Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am offering the amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, Senator Daschle, and Senator Wellstone, several of whom will speak. It would increase the national investment in education over the committee's mark by $5.6 billion in budget authority in fiscal year 2001. Let me put up a chart that shows the difference between our proposed amendment and the budget resolution. You can see that the budget resolution is $75 billion in 2001. Our amendment will raise that up to $80.64 billion. It also would increase over a 5-year period the total amount devoted to education by $34.7 billion. This second chart shows the comparison between the budget resolution that came to the floor and what this amendment would do. In our view, this increase is essential if we are going to reflect the priorities of the American people. All of us know that the top priority of the people we represent is to see improvements in education and to see every child in this country given the opportunity to get a good education. Clearly, the decisions we make in this budget resolution will go a long way to determining whether that is possible or not. The amendment I sent to the desk would use about 15 percent of the proposed Republican tax cut. It would reduce the tax cut by that 15 percent in order to guarantee sufficient funding for programs that have been proven to improve student performance in our public schools and to assist students seeking a postsecondary education. What are those programs? That is the subject of our amendment. The amendment that we are proposing would seek to protect many such programs. First, it seeks to protect a program to increase safety and decrease overcrowding in our schools by providing $1.3 billion in grants and loans for urgent repair of 5,000 public elementary and secondary schools in high-need areas and by leveraging $25 billion in interest- free bonds to help build and modernize 6,000 schools. The amendment also demonstrates a national commitment to building and renovating our schools to make sure all children are able to study in safe, modern environments by setting aside $3.7 billion of the proposed tax cut, which is just 1.8 percent of the total tax cut, to back those interest-free bonds for school construction costs. These programs I estimate would provide about $200 million in my home State of New Mexico where current estimates are that school repair and modernization needs exceed $1.8 billion. Many schools are overcrowded. Over 69 percent of our schools in my State report plumbing and electrical problems; 75 percent have problems with environmental factors such as lighting and heating. Another program we guarantee funding in what we believe is a reasonable level is the afterschool programs. We expand existing afterschool programs so approximately 1.6 million more school-age children in over 6,000 new 21st century community learning centers have access to afterschool programs in safe and drug-free environments. The amendment seeks to ensure an increase of $547 million in these programs. The estimate for my State would be about $5.3 million of the total amount. Also, in this amendment we support tough accountability standards for increasing the funding for title I accountability grants by $116 million over last year's level, to the level of $250 million. This is essential to accelerate efforts to turn around failing schools and to implement tough accountability systems. Under current law, States in districts receiving funding under the title I program, which is every State and most school districts in the country, are required to monitor student and school performance on State assessments based on State standards. States and districts are required to take action if schools are failing. In committee, we strengthened the accountability system, but we did not strengthen it enough. During the debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I hope to offer an amendment that strengthens it further. Nevertheless, no accountability system is going to prove effective without the resources to implement. Although most States have adopted statewide standards, they have not directed adequate resources to schools that are failing in order to meet those standards. Dedicated funds are necessary to develop improvement strategies which create rewards and penalties holding schools accountable for continuous improvement in their student performance. The Federal Government directs over $8 billion in Federal funding to provide critical support programs for disadvantaged students under title I. However, the accountability provisions in title I have not been adequately implemented due to insufficient resources. The amendment we are offering today provides for this critical assistance and the strict accountability measures for improvement in student performance to turn around so-called failing schools. My colleagues and I believe this amendment is necessary because the proposed budget we are now considering, if implemented, will make adequate increases in education spending virtually impossible. Several of my colleagues have already pointed out the proposed budget calls for at least $168 billion in tax cuts over 5 years; that is the largest tax cut ever proposed. These tax cuts, at a minimum, leave nothing in the budget surplus for education or for the other priorities so important to the American people. Without cutting other programs or dipping into Social Security, this budget resolution causes Members to choose between tax cuts and education. Unless unrealistic cuts are made to noneducation programs, the Republican budget resolution disregards these and other national priorities and exhausts 98 percent of the total non-Social Security surplus on tax cuts over the next 5 years. The budget resolution only covers the next 5 years; over 10 years the tax cuts would cost substantially more than the projected non-Social Security surplus projected by the CBO. While the Budget Committee's resolution provides increases for discretionary spending for defense, it cuts nondefense discretionary funds by $105 billion, or 6.5 percent over the next 5 years below the amount the Congressional Budget Office indicates is necessary to maintain current funding.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Caroline Chang, a Fellow working in my office, be permitted floor privileges during the pendency of S. Con. Res. 101.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the ``Networking and Information Technology Research and Development for Department of Energy Missions Act,'' which is cosponsored by Senators Craig, Schumer, and Murray. This bipartisan bill is in recognition of the critical contributions and future potential of computing programs within the Department of Energy's Office of Science. These programs have played a key role in the development of high performance computing, networking, and information technology. Some of their notable accomplishments have included: the establishment of the first national supercomputer center, the development of mathematical algorithm libraries for high performance computing, the development of a critical interface and other software packages to support high speed parallel interconnection of supercomputers, and the development of a fundamental component of how information is routed on the internet. Recent recognition of the scientists supported by this program have included: the 1998 Fernbach award; the 1998 Gordon Bell prize; awards for the best overall paper as well and the best of show award at the Supercomputing 1998 conference; the best paper and a number of special awards at the Supercomputing 1999 conference, the Maxwell prize in applied mathematics, and the 2000 Norbert Wiener Prize in applied mathematics. The future potential of these programs is immense and not limited to the computation, networking, and information sciences. There is also great potential for helping not only the mission needs of the Department of Energy but also the broader scientific community and the public through increased understanding of biological systems, energy and environmental systems, chemical, physical, and plasma systems, and high energy and nuclear systems. This understanding is key to our more efficient and environmentally friendly production and utilization of energy and material goods. The notable features of the bill include: an authorization for increased funding similar in scope to what is proposed in the House of Representatives for the National Science Foundation computational efforts; an open competition for funding; a collaborative program between DOE program offices; building partnerships between laboratories, universities, and industry; a focus on solutions to networking and information technology problems that are critical to the achieving DOE missions; and management of funding provided to NNSA laboratories administered by the sponsoring program of the Department. This last provision is consistent with the legislation which created the NNSA in that it maintains accountability for new money authorized by this bill in DOE civilian programs so that such funding will remain within the purview of civilian programs under the oversight of the authorizing committee for this legislation, while maintaining the principle that funding at laboratories under the purview of the NNSA be consistent with their general programmatic missions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am very proud to be here with my friend and colleague, Senator Jack Reed, to introduce the Tobacco Regulation Fairness Act of 2000. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to join this effort, for it is time for Congress to take action. We must ensure that the Food and Drug Administration can regulate the manufacture, labeling, advertising, distribution and sale of tobacco products. While many are disappointed with last week's Supreme Court ruling on FDA regulation of tobacco products, the ruling reflects reality. Congress has not acted to give FDA the authority it needs to regulate tobacco products. The Supreme Court's decision underscores this fact and heightens the need for Congress to pass meaningful and comprehensive legislation to ensure FDA authority over tobacco products. This legislation is the key to preventing tobacco use by teenagers and adolescents and to preventing the sales of tobacco products to children. If we can prevent kids from smoking, we can head off a tremendous amount of human disease and suffering, medical costs, and loss of life. While even tobacco companies say that they are against kids smoking, we must look at the facts. According to the American Cancer Society, in the course of this Congress, almost 600,000 children will try tobacco products for the first time. Of those, nearly 200,000 will become addicted to nicotine. Additionally, over more than 90,000 people will die from tobacco related cancers. In 1997, a study by the Center for Disease Control showed that children and adolescents were able to buy tobacco products 67 percent of the times they tried. The CDC found that most young smokers were able to buy their own cigarettes and were seldom asked for identification. While strides have been made in the past 2 years, it is imperative that change continue. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court made its decision and Congress must act so that we can continue to make inroads into youth smoking prevention. Mr. President, this legislation designates the Food and Drug Administration as the Federal agency that regulates the manufacture, distribution and sale of tobacco products. This Act will serve to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to promulgate regulations governing the manufacture, sale and distribution of tobacco products. Additionally, the legislation also establishes a federal minimum age of sale of tobacco products of 18 and require the label to state ``Federal Law Prohibits Sale to Minors.'' Mr. President, in 1989 and again in 1992, I introduced a bill to require the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. ``The Tobacco Health and Safety Act of 1992'' had a companion bill with Representative Michael Synar in the House. These bills were very similar legislative attempts to regulate tobacco by bringing it under the jurisdiction of the Federal Food and Drug Administration. I believed then and I believe now that the FDA is the appropriate regulatory entity to address this vital issue. To do anything else is unacceptable. It is time to give the FDA the full authority to regulate the manufacture, sale, labeling, advertising, and promotion of tobacco products. The bill we introduce today is a fair and equitable approach to the issue. It represents a strong commitment to health promotion and disease prevention. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and work with us to act upon this as a public health issue before we adjourn this year.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the ``Networking and Information Technology Research and Development for Department of Energy Missions Act,'' which is cosponsored by Senators Craig, Schumer, and Murray. This bipartisan bill is in recognition of the critical contributions and future potential of computing programs within the Department of Energy's Office of Science. These programs have played a key role in the development of high performance computing, networking, and information technology. Some of their notable accomplishments have included: the establishment of the first national supercomputer center, the development of mathematical algorithm libraries for high performance computing, the development of a critical interface and other software packages to support high speed parallel interconnection of supercomputers, and the development of a fundamental component of how information is routed on the internet. Recent recognition of the scientists supported by this program have included: the 1998 Fernbach award; the 1998 Gordon Bell prize; awards for the best overall paper as well and the best of show award at the Supercomputing 1998 conference; the best paper and a number of special awards at the Supercomputing 1999 conference, the Maxwell prize in applied mathematics, and the 2000 Norbert Wiener Prize in applied mathematics. The future potential of these programs is immense and not limited to the computation, networking, and information sciences. There is also great potential for helping not only the mission needs of the Department of Energy but also the broader scientific community and the public through increased understanding of biological systems, energy and environmental systems, chemical, physical, and plasma systems, and high energy and nuclear systems. This understanding is key to our more efficient and environmentally friendly production and utilization of energy and material goods. The notable features of the bill include: an authorization for increased funding similar in scope to what is proposed in the House of Representatives for the National Science Foundation computational efforts; an open competition for funding; a collaborative program between DOE program offices; building partnerships between laboratories, universities, and industry; a focus on solutions to networking and information technology problems that are critical to the achieving DOE missions; and management of funding provided to NNSA laboratories administered by the sponsoring program of the Department. This last provision is consistent with the legislation which created the NNSA in that it maintains accountability for new money authorized by this bill in DOE civilian programs so that such funding will remain within the purview of civilian programs under the oversight of the authorizing committee for this legislation, while maintaining the principle that funding at laboratories under the purview of the NNSA be consistent with their general programmatic missions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am very proud to be here with my friend and colleague, Senator Jack Reed, to introduce the Tobacco Regulation Fairness Act of 2000. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to join this effort, for it is time for Congress to take action. We must ensure that the Food and Drug Administration can regulate the manufacture, labeling, advertising, distribution and sale of tobacco products. While many are disappointed with last week's Supreme Court ruling on FDA regulation of tobacco products, the ruling reflects reality. Congress has not acted to give FDA the authority it needs to regulate tobacco products. The Supreme Court's decision underscores this fact and heightens the need for Congress to pass meaningful and comprehensive legislation to ensure FDA authority over tobacco products. This legislation is the key to preventing tobacco use by teenagers and adolescents and to preventing the sales of tobacco products to children. If we can prevent kids from smoking, we can head off a tremendous amount of human disease and suffering, medical costs, and loss of life. While even tobacco companies say that they are against kids smoking, we must look at the facts. According to the American Cancer Society, in the course of this Congress, almost 600,000 children will try tobacco products for the first time. Of those, nearly 200,000 will become addicted to nicotine. Additionally, over more than 90,000 people will die from tobacco related cancers. In 1997, a study by the Center for Disease Control showed that children and adolescents were able to buy tobacco products 67 percent of the times they tried. The CDC found that most young smokers were able to buy their own cigarettes and were seldom asked for identification. While strides have been made in the past 2 years, it is imperative that change continue. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court made its decision and Congress must act so that we can continue to make inroads into youth smoking prevention. Mr. President, this legislation designates the Food and Drug Administration as the Federal agency that regulates the manufacture, distribution and sale of tobacco products. This Act will serve to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to promulgate regulations governing the manufacture, sale and distribution of tobacco products. Additionally, the legislation also establishes a federal minimum age of sale of tobacco products of 18 and require the label to state ``Federal Law Prohibits Sale to Minors.'' Mr. President, in 1989 and again in 1992, I introduced a bill to require the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. ``The Tobacco Health and Safety Act of 1992'' had a companion bill with Representative Michael Synar in the House. These bills were very similar legislative attempts to regulate tobacco by bringing it under the jurisdiction of the Federal Food and Drug Administration. I believed then and I believe now that the FDA is the appropriate regulatory entity to address this vital issue. To do anything else is unacceptable. It is time to give the FDA the full authority to regulate the manufacture, sale, labeling, advertising, and promotion of tobacco products. The bill we introduce today is a fair and equitable approach to the issue. It represents a strong commitment to health promotion and disease prevention. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and work with us to act upon this as a public health issue before we adjourn this year.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on S.J. Res. 14, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As my colleagues know, I will vote against this resolution just as I have voted against previous attempts to pass anti-flag desecration amendments during my tenure in the Senate. However, I take a back seat to no one in my respect for the flag, for what it stands for and, most importantly, for the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women of our armed services who sacrificed so much to defend this Nation, our Constitution, and, yes, or flag. I abhor the desecration of the flag as a form of expressing views about America or a policy of our government. That is why I supported an amendment by Senator McConnell that would prohibit most, if not all, incidents of flag desecration by statutorily banning the desecration of a flag if it is done with the intent to incite or produce imminent violence or breach of the peace, or if the flag belongs to the United States Government or the act occurs on lands reserved for the use of the United States. In the end, however, it is our Constitution and not the flag which gives us our freedoms. And chief among those freedoms, indeed the fundamental and most important freedom, is the right to speak freely against the government, against a government official or against a government policy. The speech of an individual may be distasteful to the majority, as is the case when someone burns a flag or when the KKK is allowed to march in our cities, but our Constitution was established to protect the rights of the minority. For when the majority is allowed to rule without a check and balance, tyranny is not far behind. I don't doubt that the vast majority of Americans oppose, as do I, the desecration of our flag, but we were elected to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States and I simply do not see how we defend the Constitution by chipping away at its very foundation. Mr. President, there are many reasons to oppose amending the first amendment for the first time in our Nation's history and for this particular purpose. As several of our colleagues have pointed out, we are not experiencing an epidemic of flag burning in the country. But we likely will, if this amendment passes and Congress goes on to ban acts of desecration. I also share the concerns raised yesterday by my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, that while the Senate takes 3 or 4 days to debate this amendment, we have not taken the time to address other issues that are extremely important, especially to our Nation's veterans and to our Armed Forces. One example is S. 2003, of which I am a cosponsor and that begins to address the issue of the Federal Government keeping its promises to our veterans in the area of health care. I wish the Senate would take up and pass S. 2003 but we can't seem to find time to do that. Likewise, I recently introduced legislation that would compensate the remaining survivors of the Bataan Death March for the incredible suffering they endured on behalf of their country. I would like to see the Senate take up and pass that legislation but we haven't. Mr. President, I think our Constitution and Nation are strong enough to handle a few miscreants who want to burn a flag. I think the drafters of the Constitution envisioned that it would survive speech which the majority finds offensive. I believe that a vote against this amendment is a vote for the Constitution and for the most important principle embedded in that document, the right of every American to free speech.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Graham of Florida and Senator Jeffords of Vermont, in the introduction of the ``Medicare Wellness Act of 2000.'' This bipartisan, bicameral measure represents a recognition of the role that health promotion and disease prevention should play in the care available to Medicare beneficiaries. The bill adds several new preventative screening and counseling benefits to the Medicare program. Specifically, the act adds screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, screening for glaucoma, counseling for hormone replacement therapy, and expanded screening and counseling for osteoporosis. My colleagues have addressed most of these aspects of the bill so I will focus my remarks on one additional provision that is pivotal in achieving improved health outcomes of beneficiaries with several chronic diseases. Specifically, the Medicare Wellness Act of 2000 provides for coverage under Part B of the Medicare program for medical nutrition therapy services for beneficiaries who have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or renal disease. Medical nutrition therapy refers to the comprehensive nutrition services provided by registered dietitians as part of the health care team. Medical nutrition therapy has proven to be a medically necessary and cost effective way of treating and controlling heart disease, stroke, diabetes, high cholesterol, and various renal diseases. Patients who receive this therapy require fewer hospitalizations and medications and have fewer complications. The treatment of patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease accounts for a full 60 percent of Medicare expenditures. In my home state of New Mexico, Native Americans are experiencing an epidemic of Type II diabetes. Medical nutrition therapy is integral to their diabetes care and to the prevention of progression of the disease. Information from the Indian Health Service shows that medical nutrition therapy provided by professional dietitians results in significant improvements in medical outcomes in Type II diabetics. Mr. President, while medical nutrition therapy services are currently covered under Medicare Part A for inpatient services, there is no consistent Part B coverage policy for medical nutrition. Nutrition counseling is best conducted outside the hospital setting. Today, coverage for nutrition therapy in ambulatory settings is at best inconsistent, but most often, non existent. Because of the comparatively low treatment costs and the benefits associated with nutrition therapy, expanded coverage will improve the quality of care, outcomes and quality of life for Medicare beneficiaries. Two years ago, my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig and I requested that the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine study the issue of medical nutrition therapy as a benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. The Institute of Medicine released this study last December entitled: ``The Role of Nutrition in Maintaining Health in the Nation's Elderly: Evaluating Coverage of Nutrition Services for the Medicare Populations.'' This IOM study reaffirms what I have been working toward the past few years. Namely, it recommended that medical nutrition therapy, ``upon referral by a physician, be a reimbursable benefit for Medicare beneficiaries.'' The study substantiates evidence of improved patient outcomes associated with nutrition care provided by registered dietitians. Mr. President, I again want to thank my colleagues for including medical nutrition therapy as a key component of the Medicare Wellness Act. I look forward to working with them toward passage of the act this Congress.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me conclude by particularly thanking David Brooks, Mary Katherine Ishee, and Bob Simon, who are all on the staff of our Energy and Natural Resources Committee. They have done yeoman's work in getting this bill prepared for introduction and obtaining the support of many of the Senators who are cosponsors on the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill I have introduced today be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the ``Conservation and Stewardship Act,'' which is cosponsored by Senators Hollings, Baucus, Kerry, Boxer, Lieberman, Bryan, Akaka, Leahy, and Sarbanes. This comprehensive bill will provide permanent and dedicated funding from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues to be used for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and many other important conservation programs, including coastal, wildlife habitat, endangered species, historic preservation, State and local park and open space preservation, forestry and farmland conservation, and youth conservation corps programs. While the bill will ensure much-needed funding for many Federal conservation programs, most of the programs included in the bill will assist States, counties, or cities to implement local conservation and recreation projects. In addition, this legislation will, for the first time, fully fund the Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, which provides payments to local governments for the loss of tax revenues resulting from Federal lands in their jurisdiction. In developing this bill, I have tried to include a variety of programs to ensure that the benefits from OCS revenues--which are a federal resource belonging to all Americans--are equitably distributed throughout the country. While some programs in the bill are of specific interest to coastal States, others will have more application in interior areas; some programs in the bill provide funding for large cities and urban areas, while others are designed to assist rural communities. If we are to succeed in passing a comprehensive conservation bill this year, the benefits must extend to all regions of the country. In addition, I think it's important to recognize that several very meritorious legislative proposals have already been put forward. One of my goals in developing this bill was to try and incorporate important programs from the other bills, and I am pleased that many of the sponsors of those proposals are also supporting this bill. I also want to recognize the efforts that Senator Landrieu, Senator Murkowski, and others have made in generating support for a comprehensive conservation bill with their legislative proposal. While there are differences in our bills and in some of our funding priorities, I believe our underlying goals are the same. I am committed to working with them, and with all other interested Senators, as we try to pass a bill this year. I would like to add that my primary goal in introducing this bill is to try and move the legislative process forward in the Senate. I think a consensus approach, such as we are proposing today, is our only chance of getting a bill enacted into law this year. I know some have questioned why these programs--or any program-- should be provided with dedicated funding. When Congress amended the LWCF Act in 1968 to credit a portion of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease revenues into the fund, the premise was that at least some of the revenues from OCS oil and gas production, a non-renewable resource, should be used to protect other resources throughout the country. I think that was a wise concept then, and one we should continue to adhere to today. Along those lines, it is important that whatever programs are included in a comprehensive bill contribute to enriching the natural, cultural, or historical legacy of this country. In my opinion, such a bill is not only justifiable, but necessary if we are going to be responsible to future generations. Mr. President, I would like to briefly describe some of the major programs that would receive dedicated funding in this bill. Since its enactment over 35 years ago, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act has been not only one of the most popular conservation measures ever signed into law, but one of the most far- sighted as well. Revenues deposited into the fund are used to protect our national and cultural heritage in our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, trails, wild and scenic rivers, and other important areas. In addition, the LWCF State grant program assists States in the planning, acquisition, and development of open space and outdoor recreation facilities. However, over the past 35 years, appropriations from the LWCF have lagged far behind the amounts credited into the fund, even though demand for LWCF funding continues to increase. In fact, on average, less than half of the amounts credited to the fund have actually been authorized. Today, the fund's unappropriated balance exceeds $13 billion. History has shown that if the LWCF remains subject to the annual appropriations process, the intent of the fund will never be fulfilled. For that reason, my bill uses OCS oil and gas receipts to provide dedicated funding for the LWCF and all of the other conservation programs in the bill. The bill funds the LWCF and its fully authorized level of $900 million annually, divided equally between the Federal land acquisition and State grant programs. In addition, I think it's important that the benefits we will get from fully funding the LWCF not be negated by placing new restrictions on the land acquisitions in our national parks, forests and wildlife refuges. I am concerned about language in other bills on this issue which are pending in the House and Senate which would create new obstacles to protecting threatened national resources. I think a much better approach is to take the existing LWCF program, which has a proven track record, and ensure that it is adequately funded. However, I have included language which gives the Congress the ability to override proposed Federal agency expenditures, while ensuring that all of the money is actually spent for the intended purpose. Likewise, I believe it's important that new restrictions not be placed on States for the use of the funds they receive under the State grant program. Although some have proposed to restructure the State program, I think the flexibility given to States in the current law is appropriate, and States should continue to determine how to allocate LWCF funds for recreational and open space needs, consistent with the requirements of the Act and with review by the Secretary of the Interior. Title II of the Conservation and Stewardship Act provides funding to protect and restore our fragile coastal resources. It establishes the Ocean and Coast Conservation Fund, and dedicates $365 million annually, primarily to States, to address a broad array of coastal and marine conservation needs. This fund is administered by the Secretary of Commerce. The bill also establishes the Outer Continental Shelf Impact Assistance Fund, administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to provide $100 million annually to Coastal States suffering negative environmental impacts from oil and gas production on the OCS. The Ocean and Coast Conservation Fund addresses four programs. The first account within the fund allocates $250 million to Coastal States for a broad range of coastal and marine conservation activities which ensure protection for coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries and marine species. The second account allocates $25 million to Coastal States to fund joint marine enforcement agreements between States and the Secretary of Commerce, thereby increasing enforcement capabilities for both Federal and State marine resource protection laws. The third account gives $75 million to Coastal States to fund fisheries research and management. The fourth account allocates $15 million to the Secretary of Commerce for the protection of coral reefs. A complementary program for protection of coral resources under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior is contained in Title VI of my bill as described further below. Although other bills have been introduced which also address coastal funding, I believe the Ocean and Coast Conservation Fund contains several significant advantages. First, it requires that all money received under this fund be used only for the protection of the marine and coastal environment. Second, it ties the amount of money States will receive to demonstrated conservation need rather than the amount of production occurring offshore the State, or a State's or county's proximity to that production. In this manner, my bill refrains from allowing money from this fund to be used as an incentive to begin or increase production in the Federal OCS. My bill also excludes revenues from leases included within areas covered by a moratorium on leasing. The Outer Continental Shelf Impact Assistance Fund allocates $100 million specifically to address the needs of those Coastal States which have hosted Federal OCS oil and gas production off their shores, and which have suffered negative environmental impacts from that production. Funds are distributed based on shoreline miles and coastal population (25 percent each) and the amount of production occurring offshore the Coastal State (50 percent). States can use the money only to mitigate adverse environmental impacts directly attributable to the development of oil and gas resources of the OCS. The bill also establishes a separate Coral Reef Resources Restoration Fund. This fund provides $15 million annually to the Secretary of the Interior for the protection of coral reef resources under the jurisdiction of the Secretary. The bill authorizes the Secretary to make grants, not to exceed 75 percent of the total costs, for projects which promote the viability of coral reef systems under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. Grants would be available to natural resource agencies of States or Territories, educational or non-governmental institutions, or organizations with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of coral reefs. Like many of the other comprehensive conservation proposals, my bill includes significant new funding to assist States in protecting wildlife habitat. The Conservation and Stewardship Act includes a $350 million annual increase in deposits into the Pittman-Robertson fund, to help fund a broad variety of wildlife conservation programs, with an emphasis on protecting habitat for non-game species. In addition, the bill establishes a new $50 million fund to protect threatened and endangered species. Under the program, the Secretary of the Interior would be authorized to enter into agreements with private landowners to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species. This incentive program would assist landowners who voluntarily agree to take protective actions beyond what is required under existing law. In addition to the funds provided for Federal and State programs through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Conservation and Stewardship Act provides funding for several programs to assist States, local governments, and other organizations in the protection of open space. The bill includes $50 million in funding for the Forest Legacy Program, $50 million for the Farmland Protection Program, and $50 million for a new program to allow for the voluntary acquisition of conservation easements to prevent ranchlands from being converted to non-agricultural uses. The bill also includes $125 million for a new grant program to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior to help States conserve, on a matching basis, non-Federal lands or waters of clear regional or national interest. Presently, OCS revenues are credited to only two funds: the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund. Like the LWCF, appropriations from the HPF have lagged far behind the $150 million that is annually credited to the fund. The Conservation and Stewardship Act will, for the first time, ensure that the fully authorized amount is expended. In addition, the bill requires that at least half of the fund, $75 million, be available to States, tribes, and local governments to allow them to better carry out their responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act. The bill also requires that at least 50 percent of the Federal funds spent under the program be used for the restoration of historic properties. The bill also funds the American Battlefield Protection Program at $15 million per year, fulfilling recommendations made by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. Funding would be available for preservation assistance for all types of battlefields, although with respect to Civil War battlefields, the funding priority would be for ``Priority 1'' battlefields identified in the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission's report. Mr. President, it is well known that many of the natural and historic resources in the parks and historic sites of our National Park System are facing significant threats, especially given the limited funds available to the Park Service to address this issue. In an attempt to improve this problem, the Conservation and Stewardship Act creates a new ``National Park System Resource Protection Fund'' and provides $150 million in annual funding. Moneys from the fund are available to the Secretary of the Interior to protect significant natural, cultural or historical resources in units of the National Park System that are threatened by activities occurring inside or outside of the park boundaries. The Secretary is also authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with State and local governments and other organizations to address these threats. In addition, the bill makes clear that the fund cannot be used to fund land acquisitions, permanent employee salaries, road construction, or projects which already receive funding through the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. Like many of the other programs included in this bill, the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program is a program with overwhelming demand and, in recent years, little or non-existent funding. In an effort to revitalize this program, the Conservation and Stewardship Act provides $75 million in dedicated funding each year for UPARR programs, a significant increase over recent appropriations. I think it is important that a comprehensive conservation bill focus not only on land acquisition and other resource conservation programs, but also on improving the tie between these resources and local communities. I have included funding for four programs to assist the way communities, including young people, work with public and private partners to plan and take action for the long-term stewardship and maintenance of lands and resources. Dedicated funding for the Youth Conservation Corps and related partnerships will enable us to make significant investments in two of our country's most valuable treasures--our natural resources and our young people. The investments in our youth and our natural resources can grow together and benefit one another. The Youth Conservation Corps, and related partnerships with nonprofit, State, and local youth conservation corps (``YCC''), are administered by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior. It is clear that they are successful and popular programs. The demand for summer conservation jobs for youth overwhelmingly exceeds the supply. Over the past twenty years, a lack of adequate funding has been the biggest obstacle preventing YCC from realizing an even greater level of success. Our parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other public lands benefit because important conservation projects are completed at a lower cost. Our youth, on summer break from school, benefit by engaging in positive and meaningful activities. There are many types of projects that youth complete--construction, maintenance, reconstruction, restoration, repair, or rehabilitation of natural, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or scenic resources. Senator Scoop Jackson was the sponsor of the original legislation that created the YCC. He had the foresight and vision to create opportunities for young people to complete conservation and restoration projects on our public lands. The bill I am introducing today will enable us to embrace Senator Jackson's legacy by fully funding YCC, thereby achieving the levels of participation that existed during his tenure in the Senate. Last year, the National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on YCC and related partnerships. Both National Park Service Director Stanton, on behalf of the Department of the Interior, and Forest Service Chief Dombeck expressed enthusiastic support for these programs. Similarly, over the past year I have learned that strong bipartisan Congressional support exists for YCC and related partnerships. All of our country's public lands will benefit from these programs. The existing authorizing law includes a State grant component as well as opportunities for projects to be completed on public lands other than Federal lands. I have a letter that I will submit for the record from the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps and the Student Conservation Association supporting inclusion of the YCC provision in this bill. Partnerships between members of these organizations and the Federal land management agencies seem to be the most cost effective and efficient way to maximize both the number of conservation projects and the youth who complete them. Dedicated funding will ensure that existing partnerships are maintained while also allowing for the creation of new partnerships across the country. The Forest Service's Economic Action Program (``EAP'') assists rural forest-dependent communities to foster stronger links between the health of forests and the well-being of communities. It is an important complement to land acquisition under the LWCF, helping rural communities to effectively participate in plans and actions that affect the future management of public and private forest lands. One of the most important aspects of EAP is the emphasis on helping communities organize and develop their own broad-based local action plans. This is the first step in enabling a community to build a sustainable future based on the integration of economic, social, and environmental objectives. Communities can then focus on organizing, planning, and implementing natural resource based projects contained in their plans. Projects range from tourism and value-added manufacturing to historic preservation. In addition to the planning component, EAP also helps communities to build rural business infrastructure to better use and market the byproducts of ecosystem restoration; strengthen, diversify, and expand their local economies; improve transportation networks for forest-based products; and increase their access to technology through partnerships. Projects range from tourism and value-added manufacturing to historic preservation. EAP's focus is to promote self-sufficiency by leveraging small grants for capacity building. Many recipients of these grants are able to start forest-based small businesses with the Forest Service's technical and financial assistance. The Forest Service is the best, often the only, delivery mechanism because Forest Service personnel are already located and established in these communities. As evidenced by a recent oversight hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, the Economic Action programs are strongly supported by rural communities across the country. Lack of adequate and consistent funding is the primary obstacle that has prohibited these programs from achieving even greater levels of success. I ask unanimous consent to place a letter in the Record from American Forests supporting inclusion of this program in the bill that I am introducing today. The National Network of Forest Practitioners also has expressed support for EAP in testimony before Congress for several years. Urban and Community Forestry is an important program that has been overlooked in other recent legislative proposals. Through this program, the Forest Service works with national groups and networks, such as American Forests and the Alliance for Community Trees, and with local governments, community groups, and private businesses in hundreds of rural communities and cities across the country to heighten awareness of the ecological benefits that trees and forests provide. Urban and community forests provide tremendous value to communities in terms of ``ecological services,'' such as filtering air pollutants, cleaning drinking water, managing stormwater flows, and reducing energy consumption. Recent losses in tree and forest cover in communities in the United States translate into billions of dollars of lost value in terms of ecological services. The Urban and Community Forestry Program is the key Federal program assessing and highlighting the significant environmental values associated with urban forests and helping communities plan and take action to preserve, restore, and maintain their green infrastructure. It is a capacity-building program, providing Federal technical and financial assistance to communities and empowering them to plan and take action for themselves, while strongly leveraging the Federal assistance. This program complements the LWCF and other programs currently included in other legislative proposals to provide increased funding for conservation. This program could deliver increased levels of success with an increased and predictable level of funding. My bill also provides full funding for the Payment In Lieu of Taxes Program. This program, like many of the others in this bill, is generally funded at far below its authorized level. The program compensates units of local governments, primarily counties, for the loss of tax revenues due to the presence of Federal lands within their jurisdiction, and recognizes the important partnership between the Federal government and local governments in any national conservation effort. Mr. President, I have received letter from a broad coalition of environmental, conservation, and historic preservation groups in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to state that I agree with the position of my distinguished colleague from California on the issue of social promotion. We must end this practice. Far too many of our young people are graduating without the skills that they need to secure good jobs because they are being passed from grade to grade without accountability for what they have learned. Many young people are also dropping out of school because they find themselves in high schools without the knowledge that they need to succeed in that forum. I am a strong supporter of efforts to end this practice. I have voted for legislation in the past that would have given States and local districts incentives to eliminate social promotion policies. I currently am cosponsoring legislation, based on a proposal from the President, which seeks to end social promotion in all our schools. I must vote against Senator Feinstein's amendment, however, because it would cut all federal funding for education to a State based on this sole issue and provides no flexibility on the State or local level. If this amendment were to become law, we would be imposing a strict requirement without providing adequate resources to achieve the goal. As the Elementary and Secondary Education Act moves to the floor, however, I will work with my distinguished colleague from California to develop legislation that addresses this critical issue. Amendments Nos. 2859 and 2824, en bloc

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment that was just offered.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes of the 8 minutes allocated for advocating this amendment. Then I will defer to Senator Feingold. This amendment is very straightforward. It would provide an additional $1.2 billion for the Pell Grant Program. I think all of us who have paid any attention to Federal support for education know that the one program that is most helpful to those trying to go to college in our States is the Pell grant. We have a great many young people in this country--and some of them not so young--who are taking advantage of this program. In fact, we have nearly 4 million people in this country who receive Pell grants every year. The average size of those Pell grants this year will be a little over $2,000. This amendment says, let's take the funds that were otherwise provided as a $5-per- student tax benefit in this pending bill and increase by $400 the maximum grant for Pell grants. The current limit on what can be provided in the Pell grant is $3,300 per year. We say, let's raise that to $3,700 per year. Now, most students don't get that maximum amount, but we want to have the opportunity there for them to get the maximum amount, if possible. The estimate we have is that, today, the maximum grant permitted under the Pell Grant Program is 86 percent of the 1980 value of the Pell grant in constant dollars. The simple fact is that we are not keeping up with the increase in the cost of higher education. We used to provide substantial support by providing grants and much less in the way of loans. In the time I have been in the Senate, we have seen that change dramatically. Now we provide loans but little in the way of grants. This amendment would help to correct that to some small degree. This is very meaningful for my State. Over $64 million, this year, goes to Pell grants, and that amount would increase if the amendment I have offered on behalf of Senator Kennedy and the other Senators is accepted. The average family income for families whose children are taking advantage of the Pell Grant Program is $14,500 a year. So if a Senator is concerned about getting the money to where it is most needed--to the families who most need that money for education--this amendment will do that. It takes money that otherwise is being spread to many people who are much better off than that and concentrates it where the families need it the most--in this case, the families who are eligible for Pell grants. This $400 increase will translate into 96,000 new recipients of Pell grants this next year. In May of 1999, the Health and Education Committee that Senator Jeffords heads and of which Senator Kennedy is the ranking member passed a bipartisan resolution to increase the basic Pell grant by $400, which is exactly what this amendment does. We have a chance with this amendment to make good on that promise with real money for a change and not just a resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote to put aid to needy college kids ahead of the tax breaks that are provided in this bill for families or individuals who are much better off. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Feingold.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

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 on behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Reed, and Senator Feingold.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this and all of the issues that relate to education that we deal with in the Senate. I commend him particularly for this amendment that deals with teacher quality and recruiting and training the people who go into the teaching profession. I think it is clear from the experience in my State--that is the experience that I come from and understand a little bit, at least--that we have too few funds available for the training of teachers, people who are already in the workforce who need additional training, and people who are going into teaching. Clearly the Federal funds made available for that purpose meet a real need. Despite the fact a lot of money is spent on education nationally--I certainly concede a lot is-- there are other pressures on local school boards. There are other pressures on States that tend to result in too little of the money going to train the teachers and going to upgrade their skill levels. This amendment would ensure that at least a portion of the Federal funds we are providing to States for education go to this vital activity. I think the amendment is absolutely crucial. I hope every Senator will vote for it. When you look at all the factors that affect education, I think there are many studies which have concluded correctly that the factor, if you have to pick one, that is most significant in determining the quality of a child's education is the quality of the teacher and the training of that teacher to provide that instruction. This amendment goes directly to that. It says we need to keep our priorities straight when we spend public money. We need to be sure the funds go to what is most important in terms of improving the education of the children involved. That means training the teachers. I compliment Senator Kennedy very much for this amendment. I am very pleased to speak for it, and am very pleased to support it. I think this goes to the heart of what we are trying to do. It goes to the heart of the concern I hear all over my State from a lot of people about the inadequacies of our educational system. We have a sad circumstance in my State. I have encountered something which we call a ``permanent substitute.'' I go to school districts and they say: OK, you are trying to ensure that more of the accredited teachers are actually accredited to teach in the subjects they are teaching. That is not our problem. Our problem is we have people teaching on a semipermanent basis in our classrooms, and we call them ``permanent substitutes.'' They not only are not qualified in the subject area they are being asked to teach, but they are not really qualified to be teaching. They haven't been accredited. This is a sad commentary. You have to go through licensing procedures to be a hairdresser in our State. You have to go through licensing procedures to pursue virtually any career. We need to be sure we impose accountability on the teaching of professionals as well. Teachers themselves want to see this happen. This is not an antiteacher proposal. This is something teachers themselves want to see more funds available for in training and upgrading their skills. This is an amendment I strongly support. I commend Senator Kennedy for proposing this amendment. I hope all Senators will review it carefully and will determine to support the amendment when it comes up for a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing this amendment to strike the part of the bill that provides the tax savings because I think there is a better use for that amount of funding. I am proposing an alternative use for that funding that I urge my colleagues to seriously consider. My amendment strikes the part of the bill that provides the average family with a very small tax savings, and there are various estimates as to what that savings would be. Essentially, as I understand it, the Joint Tax Committee says the average benefit per child in public school would be something like $3 in 2001 and $4.50 in 2002. I think it is clear, regardless of the precise number, that these are not tax savings that are going to help any child in this country get a better education. So my thought is that rather than do that with the funds we are expending through this bill--or proposing to expend--we use the money to provide crucial funds to turn around the failing public schools. Public schools are where over 90 percent of our children are educated. I grew up in Silver City, NM where, if you want to go to school, you go to public school. That is the way it has always been, to my knowledge. It is going to be that way for some time. We need to be sure the schools that are not adequately training young people and educating young people get the assistance, the resources, the oversight, and the accountability they need in order to move ahead and solve that problem. Let me talk a little bit more about the bill that is presently pending and then talk about my own amendment. The Joint Tax Committee did this analysis of the Coverdell proposal and indicated that it would, in their view, disproportionately help families with children already in private schools. Eighty-three percent of families with children in private schools would use this account, but only 28 percent of families in public schools would make use of it. Essentially, the proposal is a way of diverting funds that are otherwise public funds into the private schools, at a time when we all recognize that the public schools have inadequate funds to do the job we are calling upon them to do. Also, the pending Coverdell bill we are trying to amend has no mechanisms in it to ensure accountability of the use of the funds we are talking about. The bill does nothing to improve teacher quality. It does nothing to provide safe and modern environments for learning. It does nothing to raise academic standards or to impose upon the public schools or bring them to more accountability in the expenditure of the funds. I believe we need to use Federal funds on initiatives that make a difference in our public schools. That is what my amendment intended to do. The relevant section of the Coverdell bill costs the public an average of $275 million a year for the next 5 years. That is the cost to the taxpayers. I believe we can use that $275 million each year to ensure that higher standards and accountability are implemented throughout our public schools. We have made some progress in implementing higher standards. Most States have adopted or are in the process of adopting statewide standards. This is due in part to the fact that Federal law applicable to the program for disadvantaged students --that is title I--requires that standards be adopted. Although States have adopted standards, many States and districts have not had sufficient funds to ensure the accountability for meeting those standards they have set or to provide adequate resources to the schools that are failing to meet the standards. I think dedicating specific funds to this purpose is necessary in order to create the rewards and the penalties that will allow schools to be held accountable for the improvement in student performance. The Federal Government directs over $8 billion in Federal funds to provide support programs through title I. But the accountability provisions in title I have not been adequately implemented because they haven't had the resources to do it at the State level, primarily. Title I authorizes State school support teams to provide support for schoolwide programs to provide assistance to schools that are in need of improvement through activities such as professional developments for the teachers in those schools, and identifying resources for changing the way the instruction is provided. In 1998, only eight States requiring these school support teams have been able to serve the majority of the schools that they have been identified as needing improvement. Less than half the schools identified as being in the need of improvement in the school year of 1997-1998 reported that having been designated as a school needing improvement actually got some professional development to accomplish that improvement. Schools and school districts need additional support and resources in order to address the weaknesses that we identify. They need that support and those resources quickly after those weaknesses are identified. They need to be able to promote an intensive range of interventions, continuously assess the results of those interventions, and to implement some incentives for improvement. The National Governors' Association asked us to provide funds for the purpose this amendment tries to address. I have a letter that came to me last October when this same issue came before us in the Senate. I offered an amendment at that time which was not successful but which I believe had merit then, and I believe it has merit now. Let me make it very clear so there is no misunderstanding. At that time, I was not proposing to strike the tax proposal that Senator Coverdell brought forward and substitute this in its stead. The Governors were not responding to that specific striking aspect of my amendment of today, but they were talking about the need to have additional funds to ensure accountability and to ensure the implementation of these higher standards by the schools that are failing. The amendment I am offering would provide $275 million to help improve failing schools. The money would be used to ensure the States and school districts have the necessary resources to implement the corrective action provisions of title I by providing immediate, intensive interventions to turn around low-performing schools. Let me read part of this letter so that folks know what the Governors are saying. It is a letter to me by Mr. Raymond Scheppach, who is the executive director of the National Governors' Association. It says: On behalf of the Nation's Governors, I write to express our strong support for your amendment to provide States with additional funds to help turn around schools that are failing to provide quality education for title I students. That is what we are trying to do today. He says further: As you know, under current law, States are permitted to reserve one-half of one percent of their title I monies to administer the title I program and provide schools with additional assistance. However, this small set aside--this is one-half of one percent--does not provide the States with sufficient funds to improve the quality of title I schools. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Education noted the ``capacity of State school support teams to assist schools in need of improvement of title I is a major concern.'' The programs authorized to fund such improvement efforts have not been funded. As a result, States have been unable to provide such services. Then he goes on to various other points but essentially says: Your amendment would provide such funding. Therefore, NGA supports your amendment and will urge other Senators to support the adoption of it. Let me make it very clear to people again. This was a letter related to an amendment to direct funds at accountability in the expenditure of public funds and help these failing schools. It does not include the proposal I am making today as well to strike the Coverdell amendment and substitute this instead as a better use of that money. But the types of interventions the States and school districts could provide under these funds are things which I think we would all recognize are needed. First, purchasing necessary materials, up-to-date textbooks, curriculum, technology. I think we all encounter circumstances where teachers, school administrators, and students tell us about how they have outdated textbooks and inadequate lab materials or whatever in order to really pursue their studies as they would like to. These funds could be used for that. They could be used for providing intensive, ongoing teacher training. That clearly is a need, and I think it is a recognized need in the teaching profession. The people who talk to me about the importance of more teacher training are the teachers. So this is not an attack on our public school teachers. This is a recognition that we need to do more to help them constantly stay abreast of the new developments in teaching and do a better job. Third, this would provide access to distance learning. We have the amendment that was talked about just prior to the amendment I am discussing about technology in our schools. All of us recognize there is a great opportunity, particularly in rural communities, to make better use of teacher learning. This past weekend, I was in some communities in my State where there are very small high schools. I was in Eunice, NM; I was in Jal, NM. Those are communities with very small high schools. Frankly, they are not able to offer all of the courses they would like to offer for their students. They have the opportunity through distance learning, through the Internet, through interactive television, and through a variety of technologies to provide courses to some of their students even though they may not have a teacher in that school who is qualified to teach that course. We need to be sure the funds are there to do that. This amendment would help provide those funds. These funds must be used to extend learning time for students-- afterschool programs, Saturday programs, and summer school--to help them catch up and perform at least at grade level and, hopefully, better than grade level. These funds could be used to provide rewards to low-performing schools that show significant progress, including cash awards or other incentives such as, in particular, release time for teachers to prepare for the next school year or whatever. Also, these funds could be used for intensive technical assistance from teams of experts outside the schools to help develop and implement school improvement plans in failing schools. These teams would determine the causes of low performance--for example, low expectations, outdated curriculum, poorly trained teachers, and unsafe conditions. They would assist in implementing research-based models for improvement. I am persuaded there are today research-based whole school reform programs that have been developed that can dramatically improve the performance of our elementary schools. I have become most familiar with one which is called Success for All. There are others that are also showing very good results. This Success for All program was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Bob Slavin was the key researcher who worked on it. This is a proven early grade reading program. It also covers other subjects. The core subject which most schools have adopted and are focused on is the reading. This is a program which, if implemented properly, can ensure substantial results. We have 50 elementary schools in New Mexico that are presently using this Success for All program and the results are impressive. At the end of the first grade, Success for All schools have averaged reading scores almost 3 months ahead of those in other control schools where that program has not been implemented. This amendment will not address all the issues of our schools. I believe sincerely that it is a positive step forward. It will be a more meaningful step forward in improving the educational quality in America than this alternative of providing a $5 a year, or whatever the right number is, tax benefit to the average American. Clearly, we all want to see our schools improved. Senator Reed is on the floor and wishes to speak for a moment on this and then I understand Senator Roth has an amendment he wishes to offer. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

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, what is the business before the Senate?

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