and the successful engagements of the U.S. in the battles of Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. At Iwo Jima, Major Howard Connor, 5th Marine Division signal officer, declared, ``Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.'' Major Connor had six Navajo code talkers working around the clock during the first 48-hours of the battle. Those six sent and received over 800 messages, all without error; This Code was so successful that some Code Talkers were guarded by fellow marines whose role was to kill them in case of imminent capture by the enemy; and finally, It was so successful that the Department of Defense kept the Code secret for 23 years after the end of World War II, when it was finally declassified. And there, Mr. President, is the foundation of the problem. If their achievements had been hailed at the conclusion of the war, proper honors would have been bestowed at that time. But the Code Talkers were sworn to secrecy, an oath they kept and honored, but at the same time, one that robbed them of the very accolades and place in history they so rightly deserved. Their ranks include veterans of Guadalcanal, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa; they gave their lives at New Britain, Bougainville, Guam, and Peleliu. But, while the bodies of their fallen comrades came home, simple messages of comfort from those still fighting to relatives back home on the reservations were prohibited by the very secrecy of the code's origin. And at the end of the war, these unsung heroes returned to their homes on buses--no parades, no fanfare, no special recognition for what they had truly accomplished--because while the war was over, their duty--their oath of secrecy--continued. The secrecy surrounding the code was maintained until it was declassified in 1968--only then did a realization of the sacrifice and valor of these brave Native Americans emerge from history. For the countless lives they helped save, for this contribution that helped speed the Allied victory in the Pacific, I believe they succeeded beyond all expectations. Through the enactment of this bill, the recognition for the Navajo Code Talkers will be delayed no longer, and they will finally take their place in history they so rightly deserve. To this end, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation, recognizing the heroic contributions of a group of Native American soldiers who served in the Pacific theater during the second World War. This legislation will authorize the President of the United States to award a gold medal, on behalf of the Congress, to each of the original twenty-nine Navajo Code Talkers, as well as a silver medal to each man who later qualified as a Navajo Code Talker (MOS 642). These medals are to express recognition by the United States of America and its citizens of the Navajo Code Talkers who distinguished themselves in performing a unique, highly successful communications operation that greatly assisted in saving countless lives and in hastening the end of the war in the Pacific. It has taken too long to properly recognize these soldiers, whose achievements have been obscured by twin veils of secrecy and time. As they approach the final chapter of their lives, it is only fitting that the nation pay them this honor. That's why I am introducing this legislation today--to salute these brave and innovative Native Americans, to acknowledge the great contribution they made to the Nation at a time of war, and to finally give them their rightful place in history. With each new successive generation of Americans, blessed as we are in this time of relative peace and prosperity, it is easy to forget what the world was like in the early 1940's. The United States was at war in Europe, and on December 7, 1941, we were faced with a second front as the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl Harbor. One of the intelligence weapons the Japanese possessed was an elite group of well-trained English speaking soldiers, used to intercept U.S. communications, then sabotage the message or issue false commands to ambush American troops. Military code became more and more complex--at Guadalcanal, military leaders complained that it took 2\1/2\ hours to send and decode a single message. The idea to use Navajo for secure communications came from Philip Johnson. Johnson was the son of a missionary, raised on the Navajo reservation, and one of the few non-Navajos who spoke their language fluently. But he was also a World War I veteran, and knew of the military's search for a code that would withstand all attempts to decipher it. Johnson believed Navajo answered the military requirement for an undecipherable code because Navajo is an unwritten language of extreme complexity. In early 1942, he met with the Commanding General of Amphibious Corps, Pacific Fleet, and his staff to convince them of the value of the Navajo language as code. In one of his tests, he demonstrated that Navajos could encode, transmit, and decode a three- line English message in 20 seconds. Twenty-seconds! Convinced, the Marine Corps called upon the Navajo Nation to support the military effort by recruiting and enlisting Navajo men to serve as Marine Corps Radio Operators. These Navajo Marines, who became known as the Navajo Code Talkers, used the Navajo language to develop a unique code to communicate military messages in the South Pacific. True to Phillip Johnson's prediction, and the enemy's frustration, the code developed by these Native Americans proved unbreakable and was used throughout the Pacific theater. Their accomplishment was even more heroic given the cultural context in which they were operating: The Navajos were second-class citizens and were discouraged from using their own language; and They were living on reservations, as many still are today, yet they volunteered to serve, protect, and defend the very power that put them there. But the Navajo, a people subjected to alienation in their own homeland, who had been discouraged from speaking their own language, stepped forward and developed the most significant and successful military code of the time: This Code was so successful that military commanders credited the Code in saving the lives of countless American soldiers and the successful engagements of the U.S. in the battles of Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. At Iwo Jima, Major Howard Connor, 5th Marine Division signal officer, declared, ``Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.'' Major Connor had six Navajo code talkers working around the clock during the first 48-hours of the battle. Those six sent and received over 800 messages, all without error; This Code was so successful that some Code Talkers were guarded by fellow marines whose role was to kill them in case of imminent capture by the enemy; and finally, It was so successful that the Department of Defense kept the Code secret for 23 years after the end of World War II, when it was finally declassified. And there, Mr. President, is the foundation of the problem. If their achievements had been hailed at the conclusion of the war, proper honors would have been bestowed at that time. But the Code Talkers were sworn to secrecy, an oath they kept and honored, but at the same time, one that robbed them of the very accolades and place in history they so rightly deserved. Their ranks include veterans of Guadalcanal, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa; they gave their lives at New Britain, Bougainville, Guam, and Peleliu. But, while the bodies of their fallen comrades came home, simple messages of comfort from those still fighting to relatives back home on the reservations were prohibited by the very secrecy of the code's origin. And at the end of the war, these unsung heroes returned to their homes on buses--no parades, no fanfare, no special recognition for what they had truly accomplished--because while the war was over, their duty--their oath of secrecy--continued. The secrecy surrounding the code was maintained until it was declassified in 1968--only then did a realization of the sacrifice and valor of these brave Native Americans emerge from history. For the countless lives they helped save, for this contribution that helped speed the Allied victory in the Pacific, I believe they succeeded beyond all expectations. Through the enactment of this bill, the recognition for the Navajo Code Talkers will be delayed no longer, and they will finally take their place in history they so rightly deserve. To this end, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Senate passed S. 711, calendar No. 235, a bill to allow for the investment of joint Federal and State funds from the civil settlement of damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, on November 19 last year, in the last hours of the First Session. The bill states that moneys in the settlement fund are eligible for the new investment authority so long as they are allocated in a manner identified in the bill. Specifically, S. 711 provides that $55 million of the funds remaining on October 1, 2002 shall be allocated for habitat protection programs. The accompanying report, S. Rept. 106-124, contains a provision in the section-by-section analysis, subsection 1(e), stating that, with respect to the $55 million for habitat protection programs, ``[a]dditionally, any funds needed for the administration of the Trust will also be deducted from these monies.'' I was surprised to see this provision in the report because I do not believe that it reflects the committee's intent with respect to the bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this week marks the tenth anniversary of the International Arms Control Conference hosted by Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I extend my congratulations to Dr. Paul Robinson, Director of Sandia Laboratory for his support for this unique international conference that draws hundreds of technical and policy experts from all over the world each year. It is particularly important at this time in history to recognize this Conference here in the Senate. The conclusion of the Cold War has offered the United States and the nations of the world an historic opportunity to increase security in the international system through seeking cooperative measures that would establish international standards of behavior useful for improving global security. When the Senate voted to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, I am pleased to say, this nation acted in a committed and positive way to capitalize on the opportunity we have been afforded. Events in the past two years, however, have brought America to a crossroads with respect to the future of arms control. The Senate recently voted to reject the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a treaty signed by 155 countries, that would have established an international standard permanently banning the testing of nuclear weapons in order to combat the spread of nuclear weapons. I deeply regret that vote by the Senate, Mr. President, and am committed to find a way to achieve the goal for which that treaty was negotiated. Meanwhile, the Russian Duma continues its on again off again consideration of the START II Treaty to reduce the number of strategic weapons in our respective arsenals of nuclear weapons. To date, they have taken no action. Each time a vote in the Duma approaches, an event occurs that postpones its consideration of this important treaty that would reduce the nuclear threat between Russia and the United States and, indeed, to the world as a whole. Many Russian officials have observed that no further progress in reducing nuclear arsenals is possible if the United States chooses to abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty which restricts the ability of the United States and Russia to deploy national missile defense systems. Many experts and public officials in the U.S., however, have concluded that the missile threat from rogue governments is sufficiently real that the U.S. should move forward on deploying a missile defense regardless of its impact on strategic relations between Russia and the United States. The President, however, in signing the National Missile Defense Act, indicated that before deciding to deploy a national missile defense system, he would assess the potential impact of such a decision on arms control regimes that support our national security. The nation awaits a decision that could occur this summer. While this critical decision lies ahead, U.S. negotiators have been meeting with their Russian counterparts to explore a potential agreement that could permit the U.S. to modify the ABM Treaty in a way that would not threaten the strategic balance between the two countries. The outcome of those negotiations is far from certain. The issues that are involved are complex, and extend beyond the dyadic relations between the United States and Russia. Other nuclear powers, notably China, are watching those negotiations very closely to determine appropriate policy directions regarding their own nuclear strategy and arsenal. As the U.S. and Russia examine the thorny, complex issues involving the relationship between offensive and defensive strategic arms, and nations of the world consider the Senate's vote against the CTBT, the world nevertheless remains committed to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons through the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). That Treaty, ratified by 187 countries, recently celebrated its 30th anniversary. In 1995, the states parties to that treaty voted to extend its provisions indefinitely. Later this month, the Sixth Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference will take place in New York. Given the events in South Asia during the past year, and the vote on CTBT in the Senate this winter, the Review Conference will be a very important convocation at which all states parties, including the U.S., will be called on to reaffirm their commitment to the provisions of the NPT. Given these current conditions in the international environment, it is indeed timely and vital that efforts such as the International Arms Control Conference hosted by Sandia Laboratory take place. The meetings and dialogues that occur at this Conference have provided important understanding among the international community on major arms control issues and I am confident will continue to do so as long as the world seeks to improve security through cooperation. I salute Sandia, and in particular, Dr. Jim Brown, who founded the Conference ten years ago and has faithfully served as its organizer and driving force during the past decade. If the nations of the world will be able to build upon cooperative understandings reached through arms control agreements, it will be because of the efforts of people such as Dr. Brown, who has devoted a career toward that goal. I extend my best wishes to conference participants and urge them to work hard to build a safer tomorrow for all of us.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on why I will vote against the Craig amendment to the budget resolution, amendment #3007. While the amendment offered by Senator Craig has many law enforcement provisions that I support, I am very concerned that Senator Craig deleted funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in his amendment. If we are serious about providing the necessary resources to effectively pursue offenders of existing federal firearms laws, we cannot exclude the ATF. A true law enforcement initiative should provide sufficient funding for both ATF agents and inspectors. Afterall, the ATF is the federal agency whose mission is to reduce violent crime by enforcing our laws and regulations concerning firearms and explosives. Because the Craig amendment deliberately deleted funding for the ATF, I decided to vote against it. I repeatedly hear that in order for prosecutors to do their job, they need law enforcement, such as the ATF, to detect interstate drug running and to investigate gun dealers making illegal transfers of firearms. Due to Senate procedures, the amendment offered by Senator Craig vitiated a vote on amendment #2954, an amendment offered by Senator Durbin, that I fully supported. The Durbin amendment included funding for more than 1,000 local, State and Federal prosecutors to prosecute firearms offenses. The Durbin amendment also provided funding to expand Project Exile across the country and funding for ballistics testing programs to support law enforcement efforts. As opposed to the Craig amendment, the Durbin amendment provided $94 million in funding for an increase in ATF agents and inspectors. Mr. President, prosecutors and federal task forces aimed at enforcing our existing firearms laws will be missing a key element if the ATF's funding is excluded from a federal law enforcement funding initiative.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to express my disappointment with the failed vote on my amendment to increase funding for the Title I education program for disadvantaged children. Disadvantaged communities need more help to ensure that all public schools give children a good education. Title I is working in many schools across the country. We should help bring success to every community. Ninety-nine percent of Title I funds go to local school districts and Title I is much more targeted to high poverty districts than state and local funds. Yet, current federal resources dedicated to the program fall far short of meeting the existing need. Many schools that are eligible for the program do not receive funding due to insufficient appropriations. During the recent debate of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the HELP committee, Senator Dodd offered an amendment to authorize an increase in funding for Title I to $15 billion. The amendment was unanimously adopted. My amendment to the budget resolution would ensure that funds will be available to carry out this bipartisan goal. It is unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked passage of this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Dodd, and Senator Kennedy. What it does is set aside in this budget $15 billion in next year's budget funding of title I. This is an issue that came up in the authorization committee when we were considering the title I reauthorization. Senator Dodd offered an amendment at that time to raise this to $15 billion. It was unanimously agreed to. Now is the chance for everybody to go ahead and vote for the funds to carry out that which all agree should be done. Senator Dodd would like to speak for a minute. I yield my time to him.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2997.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chairman for taking the time to clarify this point for us. I can assure you that this issue is very important to our States, and we look forward to working with you and the rest of our colleagues to address this situation in the near future. thrift savings accounts

Mr. BINGAMAN. In that regard, I ask the Chairman of the Budget Committee if the amount available in the section 203 reserve fund would accommodate this legislation, and if it could be included within the intent of this reserve fund.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I know that Senator Domenici is aware of another situation that has had a negative impact on States' share of Federal mineral receipts. Subtitle C of Title X of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 put in place a system for allocating mineral revenues between the States and the United States that is complicated and difficult to administer. It has resulted in confusion and conflict between States and the Federal Government, and the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior has noted that the agencies' budgeting processes and accounting systems were not designed to accumulating costs in the detail required for administering the system. The system is criticized by both the States and the Federal agencies charged with administering it, and it is time for it to be changed.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the Chairman of the Budget Committee regarding the reserve fund for stabilization of payments to counties in support of education contained in section 203.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will use the 2 minutes we have to summarize the amendment. I agree with Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts that this is a simple choice we have to make. Is there going to be a reduction in the amount of the tax cut? The proposed tax cut is the largest on the Senate floor with which I am familiar. And the proposal is to reduce that tax cut by about 15 percent and commit 15 percent of those revenues to improvements in education. The argument is that the underlying budget resolution has $1 billion for IDEA, which we support. Our amendment has that, too. There is no difference on that issue. The argument is that their budget resolution asks for more than the President's proposal. The truth is, their budget resolution says that of the increase in education, $2.3 billion of it needs to be spent on a so-called performance bonus fund. It is committed to that. It is dedicated to that. It can't be spent for 5 years. So no school is going to see any benefit from that. If you take that out, there is a cut in education in the budget resolution on which we are voting. Our amendment tries to restore those funds and get the funds up to the level in the programs that have been proven to work, programs that matter to people all over this country. We believe those programs should be adequately funded: programs to improve the quality of teachers in the classroom, programs to modernize our schools, programs to increase accountability for the expenditure of funds, particularly title I funds, programs for after school. Those are the types of programs we are trying to see are adequately funded. We do not believe those programs should suffer in order that we create a new mandatory performance bonus. That is the issue before us today. I hope Members will support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. When you look at this $2.3 billion the Budget Committee report sets aside for this new, mandatory performance bonus fund, that, of course, presumably, should come out of the total amount for education. I believe it does very explicitly. Therefore, when you subtract that, the resolution asserts a $2.2 billion increase for discretionary education programs. Given the size of the tax cut in relation to the non-Social Security surplus, this increase does not seem possible, as I mentioned before. But if we assume it is, it still falls short of covering the priorities specified in their own resolution. The resolution earmarks, out of the $2.2 billion that remains after you subtract the $2.3 billion down here--$1 billion for IDEA, it sets aside $1.6 billion for increases in other elementary and secondary education programs, and it sets aside $700 million for the increase to raise the maximum Pell grant by $200. If you add the $700 million, the $1.6 billion, the $1 billion, and the $2.3 billion, you get $5.6 billion. So the unfortunate reality is that there is no way to get it all done in the $4.5 billion that is permitted in the way of increases for education. Therefore, the $1.1 billion difference between the $5.6 billion and the $4.5 billion needs to be cut from other education programs in order to reach the specified increases. Based on what is outlined in the committee-reported budget, Non- elementary and Secondary Education Act or IDEA education programs would have to be cut about 22 percent to meet the assumptions for education spending. The funding for fiscal year 2001 for discretionary programs under the Republican proposal is $2.3 billion below what the President requested. If all discretionary education, training, and social programs in function 500 of the budget are considered, the resolution is $4.7 billion below the President's budget. Our amendment would guarantee real dollars for targeted efforts, for programs that are known to improve student performance. The program would provide increases in funding that would allow for this $1 billion increase in IDEA. As I said before, we compliment the committee for agreeing to that. I believe that is very important. Our amendment would also sustain our commitment to the student loan program and to the impact aid programs. The amendment would provide for a $400 increase in the maximum Pell grant rather than the $200 increase proposed by the President and contained in the committee report. In addition, the amendment would guarantee increased investments in programs that we know are essential to educational reform, including those I mentioned before. Let me mention just a few more of those. There is a $1.5 billion increase in our proposed amendment for teacher quality programs. This is $1 billion over the President's proposal, so we can ensure every child is taught by a qualified instructor. Research shows that high-quality teachers are the single most important determinant of student learning. This amendment increases resources for schools with high concentrations of poverty. Here we are talking about the title I program. We would propose to increase funding there by $1 billion, which, frankly, is not enough. During the Elementary and Secondary Education Act markup, which we concluded in the Health and Education Committee just the other day, our committee voted unanimously--all Democrats and all Republicans voted unanimously to increase the authorization for title I to $15 billion. I would like to work with my Republican colleagues to ensure we are at least on the path to meeting that goal. At the very least, we need to commit to make a substantial increase next year. All of us know the importance of title I funding. All of us give speeches about how important it is to adequately fund title I. Here is a chance to actually vote to do that. The amendment we are offering continues our commitment to smaller classes, providing $1.75 billion to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce class size in the early grades. In addition, the amendment expands support for creating smaller learning communities in large schools. This amendment makes college more affordable for many of our young people. As I mentioned before, we are increasing the maximum Pell grant by $400--we are proposing to do that. That would make postsecondary education accessible to 96,000 more recipients than currently have access. The amendment increases the GEAR UP program and the TRIO Program so more disadvantaged children can be given the support they need to attend college. Under the amendment, students in my State would receive an additional $5 million in aid under the Pell Grant Program. Let me just conclude by saying the public does want its schools fixed, even if that means somewhat less in the way of a tax cut. That is the issue before us. Should there be something in the range of a 15- percent reduction in the tax cut in order to adequately fund education in this budget? The budget resolution before us does not reflect the priorities of the American public. It flies in the face of what Americans say their priorities are in this robust economy. In survey after survey, American voters have not only told us education is the most important issue nationally, but they support action at the national level to improve our country's schools. This sentiment extends to the funding of education, just as it extends to other changes in our education. So I believe this is very important. I believe this amendment will improve this budget resolution dramatically and will put it much more in line with the interests and priorities of the American people. I hope very much it will be agreed to by my colleagues. I yield the floor and yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 8 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me go ahead and complete the summary of this amendment, if I could. First, I do recognize the Republican resolution, which we have on the floor, asserts a commitment to increase spending for a few important education programs. We support the committee's decision to commit to increased funding for IDEA and for Pell grants and some other elementary and secondary education programs. But we do not support pitting these programs against other critical programs. We believe the more prudent course would be to guarantee the level of funding required to protect the programs that have proven themselves in our efforts to reform schools and bring improvements in student performance. Let me just go through this chart to try to clarify my understanding at least of the Republican budget resolution that is before us. The resolution asserts a $4.5 billion increase for mandatory and discretionary Department of Education programs. But when you try to figure out how that $4.5 billion is arrived at, the specific elements that are discussed at different parts of the budget add up to more than $4.5 billion. For example, there is $2.3 billion set aside for a new, mandatory performance bonus fund which is established.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from California for the question. My own view is there are a great many young people out there who want to be in these programs. There are a great many parents who want to have their children in these programs. Our estimate is that 1.6 million more of the students nationwide would be able to participate if we are able to succeed with this amendment and add the $547 million of additional funds that the President has requested. That is what we are trying to do. Clearly, it is a question of priorities. Where do people think this money should be spent? My own view is these programs are extremely effective not only in improving children's performance but in keeping kids out of trouble. The drug problem is real. We all talk about the need to fight the drug problem. We are having a great discussion now in the newspapers about how much should be spent to deal with the drug problem by assisting the country of Colombia. I support doing something significant there. Clearly, reducing demand through more attention to young people through afterschool programs is part of the solution.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.