Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, during the next couple of weeks, I plan to introduce a series of education bills for consideration in the context of reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). As you know, one of the most important issues facing America today is improving the quality of our public school system. Improving the quality of education in America requires a comprehensive approach. I believe the basis for that approach must be raising standards and achieving greater accountability. This approach cannot focus on any one facet of our education system but must address all facets. The bills that I will introduce address three key areas; these bills raise standards and improve accountability for our teachers, for our schools and for our students. Today, I am pleased to introduce two bills, which I believe will go a long way towards raising standards for teaching in America's schools--the Quality Teachers for All Act and the Technology for Teaching Act. Improving teacher quality continues to be one of my top priorities in the Senate, because research demonstrates that teacher quality is the single most important factor in student achievement. The Quality Teachers for All Act will improve instructional quality by ensuring that teachers in Title I classrooms possess the subject matter knowledge, teaching knowledge and teaching skills necessary to work effectively in our nation's classrooms. The Technology for Teaching Act, which I introduce today on behalf of myself, Senator Patty Murray and Senator Cochran, will improve the quality of instruction by providing teachers with necessary training in the use of technology in the classroom. I am a strong supporter of the hard-working teachers in American classrooms. As the son of two teachers, I know that the profession is extremely challenging and meaningful. I also know that the vast majority of our teachers are dedicated, professional and competent. Far too many schools in America, however, allow classrooms to be led by teachers with insufficient training and qualifications to teach. Unfortunately, it is the schools and classrooms with the neediest children who often have the greatest number of unqualified teachers. During a time when we are demanding increased levels of performance for our schools and our children, we also must set high standards for all our teachers, including those instructing students who will have the greatest hurdles to overcome in the learning process. Improving teacher quality is one of the most important changes we need to make to our educational system--especially if we are serious about improving the education of low-income and minority children. Good teachers are so important that almost half of the achievement gap between minority and white students would be erased if minority children had access to the same quality of teachers, according to recent research published by the Education Trust. Parents, business leaders, and the public at large rank teacher quality as a top concern because it just makes sense that a student's teacher would have a dominant effect on his or her education. The need for further progress in improving teacher quality was recently highlighted in two 1999 studies--one from the Secretary of Education, the other from Education Week. Over 30 percent of all math teachers are teaching outside of their field of academic preparation--with even higher percentages in other academic areas and in high-poverty schools. Almost 15 percent of the new teachers hired in high-minority districts lack full teaching credentials, which usually involve passing tests to demonstrate needed skills and knowledge. In my home State, during the past school year, 1,074 people were teaching in New Mexico's schools with substandard licenses. Another 737 of New Mexico's teachers were teaching subjects they weren't certified to teach. The Quality Teachers for All Act addresses this problem by requiring that all teachers in schools receiving Title I funds be fully qualified. This means possessing necessary teaching skills and demonstrating mastery in the subjects that they teach. By ensuring quality teachers in every classroom, we will be empowering our children by providing one of the most important resources for academic achievement. Under the Quality Teachers for All Act, an elementary school teacher must have State certification, hold a bachelor's degree and demonstrate subject matter knowledge, teaching knowledge and teaching skills required to teach effectively in reading, writing, mathematics, social studies, science, and other elements of a liberal arts education. Middle school and secondary school instructional staff must have state certification, hold a bachelor's degree, and demonstrate a high level of competence in all subject areas in which they teach. This demonstration of competence may be achieved by a high level of performance on a rigorous academic subject area test, completion of an academic major (or equal number of courses, or in the case of mid-career professionals, a high level of performance in relevant subject areas through employment experience. Recognizing that some areas have difficulty attracting qualified teachers, the Quality Teachers for All bill addresses this problem by allowing school districts to use funds authorized under the bill to provide financial incentives for fully qualified teachers, such as signing bonuses. In addition, the bill supports efforts to recruit new teachers by providing alternative means of certification for highly qualified individuals with college degrees, including mid-career professionals and former military personnel. The bill also provides support for State efforts to increase the portability of teachers' pensions, certification and years of experience so that qualified teachers can have greater mobility and districts can fill unmet needs for qualified teachers more easily. School districts also may use the funds to support new teachers to ensure that we retain the qualified teachers that start in the profession. The bill also empowers teachers by providing financial support for programs designed to assist teachers currently working in the system to achieve the qualifications required under the bill. The bill will provide grants to assist States and LEAs to provide necessary education and training to teachers who do not meet the necessary qualifications. The forms of assistance can include tuition for college or university course work. Recognizing the critical role played by parents and the need to make them a partner in our efforts to raise teaching standards, this bill requires districts and schools to provide parents with information regarding their child's teacher's qualifications. This effort builds on provisions I authored which became part of the Higher Educations Act of 1998. Those provisions require a national report card on teacher training programs. By reporting this information, the public as well as the schools can assess the strengths and weaknesses of teacher training programs. Likewise, the parental right-to-know provision in the Quality Teachers for All Act will empower parents by informing them of the strengths and weaknesses of their children's teachers and help them to provide support for increased teacher quality efforts. If our educational system is going to prepare our children for the 21st Century, we must do a better job at preparing our teachers and our students to use the tools of the 21st Century--technology. We also must use this valuable resource to improve instruction and expand access to learning. Therefore, efforts to raise standards for teaching also must include greater incorporation of technology into our teacher training programs and our classrooms. In response to this need, I--along with Senators Murray and Cochran--are proud to introduce the Technology for Teaching Act. If enacted, this bill will build on existing efforts to improve teacher training in the use of technology in the classroom and provide resources to develop innovative uses of technology in the classroom. Education technology can enlarge the classroom environment in ways that were unimaginable only a decade ago and can empower students to develop as independent thinkers and problem-solvers. Teachers deserve the skills needed to bring these extraordinary resources and opportunities into the classroom. Without these skills, America's teachers will find it increasingly difficult to meet the rising international standards of educational excellence. We also must provide for research and development, as well as evaluation of existing uses of technology, in order to ensure that the most effective education- related technology is in place in our nation's schools. In addition, we must close the digital divide by making technology available to all students, during the school day and outside the school day. The Technology for Teaching bill will provide federal support to: (1) provide training to teachers to assist them to integrate technology into their classrooms; (2) evaluate the role of technology in the classroom; (3) stimulate the development and use of innovative technologies to assist students to achieve high academic standards; and (4) narrow the ``digital divide'' by providing high-need communities and students with greater access to technology. Experts say that we should invest at least 30 percent of our technology budget in training. Nationally, we are now investing less than one-third that amount. Only 15 percent of teachers had 9 or more hours of technology instruction in 1994. Trained teachers help make computers useful to students, connect school to the home and community, and help prevent misuses of technology. Most of all, trained teachers can improve student achievement by applying the technology to academic content areas. The Technology for Teaching Act establishes two teacher training programs, administered by the Office of Education Technology in the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Education, to make competitive grants to State Departments of Education. One program promotes the inclusion of education technology in the initial undergraduate preparation of new teachers; the other focuses on ongoing professional development of current teachers. Schools of education that train new teachers will be eligible to apply to State Departments of Education for grants to improve their programs in education technology. Grant support would require and enable schools of education to work in collaboration with local K-12 school districts and the education technology private sector. Through these partnership activities, schools of education will improve and expand the ways in which they prepare future teachers to use technology in the classroom. Local K-12 Education Agencies (LEAs) will be eligible to apply to State Departments of Education for grants to improve their professional development programs in education technology. In applying for grants, LEAs will be required to develop consortia that include one or more schools of education, education technology companies, and other partners able to help improve their professional development programs. These consortia will provide LEAs and teachers with access to the latest education research and the most current education technology available. The results of these partnership activities will be new and innovative programs for teacher professional development. The question of whether education technology is an effective tool in the classroom is already being answered in part by solid peer-reviewed studies which show a significant improvement in student performance and attitude in all age groups and all subject areas through better use of technology. This research demonstrates what advocates have believed all along: if used correctly, technology in the classroom produces measurable improvement in student achievement and enthusiasm. A new $25 million research and evaluation program at the National Science Foundation will provide even more insight into the positive impact of education technology. The need for a larger scale research and coordination initiative remains. The Technology for Teaching Act requires the Secretary of Education to evaluate existing and anticipated future uses of educational technology. The Secretary may conduct long-term controlled studies on the effectiveness of the use of educational technology; convene experts to identify uses of technology that hold the greatest promise for improving teaching and learning and to identify barriers to the commercial development of effective, high- quality, cost-competitive educational technology and software. We also must continue to support research and development efforts to explore new uses for technology to improve instruction. The bill provides for grants to stimulate the development of innovative technology applications. The Secretary awards competitive grants to consortia of public and private entities developing innovative models of effective use of educational technology, including the development of distance learning networks, software (including software deliverable through the Internet), and online learning resources. For example, grants could be awarded to projects seeking to develop web-based instruction to provide access to challenging content such as Advanced Placement courses. Reduces inequities in access to computers and the Internet must continue to be a main function of federal education technology programs. Education technology can engage students, provide much-needed employment skills, and open up a world of learning and experiences. But like well-trained teachers and new school buildings, these resources tend to flow to wealthier school districts. If we believe that no child should be too poor to have a quality teacher, a safe classroom or textbook, the same should hold true for access to computer technology. The federal government ha always been the great equalizer between the haves and have-nots. Therefore its main mission with respect to education technology should be to do what it does best--level the playing field so all students can acquire the computer skills to function in today's world. the bill targets existing technology grants and the new grant funds authorized by this bill to high-poverty, low- performing schools. The bill also supports the development and expansion of community technology centers to serve disadvantaged residents of high-poverty communities. The centers provide access to technology and training for community members of all ages. By ensuring high-quality, well-prepared teachers in our classrooms, we empower our educational system and our nation to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and challenging world. I know that most, if not all, of my colleagues agree that a critical first step in improving our nation's schools is to support efforts to raise standards for teaching in our poorest and most challenged schools and to prepare our teachers and our children in the use of technology, while also capitalizing on the benefits of technology as an educational tool. We made great progress in our efforts to improve the quality of instruction by raising standards for teacher quality in the higher Education Act last year and through existing program supporting the use of education technology in schools. I urge my colleagues to continue to support these efforts by supporting passage of the Quality Teachers for All Act and the Technology for Teaching Act.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for up to 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. Specifically, I would like to speak about the invaluable contribution of New Mexico Senator Clinton P. Anderson in steering the wilderness legislation through Congress and securing final passage. I also will describe how the Gila Wilderness in New Mexico came to be created, the first such designation in the world, forty years prior to enactment of the Wilderness Act. Finally, in my remarks today, I will mention a related bill that I recently introduced, S. 864, the ``Earth Day'' Act. On September 3, 1964, President Johnson signed the Wilderness Act into law creating the national wilderness preservation system. In order to assure that some lands will be protected in their natural condition, Congress declared a policy of securing for present and future generations of Americans ``the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.'' Certain provisions of the Wilderness Act are unique among the U.S. Code because they read more like poetry than the fodder of legislators and lawyers. For example, the Act defines wilderness as ``an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.'' Why celebrate the anniversary of the Wilderness Act? Since its enactment, the national wilderness preservation system has grown from 9 million acres to 104 million acres--I believe these figures reflect the popularity of and support for wilderness. There are many compelling reasons for preserving wilderness. Wilderness areas protect watersheds and soils, serve as wildlife and plant habitat, and give humans the opportunity to experience solitude in nature. I think Clinton Anderson best described the meaning of wilderness in this eloquent statement: Conservation is to a democratic government by free men as the roots of a tree are to its leaves. We must be willing wisely to nurture and use our resources if we are going to keep visible the inner strengths of democracy. For as we have and hold dear our practices of conservation, we say to the other peoples of the world that ours is not an exploitative society--solely materialistic in outlook. We take a positive position--conservation means that we have faith that our way of life will go on and we are surely building for those who we know will follow . . . There is a spiritual value to conservation and wilderness typifies this. Wilderness is a demonstration by our people that we can put aside a portion of this which we have as a tribute to the Maker and say--this we will leave as we found it. Wilderness is an anchor to windward. Knowing it is there, we can also know that we are still a rich nation, tending to our resources as we should--not a people in despair scratching every last nook and cranny of our land for a board of lumber, a barrel of oil, or a tank of water. Senator Anderson's words are particularly meaningful because of his role as the tenacious and determined leader in Congress who secured passage of the Wilderness Act as many years ago. In fact, former Forest Service Chief Richard McArdle stated that, ``Without Clinton Anderson there would have been no Wilderness Law.'' In his first substantive act as the new Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on January 5, 1961, Clinton Anderson introduced a bill to establish and maintain a national wilderness system. Although similar wilderness bills had been introduced in previous Congresses, it was Senator Anderson's bill that was first reported by the Committee and, later that year, the first to pass the Senate. The vote on his bill was decisive, 78 to 8. Senator Frank Church wrote to Senator Anderson that: The fact that you were chief sponsor of the bill was in large measure responsible for the big endorsement it received on final passage. Unfortunately, the House was not yet ready to seriously consider a wilderness bill and the 87th Congress adjourned without enactment of the Wilderness Act. In 1963, Senator Anderson introduced the Wilderness bill once again. Successfully steering the bill through Committee consideration, the full Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill three months into the term of the 88th Congress. He then crafted the legislative trade that ultimately resulted in House passage of the wilderness bill--key House members wanted legislation creating the Public Land Law Review Commission. Both pieces of legislation were signed in 1964. Upon signing the Wilderness Act into law, President Johnson gave Senator Anderson special commendation by stating that he had been ``in the forefront of conservation legislation since he first came to the House in 1941.'' In recalling the 35th anniversary of the passage of the Wilderness Act, it is fitting to observe that this year is also the 75th anniversary of Federal wilderness protection. On June 3, 1924, the Forest Service designated 755,000 acres of national forest land in New Mexico as the Gila Wilderness. This unprecedented act took place forty years prior to passage of the Wilderness Act and was the first such designation in the world. It all began through the foresight and leadership of a young Forest Service manager in New Mexico named Aldo Leopold. He had worked for the Forest Service in the Southwest in a variety of different positions, including as a Ranger on the Gila National Forest. Leopold felt that preservation had been neglected on the national forests. He foresaw the importance of preserving the biological diversity and natural systems giving way to development. Leopold once wrote that ``a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.'' He argued against the proposed expansion of a road system into the back country of the Gila National Forest and proposed instead that a large area be left roadless and preserved for wilderness recreation. Today the Gila Wilderness is inhabited by bear, deer, elk, beaver, bobcat, mountain lion, antelope, and wild turkey. It is a favorite destination for hikers, backpackers, and anglers who enjoy its 19 miles of fishing streams. The Gila Wilderness contains the cliff dwellings of the ancient Mogollon civilization as well as the campsites and battlegrounds of the Apache and the U.S. Cavalry. In fact, John Murray wrote in his book, ``The Gila Wilderness: A Hiking Guide,'' that ``no other wilderness area in the Southwest so much embodies and reflects this national history and natural philosophy as does the Gila.'' He went on to note that ``many of the important events in the development of the region, from the first expedition of Coronado in 1541 to the more recent raids of Geronimo, occurred either directly in the Gila Wilderness Area or in the immediate vicinity.'' Leopold would go on to become one of America's greatest naturalists. His accomplishments include publication of ``A Sand County Almanac,'' one of the most influential books ever written about the relationship of people to their lands and waters. Our nation continues to need opportunities to reflect on the importance of preserving our national world. The celebration of Earth Day each year on April 22nd is an effective way to remind us of the significance of the environment and of accomplishments such as the Wilderness Act. S. 864, the ``Earth Day Act'', is a bill that I introduced last April along with Senator Chafee. It has since gained nine additional bipartisan cosponsors. The purpose of S. 864 is to officially and permanently designate April 22nd as Earth Day. The first Earth Day was 29 years ago, in 1970, and was first conceived of by our former colleague, Senator Gaylord Nelson. That first Earth Day involved some 20 million Americans. Since then, Earth Day has focused the attention of the country and the world on the importance of preserving and maintaining our environment. I believe the nation owes a great debt of gratitude to Senator Neslon for his leadership in creating Earth Day, and that we should recognize the importance it has assumed in our nation's life. It is my sincere hope the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on S. 864, and that the Senate will pass the bill by the end of this year. It is my goal to have the President sign S. 864 into law by the time Earth Day 2000 arrives. I invite all of my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am supporting Senator Hutchison's amendment to extend the moratorium on the oil valuation rule of the Department of the Interior. I do this with some reluctance because like most of my colleagues from oil producing States, I believe strongly that this issue must be settled. Yet, after careful consideration, I cannot honestly conclude that the rule as currently proposed will achieve that. I have worked hard with officials from the Department of the Interior and others to try to find the right approach to resolving the disputes involved in this rulemaking. I am very aware of the hard work and good faith efforts of many in the environmental and public interest community, within the States, and within the industry, to address the controversial issues raised by this rule. I believe there has been progress. However, we are not there yet. The way oil from Federal leases is valued for purposes of calculating royalty payments is complex to say the least. Nonetheless, it is also very important; it is important to those producing the Federal oil, it is important to the American taxpayers, and it is important to the States who receive up to half of the proceeds from Federal leases within their state boundaries. My State of New Mexico is the second largest producer of onshore Federal oil and gas. In 1998, there were almost twelve thousand Federal oil and gas leases within New Mexico, covering over seven million acres of land. The majority of these leases are operated by small independent producers whose livelihood is greatly impacted by the manner in which Federal payments are calculated. In 1998, the State of New Mexico received almost $168 million as its share of the revenues from Federal mineral leases within the State. My State uses these payments to help fund its public education system. Given these circumstances, it is obvious to me that the method of valuing these Federal royalty payments is of deep concern to New Mexico, from a number of different angles. It is important to get it right. It is pointless to create rules that are unworkable, or unfair, or that will be mired in costly and nonproductive litigation. I owe it to the honest producers in my State, as well as to my State Treasury, to try to ensure that a final rulemaking on this subject will achieve the desired end of fairness to all, and creation of a clear set of standards that will not be plagued by endless controversy. For this reason I am supporting an additional moratorium. I do not believe the rulemaking as it is currently proposed will work. The Department of the Interior has indicated that its latest round of comments has resulted in information which it has found helpful, and which could result in changes that would satisfy the concerns of industry and others, while ensuring that the United States receives fair market value for its oil resources. The Department has suggested that with this new information, it may be able to work out ways to resolve the issues that to date have proven so intractable. I believe imposition of this moratorium will allow the Department the additional time it needs to re-propose this rule, and get to the elusive, but necessary resolution of this issue. In comments I submitted to this rule, I recommended a number of areas for change, based on my conversations with New Mexico producers, and with other interested groups. These include ensuring that independent producers and others who engage in arms-length sales of their oil pay royalties only on the actual amount they receive; creating reasonable deductions for transportation costs; and resolving the treatment of marketing costs. I continue to urge the Department to consider these recommendations as it addresses the final rule.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, several weeks ago Cibola County in New Mexico lost one of its leading citizens when Clif Lear of Grants died of cancer. A businessman, he took public service very seriously and served over the years as a city councilman and as the city manager. His contributions to economic development in an area hit hard when the mines closed made a huge difference to the people of Cibola County, as he worked tirelessly to attract new initiatives and new projects. His wife and three daughters have the sympathy and appreciation of us all who are grateful for Clif's life and the effort he made to make his corner of New Mexico better.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, yesterday I was pleased to be joined by Senators Rockefeller, Snowe, and Mikulski in introducing the Electronic Commerce Extension Establishment Act of 1999. The purpose of the bill is simple--to ensure that small businesses in every corner of our nation fully participate in the electronic commerce revolution unfolding around us by helping them find and adopt the right e-commerce technology and techniques. It does this by authorizing an ``electronic commerce extension'' program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology modeled on NIST's existing, highly successful Manufacturing Extension Program. Everywhere you look today, e-commerce is starting a revolution in American business. Precise e-commerce numbers are hard to come by, but by one estimate e-commerce sales in 1998 were $100 billion. If you add in the hardware, software, and services making those sales possible, the number rises to $300 billion. Another estimate has business to business e-commerce growing to $1.3 trillion by 2003. Whatever the exact numbers, an amazing change in our economy has begun. But the shift to e-commerce is about more than new ways to sell things; it's about new ways to do things. It promises to transform how we do business and thereby boost productivity, the root of long term improvements in our standard of living. A recent Washington Post piece on Cisco Systems, a major supplier of Internet hardware, notes that Cisco saved $500 million last year by selling its products and buying its supplies online. Imagine the productivity and economic growth spurred when more firms get efficiencies like that. And that's the point of the bill, to make sure that small businesses get those benefits too. Electronic commerce is a new use of information technology and the Ineternet. Many people suspect information technology is the major driver behind the productivity and economic growth we've been enjoying. The crucial verb here is ``use.'' It is the widespread use of a more productive technology that sustains accelerated productivity growth. It was steam engine, not its sales, that powered the industrial revolution. Closer to today, in 1987, Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Solow quipped, ``We see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.'' Well, it looks like the computer has started to show up because more people are using them in more ways, like e-commerce. Information technology producers, companies like Cisco Systems who are, notably, some of the most sophisticated users of IT, are 8% of our economy; from 1995 to 1998 they contributed 35% of our economic growth. There are also some indications that IT is now improving productivity among companies that only use IT. But here is the real point. If we are going to sustain this productivity and economic growth, we have to spread sophisticated uses of information technology like e-commerce beyond the high tech sector and companies like Cisco Systems and into every corner of the economy, including small businesses. Back in the 1980's, we used to debate if it mattered if we made money selling ``potato chips or computer chips.'' But here is the real difference: consuming a lot of potato chips isn't good for you; consuming a lot of computer chips is. I emphasize this because too often our discussions of government policy, technology, and economic growth dwell on the invention and sale of new technologies, but shortchange the all important topic of their use. Extension programs, like the electronic commerce extension program in my bill, are policy aimed at precisely spreading the use of more productive technology by small businesses. With that in mind, the e-commerce revolution creates both opportunities and challenges for small businesses. On the one hand, it will open new markets to them. On the web, the garage shop can look as good as IBM. On the other hand, the high fixed costs, low marginal costs, and technical sophistication that can sometimes characterize e- commerce, when coupled with a good brand name, may allow larger, more established e-commerce firms to quickly move from market to market. Amazon.com has done such a wonderful job of making a huge variety of books widely available that it's been able to expand to CDs, to toys, to electronics, to auctions. Moreover, firms in more rural areas have suddenly found sophisticated, low cost, previously distant businesses entering their market, and competing with them. Thus, there is considerable risk that many small businesses will be left behind in the shift to e-commerce. That would not be good for them, nor for the rest of us, because we all benefit when everyone is more productive and everyone competes. The root of this problem is the fact that many small firms have a hard time identifying and adopting new technology. They are hard working, but they just don't have the time, people, or money to understand all the different technologies they might use. And, they often don't even know where to turn to for help. Thus, while small firms are very flexible, they can be slow to adopt new technology, because they don't know which to use or what to do about it. That is why we have extension programs. Extension programs give small businesses low cost, impartial advice on what technologies are out there and how to use them. What might an e-commerce extension program do? Imagine you're a small speciality foods retailer in rural New Mexico and you see e-commerce as a way to reach more customers. But your specialty is chiles, not computers; imagine all the questions you would have. How do I sell over the web? Can I buy supplies that way too? How do I keep hackers out of my system? What privacy policies should I follow? How do I use encryption to collect credit card numbers and guarantee customers that I'm who I am? Can I electronically integrate my sales orders with instructions to shippers like Federal Express? Should I band together with other local producers to form a chile cybermall? What servers, software, and telecommunications will I need and how much will it cost? Your local e-commerce extension center would answer those questions for you. And, you could trust their advice, because you would know they were impartial and had no interest in selling you a particular product. This bill will lead to the creation of a high quality, nationwide network of non-profit organizations providing that kind of advice, analogous to the Manufacturing Extension Program, or MEP, network NIST runs today, but with a focus on e-commerce and on firms beyond manufacturers. MEP demonstrates that NIST could do this new job well. Similarly, this bill is modeled on the MEP authorization. It retains the key features of MEP: a network of centers run by non-profits; strict merit selection; cost sharing; and periodic independent review of each center. In addition, it emphasizes serving small businesses in rural or more isolated areas, so that those businesses can get a leg up on e-commerce too. In short, this legislation takes an approach that has already been proven to work. Practically speaking, if this bill becomes law, I assume NIST would begin by leveraging their MEP management expertise to start a few e- commerce extension centers and then gradually build out a network separate from MEP. I also want to note that this is a new, separate authorization for an e-commerce extension program because it will have a different focus than MEP and because I do not want it to displace MEP in any way. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important, timely, and practical piece of legislation. Just as a strong agricultural sector called for an agricultural extension service, and a strong industrial sector called for manufacturing extension, our shift to an information economy calls for electronic commerce extension.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to highlight an issue of growing concern, namely funding for the U.S. chemical demilitarization program. My concern is that the Congress has been cutting the funding required to eliminate our stockpile of chemical weapons and agents, despite the fact that we have a treaty commitment under the Chemical Weapons Convention to destroy that stockpile by April 24, 2007. Simply put, if we in Congress do not provide the funds needed to meet that treaty commitment in time, we will be forcing the United States to violate an arms control treaty that we in the Senate approved with our vote of advise and consent to ratification. Mr. President, this is a trend we should not be continuing. In fact, we should be providing the funds needed to ensure that the United States can and does meet its treaty obligations for all treaties to which we are an adherent, including the Chemical Weapons Convention. Given the Senate's unique constitutional role in providing advice and consent to the ratification of treaties, I would hope this proposition would be self-evident to all our colleagues. Nonetheless, Mr. President, the Conference Report on the Military Construction Appropriations Bill, H.R. 2465, contains significant reductions from the funding requested for military construction of chemical demilitarization facilities needed to meet our treaty obligations. The program is cut by $93 million dollars in fiscal year 2000 funds, including a reduction of $15 million dollars for planning and design work. This appears to be a technical mistake, Mr. President, since the budget request did not contain any funds for planning and design in the military construction projects for chemical demilitarization. This is deeply disappointing since neither appropriations subcommittee had reduced the military construction funding in their respective bills. On the contrary, each subcommittee had provided full funding of the budget request for military construction for the chemical demilitarization program. The conference, however, chose to ignore that and cut funding. If, as I suspect, those funding reductions would jeopardize our ability to meet our CWC treaty obligations, I hope the Defense Department will take some remedial action, such as a reprogramming or a supplemental request to ensure that the necessary funds are available to do the work needed to ensure that we remain compliant with the treaty. I also hope that the Defense Appropriations Conference will provide the necessary funding for this program since there are reductions made by both House and Senate subcommittees that I believe are not warranted, and are based on incomplete information. Mr. President, there was a preliminary assessment conducted by the Defense Department's Comptroller office earlier this year that looked at the rate of obligations and disbursements for the chemical demilitarization program. Unfortunately, before that assessment was completed, an internal DoD memorandum was leaked with preliminary and incomplete information. That internal memo was the basis for much concern among various congressional committees. The problem is that some of the Committees acted on the basis of that incomplete information, and it is now clear that the preliminary information was incorrect. Consequently, Congress cut funds for the chemical demilitarization program based on faulty information. Since that internal memo was leaked, Congress has been looking into the financial management of the chemical demilitarization program, and we have been provided with more complete and accurate information. This information makes it clear that we should not be cutting the program funding based on the earlier information. The Armed Services Committee, on which I serve as the Ranking Member of the Emerging Threats subcommittee that has responsibility for this program, asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a preliminary review of the financial management of the program. Their conclusion was that the funds requested are all needed and that there are plans for spending them at a reasonable rate. In other words, Mr. President, the worries about slow obligation or expenditure rates are not justified, and there is a good explanation for why the funds are obligated and expended at their current pace. In my view, this means that Congress should not be cutting the funds based on the incorrect information, but should provide the needed funding. The General Accounting Office sent the results of their preliminary review to the Armed Services Committee in a letter dated July 29, 1999, and I will ask unanimous consent that the letter be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. In addition, Mr. President, the Office of the Comptroller of the Department of Defense conducted a thorough review of the funding status of the chemical demilitarization program to review unobligated and unexpended balances. The results of that review have recently been submitted to Congress. That review indicates that about $88 million dollars could conceivably be deferred until next fiscal year, but that such a deferral would entail risks to our ability to meet the CWC deadline, and ``should only be made after serious consideration.'' In other words, Mr. President, the Defense Department Comptroller's office did not find the kinds of problems that had been suggested by the earlier preliminary internal review, and did not find excess funds suggested by that partial review. The review noted that ``without exception, the budgeted funds are needed to satisfy valid chemical demilitarization requirements. Should any funds be removed from FY 2000, the funds will need to be added back in the future budget.'' The Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Hamre, sent a letter to the congressional defense committees dated August 3, 1999, in which he explains the review and includes the executive summary of the Comptroller report. I will ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my remarks that Secretary Hamre's letter and the enclosure be included in the Record. Mr. President, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that Congress should not cut the funding for chemical demilitarization to the extent the Appropriations Committees did on the basis of the preliminary and partial information contained in the leaked internal memo. Instead, the Congress should work with the Defense Department to determine the correct level of funding needed to comply with the treaty and provide it. Furthermore, since the completion of the Comptroller's review, the Defense Department has agreed to conduct an evaluation of three additional alternative technologies for chemical demilitarization, as sought in the Senate Military Construction Appropriations bill. This evaluation alone will cost some $40 million in FY 2000 funds, so that means that there is even less money that can be considered for deferral. Mr. President, I addressed the Senate on the issue of the chemical demilitarization program when the Military Construction Appropriations bill, S. 1205, was before the Senate in June. At that time, I expressed my concern that the Senate bill had restrictions that could jeopardize our ability to meet the CWC deadline. I am glad to say that since then, the Defense Department has reached an understanding with the Appropriations Committee on a plan to evaluate the three additional alternative technologies without blocking or delaying construction activity. I am pleased to see this agreement and I commend all those who helped to achieve it, particularly the senior Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell. Mr. President, I know we take our treaty responsibilities very seriously here whenever a treaty is sent to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. I know that was the case when the Chemical Weapons Convention was approved by more than three-quarters of the Senate. I hope we will take as seriously our obligation to provide the funds necessary to meet our treaty obligations. In this case, that means providing necessary funds for the chemical demilitarization program. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the documents I referred to previously, be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks and I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am told that, nationally, Weatherization leverages about a 50 percent add-on from non-federal sources--but there is no study of this and it probably varies widely among states. In fact, the same informal state survey I just mentioned reported that many of the states have private partnerships between the utilities and the local community action Weatherization programs, brokered in many instances by the Weatherization programs, and that these partnerships are growing as utility restructuring moves forward. Many building owners in low-income communities also chip in for these services. Further, I am told many states have excellent coordination among the federal low-income energy and the low-income housing and community development programs. However, the fact is that most of the states reviewed the terms of the match in the House bill and said they don't believe these public-private efforts would qualify under that terminology. I believe we would really have to look into any requirement that didn't encourage private investment in these local programs; I hope the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee would concur in opposing the inclusion of language authorizing a State match for Weatherization in the Interior appropriations bill or Conference Report.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I rise in the hope that the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Alaska, will engage in a colloquy with myself, Senator Jeffords and the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington, on the Weatherization Assistance Program provision in the bill passed by the other body. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the other body passed its version of the FY 2000 Interior appropriations legislation on July 14. That bill included a provision mandating States to provide a 25 percent state cost share, or state match, in order to receive their FY 2000 Weatherization Assistance grants. Despite the potential ramifications of implementing a State match, no hearings have been held, and no input has been solicited from the States to determine if cost sharing is realistic or necessary for this program. As many Senators are aware, state legislatures across the country simply cannot meet this deadline with such short notice. In fact, some legislatures are about to adjourn and will not meet again for another year or even two. Currently, the only data we have regarding the impact of the proposed State match comes from an informal survey undertaken this month by the National Association of State Community Services Programs; it indicates that 25 states definitely cannot provide matching funds in FY 2000; another five large states are uncertain whether they can meet the requirement, and less than ten States currently provide state- appropriated funds to Weatherization and would be able to comply immediately. It seems to me that consideration of such a fundamental change in the distribution of state Weatherization Assistance grants falls squarely under the jurisdiction of the authorizing committee. Wouldn't the Chairman agree?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I'm very pleased to be joined by Senators Rockefeller, Snowe, and Mikulski in introducing the ``Electronic Commerce Extension Establishment Act of 1999.'' The purpose of this bill is simple--to ensure that small businesses in every corner of our nation fully participate in the electronic commerce revolution unfolding around us by helping them find and adopt the right e-commerce technology and techniques. It does this by authorizing an ``electronic commerce extension'' program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology modeled on NIST's existing, highly successful Manufacturing Extension Program. Everywhere you look today, e-commerce--the buying, selling, and even the delivery of goods and services via computer networks--is starting a revolution in American business. Being so new, precise e-commerce numbers are hard to come by, but by one estimate business to business and business to consumer e-commerce sales in 1998 were $100 billion. If you add in the hardware, software, and services making those sales possible, the number rises to $300 billion. That's comparable to adding another entire automobile industry to the economy in the last few years. Another estimate has business to business e-commerce growing to $1.3 trillion by 2003. Whatever the exact numbers, an amazing change in our economy has begun. But the shift to e-commerce is about more than new ways to sell things; it's about new ways to do things. It promises to transform how we do business--how we design products, manage supply chains and inventories, advertise and distribute goods, et cetera--and thereby boost productivity, the root of long term improvements in our standard of living. A recent Washington Post piece on Cisco Systems, a major supplier of Internet hardware, notes that Cisco saved $500 million last year by selling its products and buying its supplies online. On sales of $8.5 billion, that helped make for some nice profits. Imagine the productivity and economic growth spurred when more firms get efficiencies like that. And that's the point of this bill, to make sure that small businesses get those benefits too. Electronic commerce is a new use of information technology and the Internet. Many people, including Alan Greenspan, suspect information technology is the major driver behind the productivity and economic growth we've been enjoying. The crucial verb here is ``use.'' It is the widespread use of a more productive technology that sustains accelerated productivity growth. It was steam engine, not its sales, that powered the industrial revolution. In 1899, only about 5 percent of factory horsepower came from electric motors, even though the technologies had been around for two decades. But by 1920, when electric motors finally accounted for more than half of factory horsepower, they created a surge in industrial productivity as more efficient factory designs became common. Closer to today, in 1987, Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Solow quipped, ``We see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.'' Well, it looks like the computer has started to show up because more people are using them in more ways, like e-commerce. Information technology producers, companies like Cisco Systems who are, notably, some of the most sophisticated users of IT, are 8 percent of our economy; from 1995 to 1998 they contributed 35 percent of our economic growth. There are also some indications that IT is now improving productivity among companies that only use IT, though economists continue to debate that. But here's the real point. If we are going to sustain this productivity and economic growth, if this is to be more than a one time boost that dies out, we have to spread sophisticated uses of information technology like e-commerce beyond the high tech sector and companies like Cisco Systems and into every corner of the economy, including small businesses. Back in the 1980s we used to debate if it mattered if we made money selling ``potato chips or computer chips.'' But here's the real difference: consuming a lot of potato chips isn't good for you; consuming a lot of computer chips is. I emphasize all this because too often our discussions of government policy, technology, and economic growth dwell on the invention and sale of new technologies, which are crucial, but shortchange the all important, but not terribly glamorous topic of their adoption and use. Extension programs, like the electronic commerce extension program in this bill, are policy aimed at precisely spreading the adoption and use of more productive technology by small businesses. Now, with that in mind, the e-commerce revolution creates both opportunities and challenges for small businesses. On the one hand, it will open new markets to them and help them be more efficient. Many of us have seen that cartoon with a dog in front of a computer saying, ``On the Internet no one knows you're a dog.'' Well, on the web, the garage shop can look as good as IBM or GM. On the other hand, the high fixed costs, low marginal costs, and technical sophistication that can sometimes characterize e-commerce, when coupled with a good brand name, may allow larger, more established e-commerce firms to quickly move from market to market. Amazon.com, perhaps the archetype e-commerce firm, has done such a wonderful job of making a huge variety of books widely available that it's been able to expand to CDs, to toys, to electronics, to auctions. Moreover, firms in more rural or isolated areas have suddenly found sophisticated, low cost, previously distant businesses entering their market, and competing with them. Thus, there is considerable risk that many small businesses be left behind in the shift to e-commerce. That would not be good for them, nor for the rest of us, because we all benefit when everyone is more productive and everyone competes. The root of this problem is the fact that many small firms have a hard time identifying and adopting new technology. They're hard pressed and hard working, but they just don't have the time, people, or money to understand all the different technologies they might use. And, they often don't even know where to turn for help. Thus, while small firms are very flexible, they can be slow to adopt new technology, because they don't know which to use or what to do about it. That's why we have extension programs. Extension programs give small businesses low cost, impartial advice on what technologies are out there and how to use them. Extension programs have a long, solid pedigree. They started in 1914, with the Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service to ``extend'' the benefits of agricultural research to the farmer. That extension service has played no small part in making the American farmer the most productive in the world. More recently, the competitiveness crisis of the 1980's prompted the creation of the Manufacturing Extension Program, or MEP, at NIST to help small manufacturers find and use the technology they need. NIST has done a good job building and managing MEP's network of more than 70 non-profit centers, in all 50 states, with 2000 experts on call, that has helped over 60,000 manufacturers. Today, the United States is the international leader in e-commerce, but other nations are working to catch up, just like they did in manufacturing. Thus, the time is ripe to solidify our lead in e- commerce and extend it to every part of our economy in every corner of the nation. An electronic commerce extension program will help us do that. So, what might such a program do? Imagine you're a small specialty foods retailer in rural New Mexico and you see e-commerce as a way to reach more customers. But your specialty is chiles, not computers; imagine all the questions you'd have. How do I sell over the web? Can I buy supplies that way too? How do I keep hackers out of my system? What privacy policies should I follow? How do I use encryption to collect credit card numbers and guarantee customers that I'm who I say I am? Can I electronically integrate my sales orders with instructions to shippers like Federal Express? How might I handle orders from Japan or Holland? Should I band together with other local producers to form a chile cybermall? What servers, software, and telecommunications will I need and how much will it cost? Can I do this via satellite links? Your local e-commerce extension center would answer those questions for you. And, you could trust their advice, because you'd know they were impartial and had no interest in selling you a particular product. This bill will lead to the creation of a high quality, nationwide network of non-profit organizations providing that kind of expert advice, analogous to the MEP network NIST runs today, but with a focus on e-commerce and on firms beyond manufacturers. NIST, as part of the Department of Commerce, is a logical choice to run an e- commerce extension program because it's about promoting commerce via technology and standards; recall that the Internet is based on standards for how computers can talk to each other. But the best reason for NIST to do this is that MEP shows they can do it well; that expertise will prove invaluable in getting this new network up and running. Similarly, this bill is directly modeled on the MEP authorization. It retains the key features of MEP: a network of centers run by non- profits; strict merit selection; cost sharing where the federal government's share decreases from one half to one third over time; and periodic independent review of each center. In addition, it emphasizes serving small businesses in rural or more isolated areas, so that those businesses can get a leg up on e-commerce too. In short, this legislation takes an approach that has already been proven to work. Practically speaking, if this bill becomes law, I assume NIST, together with its headquarters organization, the Technology Administration, would begin by leveraging their MEP management expertise to start a few e-commerce extension centers and then gradually build out a network separate from MEP. They could also use the study of e-commerce extension resulting from my amendment to the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill the other week. I also want to note that this is a new, separate authorization for an e- commerce extension program because it will have a different focus than MEP and because I do not want it to displace MEP in any way. MEP is a great program. Let's keep it going strong while we build this new e- commerce extension system. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important, timely, and practical piece of legislation. Just as a strong agricultural sector called for an agricultural extension service, and a strong industrial sector called for manufacturing extension, our shift to an information economy calls for electronic commerce extension. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no obection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I'm very pleased to be joined by Senators Rockefeller, Snowe, and Mikulski in introducing the ``Electronic Commerce Extension Establishment Act of 1999.'' The purpose of this bill is simple--to ensure that small businesses in every corner of our nation fully participate in the electronic commerce revolution unfolding around us by helping them find and adopt the right e-commerce technology and techniques. It does this by authorizing an ``electronic commerce extension'' program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology modeled on NIST's existing, highly successful Manufacturing Extension Program. Everywhere you look today, e-commerce--the buying, selling, and even the delivery of goods and services via computer networks--is starting a revolution in American business. Being so new, precise e-commerce numbers are hard to come by, but by one estimate business to business and business to consumer e-commerce sales in 1998 were $100 billion. If you add in the hardware, software, and services making those sales possible, the number rises to $300 billion. That's comparable to adding another entire automobile industry to the economy in the last few years. Another estimate has business to business e-commerce growing to $1.3 trillion by 2003. Whatever the exact numbers, an amazing change in our economy has begun. But the shift to e-commerce is about more than new ways to sell things; it's about new ways to do things. It promises to transform how we do business--how we design products, manage supply chains and inventories, advertise and distribute goods, et cetera--and thereby boost productivity, the root of long term improvements in our standard of living. A recent Washington Post piece on Cisco Systems, a major supplier of Internet hardware, notes that Cisco saved $500 million last year by selling its products and buying its supplies online. On sales of $8.5 billion, that helped make for some nice profits. Imagine the productivity and economic growth spurred when more firms get efficiencies like that. And that's the point of this bill, to make sure that small businesses get those benefits too. Electronic commerce is a new use of information technology and the Internet. Many people, including Alan Greenspan, suspect information technology is the major driver behind the productivity and economic growth we've been enjoying. The crucial verb here is ``use.'' It is the widespread use of a more productive technology that sustains accelerated productivity growth. It was steam engine, not its sales, that powered the industrial revolution. In 1899, only about 5 percent of factory horsepower came from electric motors, even though the technologies had been around for two decades. But by 1920, when electric motors finally accounted for more than half of factory horsepower, they created a surge in industrial productivity as more efficient factory designs became common. Closer to today, in 1987, Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Solow quipped, ``We see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.'' Well, it looks like the computer has started to show up because more people are using them in more ways, like e-commerce. Information technology producers, companies like Cisco Systems who are, notably, some of the most sophisticated users of IT, are 8 percent of our economy; from 1995 to 1998 they contributed 35 percent of our economic growth. There are also some indications that IT is now improving productivity among companies that only use IT, though economists continue to debate that. But here's the real point. If we are going to sustain this productivity and economic growth, if this is to be more than a one time boost that dies out, we have to spread sophisticated uses of information technology like e-commerce beyond the high tech sector and companies like Cisco Systems and into every corner of the economy, including small businesses. Back in the 1980s we used to debate if it mattered if we made money selling ``potato chips or computer chips.'' But here's the real difference: consuming a lot of potato chips isn't good for you; consuming a lot of computer chips is. I emphasize all this because too often our discussions of government policy, technology, and economic growth dwell on the invention and sale of new technologies, which are crucial, but shortchange the all important, but not terribly glamorous topic of their adoption and use. Extension programs, like the electronic commerce extension program in this bill, are policy aimed at precisely spreading the adoption and use of more productive technology by small businesses. Now, with that in mind, the e-commerce revolution creates both opportunities and challenges for small businesses. On the one hand, it will open new markets to them and help them be more efficient. Many of us have seen that cartoon with a dog in front of a computer saying, ``On the Internet no one knows you're a dog.'' Well, on the web, the garage shop can look as good as IBM or GM. On the other hand, the high fixed costs, low marginal costs, and technical sophistication that can sometimes characterize e-commerce, when coupled with a good brand name, may allow larger, more established e-commerce firms to quickly move from market to market. Amazon.com, perhaps the archetype e-commerce firm, has done such a wonderful job of making a huge variety of books widely available that it's been able to expand to CDs, to toys, to electronics, to auctions. Moreover, firms in more rural or isolated areas have suddenly found sophisticated, low cost, previously distant businesses entering their market, and competing with them. Thus, there is considerable risk that many small businesses be left behind in the shift to e-commerce. That would not be good for them, nor for the rest of us, because we all benefit when everyone is more productive and everyone competes. The root of this problem is the fact that many small firms have a hard time identifying and adopting new technology. They're hard pressed and hard working, but they just don't have the time, people, or money to understand all the different technologies they might use. And, they often don't even know where to turn for help. Thus, while small firms are very flexible, they can be slow to adopt new technology, because they don't know which to use or what to do about it. That's why we have extension programs. Extension programs give small businesses low cost, impartial advice on what technologies are out there and how to use them. Extension programs have a long, solid pedigree. They started in 1914, with the Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service to ``extend'' the benefits of agricultural research to the farmer. That extension service has played no small part in making the American farmer the most productive in the world. More recently, the competitiveness crisis of the 1980's prompted the creation of the Manufacturing Extension Program, or MEP, at NIST to help small manufacturers find and use the technology they need. NIST has done a good job building and managing MEP's network of more than 70 non-profit centers, in all 50 states, with 2000 experts on call, that has helped over 60,000 manufacturers. Today, the United States is the international leader in e-commerce, but other nations are working to catch up, just like they did in manufacturing. Thus, the time is ripe to solidify our lead in e- commerce and extend it to every part of our economy in every corner of the nation. An electronic commerce extension program will help us do that. So, what might such a program do? Imagine you're a small specialty foods retailer in rural New Mexico and you see e-commerce as a way to reach more customers. But your specialty is chiles, not computers; imagine all the questions you'd have. How do I sell over the web? Can I buy supplies that way too? How do I keep hackers out of my system? What privacy policies should I follow? How do I use encryption to collect credit card numbers and guarantee customers that I'm who I say I am? Can I electronically integrate my sales orders with instructions to shippers like Federal Express? How might I handle orders from Japan or Holland? Should I band together with other local producers to form a chile cybermall? What servers, software, and telecommunications will I need and how much will it cost? Can I do this via satellite links? Your local e-commerce extension center would answer those questions for you. And, you could trust their advice, because you'd know they were impartial and had no interest in selling you a particular product. This bill will lead to the creation of a high quality, nationwide network of non-profit organizations providing that kind of expert advice, analogous to the MEP network NIST runs today, but with a focus on e-commerce and on firms beyond manufacturers. NIST, as part of the Department of Commerce, is a logical choice to run an e- commerce extension program because it's about promoting commerce via technology and standards; recall that the Internet is based on standards for how computers can talk to each other. But the best reason for NIST to do this is that MEP shows they can do it well; that expertise will prove invaluable in getting this new network up and running. Similarly, this bill is directly modeled on the MEP authorization. It retains the key features of MEP: a network of centers run by non- profits; strict merit selection; cost sharing where the federal government's share decreases from one half to one third over time; and periodic independent review of each center. In addition, it emphasizes serving small businesses in rural or more isolated areas, so that those businesses can get a leg up on e-commerce too. In short, this legislation takes an approach that has already been proven to work. Practically speaking, if this bill becomes law, I assume NIST, together with its headquarters organization, the Technology Administration, would begin by leveraging their MEP management expertise to start a few e-commerce extension centers and then gradually build out a network separate from MEP. They could also use the study of e-commerce extension resulting from my amendment to the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill the other week. I also want to note that this is a new, separate authorization for an e- commerce extension program because it will have a different focus than MEP and because I do not want it to displace MEP in any way. MEP is a great program. Let's keep it going strong while we build this new e- commerce extension system. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important, timely, and practical piece of legislation. Just as a strong agricultural sector called for an agricultural extension service, and a strong industrial sector called for manufacturing extension, our shift to an information economy calls for electronic commerce extension. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no obection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Again, I want to thank Senator Leahy and his staff for their work on this important amendment and I hope the Senate will support it. Exhibit 1 July 21, 1999. Hon. Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Bingaman: The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the oldest and largest Indian advocacy organization is pleased to endorse the Leahy/Bingaman amendment, number 1067, to the FY2000 agriculture appropriations bill (S. 1233). This amendment will make available $12 million dollars in direct funding for water and wastewater projects in Indian Country. The funds for the amendment are from within the Rural Utilities Service's (RUS) $630 million dollar total appropriation. In general, tribes are already eligible for RUS funding; however, current rules limit RUS grants to a maximum of 75 percent of a project's cost. Infrastructure development in Indian Country is at a critical need. The tribes who can benefit the most are unable to access RUS grants due to their inability to obtain the 25 percent matching requirement from either loans or other funding sources. Moreover, tribes generally lack taxing and bonding authority to obtain the matching funds normally required by RUS. The structure of the new program in the amendment parallels the $20 million dollar grant program established for the colonias located along the United States/Mexico border, which also allows RUS to provide 100% of the cost of a project. A similar $20 million grant program is also provided in the bill for rural and Native Americans in Alaska. We believe your amendment will benefit a number of tribes throughout Indian Country and we thank you for your efforts. Sincerely, W. Ron Allen, President.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their fine work on this agricultural appropriations bill. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Leahy and his staff for their work on this amendment. It will mean a great deal to Tribes all over America. Mr. President, I am sure all Senators recognize the important contributions that the Rural Utilities Service is making in every state. RUS has been especially effective in the rural portions of New Mexico. The RUS's grant and loan programs are making tremendous progress in improving the quality of life of our small towns and in Indian Country. The basic health of rural people in New Mexico, as well as their economic future, are being greatly improved by RUS's programs. I'd like to take a few minutes to explain what our amendment does. Under current rules RUS can provide no more than 75 percent of the cost of a project in the form of a grant. The remaining 25 percent can be in the form of a loan or from some other local source of funds. This program works well throughout most of rural America. Communities generally have access to taxing or bonding authority or to state funds that they can use for the required matching funds or to guarantee a loan. However, there are some cases where a community doesn't have the means to provide the required matching funds. Congress has recognized this problem and has created special rules to address these unique situations. One example are colonias, where Congress allows RUS to provide 100 percent of the cost of a project so that the local community isn't burdened by these immigrant settlements, and this bill provides up to $20 million for projects in colonias. Mr. President, the funding authorization for colonias is a good program, and I thank the Chairman and ranking member for their continued support of it. Very simply, our amendment would create a parallel program for Indian Country. Currently, RUS is already providing loans and grants to tribes using its standard funding rules. However, some tribes can't take advantage of RUS's programs simply because they don't qualify for the loans required to cover 25 percent of a project's cost. Tribes generally lack taxing or bonding authority to provide these required matching funds. Mr. President, our amendment would allow RUS to provide 100 percent of the cost of a project for the most economically disadvantaged tribes that can't otherwise provide the required matching funds. The amendment allows up to $12 million for water and wastewater projects for this purpose. The funds come from within RUS's existing appropriation. Without our amendment, a few of our tribes will continue to suffer from a lack of basic water and sewer systems. Mr. President, our amendment is not a substantial portion of RUS's total appropriation of $630 million, and the funds would not be used unless a tribe did not qualify for any of the RUS's other programs. I think this is an important program to help deal with the critical infrastructure needs of our tribes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Congress of American Indians supporting this amendment be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity before us. For the first time in my nearly two decades in the Senate, we are presented with predictions of a growing surplus. We made the tough choices in 1993 and again in 1997 to bring spending under control, to reduce the deficit, and to restore the federal budget to balance. We are at a crossroads now and must decide how to respond to this opportunity. Will we invest it wisely and prudently, or will it be squandered? Will we return to the disastrous policies of the 1980's, or can we stay on the path of fiscal discipline? The American public is deeply cynical about government. Now is our chance to prove we can come together in our national interest. I am deeply concerned about the Republican plan for using this surplus. In my opinion, they are squandering an opportunity we won't have again to extend the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, to invest in key priorities like education, the environment and medical research, and to pay down our national debt. We shouldn't go off on a spending or tax-cutting spree when we have this huge debt to repay. Unfortunately, the Republicans have chosen to focus single-mindedly on cutting taxes. I believe we should have a tax cut--I would favor tax relief for working families, such as easing the marriage penalty and increasing the per-child credit--but this bill goes much too far. Instead, we need to balance the money among several key priorities. There is almost no single policy that is more important to the long- term health of our budget, to the sustainability of the surplus, and to our overall economy, than paying off some of our three-and-half trillion dollar national debt. We cannot leave this burden to our grandchildren. With a single voice, economists have told us of the benefits of and importance of paying down that debt. It will lead to lower interest rates. It will produce higher surpluses, because we will be paying less interest. And it will be of tremendous benefit to the economy, because it will free up private capital for productive investment that makes our economy grown, and raise the standard of living for us all. Alan Greenspan himself has said repeatedly that the most important thing to do with the surplus is to pay down the debt. He has said it over and over and over again. And he's been saying it for quite some time now. Some of my Republican colleagues have seized on another statement he made--saying that if paying down the debt is not politically feasible, then he prefers tax cuts to spending. My colleagues, there is no one here but us. We are in charge. We are free to vote for what's right, and to define what's possible or what's not. We can vote to reduce the debt, or to irresponsibly spend this one-in-a-lifetime surplus on an excessively large tax cut that would damage our economy and endanger Medicare and Social Security, education, law enforcement, defense--just about any important national program. Paying off the debt today will also leave us in a much stronger position to afford the cost of the baby boom's retirement. As other speakers have pointed out, the cost of the Republican tax cuts begin to rise dramatically just at the same time the pressures on the budget begin to grow as the baby boomers start to retire. But Republicans have rejected our attempts to pay down the debt. They claim they are doing plenty to pay down the debt--and that this is enough. They may even talk about a Congressional Budget Office report that purports to show how their plan reduces the debt. But that analysis is based on a fiction; the fiction that Republicans will be able to cut spending dramatically--by nearly one-fourth. And if defense is funded at the level the Administration has requested, other important domestic programs would face cuts of nearly 40 percent. This means less medical research, dramatic cuts in the number of children participating in Head Start, substantial reductions in the number of law enforcement personnel, no new environmental cleanups, closures at national parks. The list goes on. However, as we all know, Democrats and Republicans both, there is really no support for cuts of that magnitude, either in Congress or among the public. A story on the front page of the Washington Post on July 27, 1999 puts the lie to Republican assertions that they will be able to cut spending. They can't even pass this year's appropriations bills without resorting to smoke-and-mirrors gimmickry to hid the cost of their bills. Without those cuts, they need to raid the Social Security trust fund to pay for their tax cut. And they will increase, rather than reduce, our national debt. The truth is, they want their excessive, risky tax cut so badly that they are willing to put the health of our economy at risk, to endanger the security of retirees, and to short-change important national priorities like investments in education, medical research, the environment and even national defense. Republicans want to spend 97 percent of the available non-Social Security surplus on tax cuts--tax cuts whose cost explodes in the future, overheat our economy, and disproportionately favor the rich and special interests. Democrats have offered reasonable alternatives that balance tax cuts with Medicare solvency, debt reduction and investments in key domestic priorities. But these have all been rejected. So I am making this last, very modest attempt to avoid wasting surplus--asking that $100 billion of this excessive tax cut be used instead for paying off more of our national debt. This would leave about 86 percent of the surplus for tax cuts--this is less than 97 percent they want to spend, but is still a substantial amount. We could do more to reduce the debt. I would like to do more. But this is a starting point. My motion would instruct the Finance Committee to report the bill back in 3 days, with an amendment to reduce the tax cut by $100 billion, and use the savings to pay down more of our national debt. It also instructs the Committee to find the savings by reducing narrowly- targeted special interest tax breaks in the bill, and tax relief that disportionately benefits the wealthy. Last week, just days after Republicans passed their tax bill out of committee, the Washington Post ran a story detailing the special-interest giveaways in the Republican tax bills. These include special breaks for seaplane owners in Alaska, barge lines in Mississippi, and foreign residents who use frequent- flyer miles to purchase airline tickets. Since then, we have also learned just how skewed the bill is toward families with the very highest incomes. The top 1 percent of all taxpayers would receive a whopping 30 percent of the tax cuts. Overall, the top one-fifth of taxpayers would receive 75 percent of the tax relief. It seems to me there is plenty of room in this bill to reduce the tax cut by $100 billion for the sake of reducing our national debt. The Republicans have rejected our balanced alternative to a huge, imprudent tax cut, and they have rejected our lockbox that would set aside money for Social Security and Medicare--but can't they even reduce their enormous, risky tax cut by $100 billion in order to further reduce our nation's indebtedness? That's only about 10 percent of the available surplus. Only 10 percent for prudence and responsibility, the rest to fulfill their agenda. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk to recommit to the Finance Committee that I call up at this time.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. It was arrived at by assuming that less money is going to be spent on discretionary spending during the 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office assumed that $595 billion would be cut in discretionary spending. The new claim is that there is going to be $1 trillion cut, and that by cutting discretionary spending by $1 trillion instead of by $595 billion, we are going to have extra money that we can turn around and spend on discretionary accounts. Mr. President, that doesn't add up in my mind. I believe discretionary accounts are important. I believe education has to be at the top of that list. I do not see where we can expect to find the money to maintain current levels of effort on education if we vote for this very large tax cut. That is why the size of the tax cut should be reduced so that education programs will not have to be cut. How much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I presented yesterday and that we are going to vote on first this morning is a simple statement that we should reduce the size of the tax cut that is proposed by $132 billion so that we will have funds available to maintain the current level of effort in support of education. It, I grant you, is a sense- of-the-Senate resolution. It does not ensure that the money is spent there, but to my mind it at least reserves those funds so we can maintain the current level of effort in support of education. In other words, I believe we should be on record for funding education at least at current levels before we settle on the size of the tax cut that we can afford. Some might ask why am I singling out education. Well, S. 1429 is more than just a tax bill; it is a reconciliation bill, which means, at least in rough form, it purports to set national priorities for the next 10 years. I believe that a very top priority should be providing quality education to the young people of this Nation. Our future depends more on that investment than it does on virtually any other investment we might make. So if education is a priority, what is the relationship of this tax cut bill to education? Now, as I understand the estimates for the next 10 years, the tax cut bill is so large that it will require us to make significant cuts in discretionary spending, including education, in this coming decade, and that is the concern I have and that is what has prompted this amendment. Yesterday, as I was describing the amendment, I was informed that my concern is unfounded; that in fact even after the tax cut--and I know people do not like to have it referred to as a massive tax cut; I notice that is what the Wall Street Journal called it this morning in their headline--there will be plenty of discretionary funds for education. That was the information I was given. So let me look at the figures I have and see where I am confused on this and where I have misunderstood the situation. First of all, we all expect a surplus, and that is why we are having this debate and talking about cutting taxes in the first place. So we all agree to that. We also all agree that the portion of that surplus attributable to Social Security should be left for Social Security. And that is about $1.9 trillion. There is no dispute about that that I am aware of, at least in this debate. So after we take that out, what is left? At the beginning of the debate, the Congressional Budget Office came out with the figure in the range of $1 trillion, the non-Social Security-related surplus. So that is represented here. This chart shows CBO, Congressional Budget Office. This column represents the non-Social Security surplus as it was understood by me when we started the debate. Now I am informed that we have a new estimate and that the surplus is not going to be $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years; instead, it is going to be over $3.3 trillion. So there is going to be substantially more money. The question is, Where did we find this additional $400 to $500 billion? Mr. President, let me yield myself 1 more minute.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time is allotted to me?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes off of the amendment. I want to respond to my colleague from New Mexico and indicate I do not in any way question his motives, and I certainly do not question his understanding of the budget. He is an expert in that. He has demonstrated that repeatedly since I have been in the Senate. I do think there is a genuine misunderstanding or disagreement about what we are talking about in the size of this surplus. I hear my colleague say we have, over the next 10 years, $33.371 billion in surplus that we have to spend or we have to use for tax reductions. That is substantially more than the CBO indicated we had. They said we had $2.896 billion. There is a substantial difference there. Taking the figure I was given, $2.896 billion, I understand we are using by far the largest part of that for this proposed tax cut. My colleague says that is not the case, that there is still $505 billion remaining for Medicare and discretionary programs. I am just not clear in my mind where that money comes from. The figures I have for the total of the surplus do not allow for that money to be available for discretionary programs and Medicare. The figures I have received lead me to conclude that there will be major cuts in discretionary programs if we are going to adopt a tax cut of this size. If there are cuts in discretionary programs, some of those, of course, will be defense. I believe, based on the time I have spent in the Senate, we will not cut defense. I do not support the cuts in defense, and I do not believe my colleagues do either. I think we will fund defense and we will fund increases in defense in the next 10 years in many respects. That means the discretionary domestic spending such as education has to be cut even more. That is the concern that caused me to bring this amendment to the floor. The point was made that I have just put together a sense of the Senate which is a wish list. That is in many ways true. I have said the Senate should go on record as not wanting to cut the current level of funding for education in this bill, and to the extent we need to reduce the tax cut in order to ensure we do not cut current levels of funding for education, then reduce the tax cut to that extent. As I understand the figures, that means a $132 billion reduction in the tax cut. That is what I have urged Senators to support.