Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her very insightful words and her kind comments about me but also for her leadership on these key issues. Privilege Of The Floor I ask unanimous consent that Kathryn Olsen Senator and Gabe Mandujano of my staff be granted floor privileges during the pendency of this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment has a very simple purpose. The purpose is to protect the current investment that we are making in education. The amendment seeks to decrease the tax breaks that disproportionately benefit upper-income taxpayers in order to sustain the current level of funding for education with an increase, a small increase for inflation. If the Republican tax bill we are considering is accepted as written, Congress must cut discretionary spending by more than $775 billion over the next 10 years. When we say discretionary spending, of course, we are talking about domestic discretionary spending, which includes education, but we are also talking about national defense, what we spend on our military. If we say the portion of discretionary spending that is spent on our military is likely to be funded at the level requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is very likely--in fact, we usually do better than the Joint Chiefs' request--then domestic programs have to be cut 38 percent. By those ``domestic programs,'' in this amendment I am talking about education. If these cuts are spread across the board, it would result in very substantial reductions in current educational programs. Let me show to my colleagues a chart that tries to make the point. I think it makes it pretty well. It shows with this red line, starting in the year 2000 and going to the year 2009, we are spending nearly $34 billion on education in the Federal budget. That includes what we spend on education through the Education Department but also Head Start. We have included Head Start because we consider that a program that assists greatly in preparing students for school. So we are spending a little below $34 billion this year. If you take the Republican plan, as I understand it, and take the logical assumption that we are going to have the kind of cut in domestic programs we have to have in order to get enough room for this size tax cut, then you see that go from $34 billion down to a little over $19 billion by the year 2009. An education freeze, of course, would keep it right at 34 billion, but that would not make any provision for inflation. What we are doing in this amendment is saying that the Senate should go on record as requesting that the tax cut be reduced by $132 billion so that we have room not only to maintain Federal funding for education where it is today but also to allow it to increase as inflation increases. The Senator from Massachusetts made a very good point a few minutes ago: The cost of buying services, of paying utility bills, of doing everything goes up for the government as it does for everyone else. It certainly goes up for the schools. Now, we have not built into this amendment, I should point out, any provision for the fact that we are going to have tens and hundreds of thousands of new children coming into our school system in the next 10 years, and we are not proposing increases in education funding to account for that. We should be, quite frankly, but we are not. We are also not proposing increases for any new education programs. I have been hearing Mr. Greenspan's testimony, as I am sure all of my colleagues have, and he says: Start no new spending and cut no taxes. That is his basic position, to let the surpluses run and let's get our fiscal house in order. I don't agree with that position. I believe there are some areas in our Federal budget where we should increase spending. Education is the first priority, as I see it. But if we were to take the Republican plan as it is proposed, it would mean that 430,000 of the 835,000 children who would otherwise be served by the Head Start program would lose services by the time we get to the year 2009. It would mean that more than 5.9 million of the 14.6 million children who live in high-poverty communities would lose essential education services under title I. The title I program is the largest education program we fund here in Washington. It would mean that 480,000 of the 1 million students who currently are served by the Reading Excellence Program would lose the opportunity to learn and to have that additional help by the time they complete the third grade. It also means that the chance of increasing the Federal share of the cost of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA--the line item that we try to fund each year--the stated goal of many in this body has been that we should at least go to 40 percent of what it costs to implement IDEA. But that would be clearly impossible under what I understand the Republican tax bill is to provide. Instead, we would be forced to cut special education by $3.4 billion by the time we get to the 10th year of the Tax Code. Pell grants, which currently benefit nearly 4 million students--if we assume we are going to continue to provide a grant to 4 million students, then you have to slash that from $3,850 per year, which is today's level, down to $2,175 by the year 2009. Nearly 500,000 disadvantaged students who need extra guidance and support through the TRIO Program and the GEAR UP Program would also lose that extra help. In my home State, these statistics could be brought down to a very concrete level. One example would be Head Start. We have about 8,000 young people in our Head Start Program in my State today, which is about half of what we should have; that is, half of those who are eligible. We would have about 3,000 fewer if this tax bill were agreed to. I hope very much that we can get a strong vote of support. I believe the American people do not want to see a tax cut adopted at the expense of continued support for education as we go into this new century. Everyone realizes that our future depends upon how well we can prepare young people for the opportunities they will have in their lives. It is not responsible for us to be proposing tax cuts that are going to prevent us from at least maintaining the level of effort we have today in education. That is the difference. That is what we are trying to fix in this amendment. I hope very much that we will have a strong vote in favor of it. Before I yield the floor to my colleagues to speak in favor, I hope, of this amendment, let me also say a couple of words about another motion I am going to propose and which will be voted on when we get into the long list of motions. It is a motion to do something which is very modest, as this amendment is very modest. This only involves $132 billion. We have been talking about trillions for the last 2 days. This other motion would be to have the bill go back to the Finance Committee with instructions to report back with an amendment providing that an additional $100 billion be applied to debt reduction. That is a small thing to ask. I think of it more as a tithe than anything else. If we are talking about nearly $800 billion in tax reduction over the 10 years, we ought to say let's go back and at least take $100 billion of that, which is surplus that we can anticipate, and commit that to debt reduction. That will be another item that I believe is very meritorious. I think all Senators should support it. I think it is the responsible thing to do. I do it because, in my State, whereas there is disagreement about new spending programs and whether we should fund those, and where there is disagreement about a lot of other items we are debating, there is a strong consensus that we need to make a downpayment on debt reduction as part of this reconciliation bill. This reconciliation bill is a blueprint for where we intend to go in the next 10 years. I hope the blueprint we finally adopt shows that we intend to maintain funding for education, at least at current levels. I will be arguing each year I serve in the Senate that we should be increasing funding for education, not cutting. We should at least maintain the current level. I also hope we will adopt a roadmap for the next 10 years that contemplates substantial debt reduction. And I will propose this other motion, which we will vote on later in the debate, on that subject. I see I have some colleagues who wish to speak. I know the Senator from Maryland does. Let me yield her 10 minutes to speak on this, or the bill, whichever she prefers.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'm not going to take a lot of the Senate's time, but I want to speak briefly about an amendment I have filed to this tax bill. My amendment, number 1391, promotes the use of small, efficient distributed electronic power generation systems in residential, industrial and commercial applications. I believe distruted generating technologies are the future of our electric power industry. Already, the first microturbines and fuel cells are being installed in homes and businesses. Renewable technologies, like wind and solar, are bringing power to isolated areas that are not connected to the electrical power grid. These remote applications are very common in my state of New Mexico. Mr. President, my amendment has two parts. The first part provides a much needed tax clarification concerning small, distributed electric power technologies, such as high-efficiency microturbines and fuel cells. The current tax law discourages the use of these technologies in commerical buildings by requiring a straight-lined depreciation over a 39-year lifetime. However, the same technology, if used in different application, has a shorter depreciation schedule. My amendment would make clear that these advanced electric power systems would have a 15- year depreciation schedule when used for power generation. The second part of my amendment provides an 8-percent investment tax credit for systems that produce both heat energy and electrical power. The tax credit would apply only to systems that meet a strict 60- percent overall energy efficient requirement. This provision will help increase the Nation's energy efficiency by encouraging investment in these highly efficient systems. Last month the Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on distributed power generation. The hearing made clear that technologies such as microturbines, fuel cells, and the various renewable resources can provide many practical benefits, including reduced dependence on high-tension power transmission lines, higher energy efficiency, lower costs, increased reliability, and reduced emissions. Moreover, by combining the production of heat and electric power in one package, overall efficiencies of up to 90 percent can be achieved. Though I believe my amendment is important and would provide significant economic, reliability, and environmental benefits, I am not going to call it up for one very simple reason: This tax bill isn't going anywhere. The Senate will soon pass this bill, but the President is not going to sign it. In a few weeks, when the Senate comes back with a more sensible package of tax legislation, I hope my amendment will be incorporated in a bill that we can pass and send to the President for his signature. The incentives for distributed generating technologies in my amendment will go a long way to realizing the best future for electric power generation and efficient use of energy. I hope we can pass them in the next tax bill.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the courtesy. Mr. President, there is an amendment that I believe has been filed. I send it to the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today as a cosponsor of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act. This Act has come about as a result of much negotiation between buyers of manufactured housing, the Housing and Urban Development Agency and manufacturers and dealers of manufactured housing. I commend the industry for coming to Congress with its plan to modify the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. Over twenty years has elapsed since we comprehensively addressed the topic of safety and manufactured housing. Manufactured housing has changed significantly in the past twenty years. With the rise in the number of buyers of manufactured housing, it is time we ensure that safety standards are up-to-date and adequate to address consumers' concerns. The Senate bill has eleven sections that cover everything from the establishment of a Consensus Committee to a section encouraging secondary market securitization programs for FHA manufactured home loans and other loan programs. The new Consensus Committee will consist of 25 voting members and one non-voting member representing the Secretary of HUD. The Committee will represent a wide spectrum of interested parties, including but not limited to, home producers, retailers, lenders, insurers, consumers, consumer organizations, local public officials, and fire marshals. The Committee will be responsible for recommending amendments to the current safety standards and enforcement regulations to HUD. Most notably, there is no funding being authorized in this bill. The Secretary of HUD is authorized to use the industry label fees to carry out the responsibilities under the Act and to administer the Consensus Committee. Not only does manufactured housing provide an affordable housing option for New Mexicans, the overall economic impact of the manufactured housing industry on New Mexico is significant. In 1998, the total economic impact on the state was over $264 million. Although most New Mexicans are familiar with the 157 retailers in the state, many are not aware that we also have two manufacturers located in the state. Last year, these manufacturers produced over 1,000 homes and the entire industry was responsible for employing more than 2,000 people. Anyone driving the highways of New Mexico is familiar with the site of a manufactured home moving across Interstate 40 or Interstate 25. However, many New Mexicans may not know that almost 7,000 homes were shipped into the state in 1998 alone. Manufactured housing serves an important role in New Mexico. With the rising cost of homes in the metropolitan areas, and even in the smaller northern communities, manufactured housing that have an average cost of only $42,900 enable many more individuals and families to become homeowners. Currently, 41.8% of the housing in New Mexico is manufactured housing. I think this bill is important not only to New Mexico but to all owners of manufactured housing. With a focus on construction safety standards, consumers will be safer and more secure in their new homes. Both the manufactured Housing Industry and the Congress need to take the concerns raised in the survey conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons seriously. The Consensus Committee created by this bill will play an important role in raising the standards for construction and safety. I hope the Committee thoroughly evaluates the construction concerns and safety issues raised by those responding to AARP's survey. It is critical to the success of this program that the owners, the builders and the regulators work together to achieve a higher level of safety and consumer satisfaction. I thank Senator Shelby for introducing this bill and I encourage the Senate to take up this bill and pass this worthwhile legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today as a cosponsor of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act. This Act has come about as a result of much negotiation between buyers of manufactured housing, the Housing and Urban Development Agency and manufacturers and dealers of manufactured housing. I commend the industry for coming to Congress with its plan to modify the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. Over twenty years has elapsed since we comprehensively addressed the topic of safety and manufactured housing. Manufactured housing has changed significantly in the past twenty years. With the rise in the number of buyers of manufactured housing, it is time we ensure that safety standards are up-to-date and adequate to address consumers' concerns. The Senate bill has eleven sections that cover everything from the establishment of a Consensus Committee to a section encouraging secondary market securitization programs for FHA manufactured home loans and other loan programs. The new Consensus Committee will consist of 25 voting members and one non-voting member representing the Secretary of HUD. The Committee will represent a wide spectrum of interested parties, including but not limited to, home producers, retailers, lenders, insurers, consumers, consumer organizations, local public officials, and fire marshals. The Committee will be responsible for recommending amendments to the current safety standards and enforcement regulations to HUD. Most notably, there is no funding being authorized in this bill. The Secretary of HUD is authorized to use the industry label fees to carry out the responsibilities under the Act and to administer the Consensus Committee. Not only does manufactured housing provide an affordable housing option for New Mexicans, the overall economic impact of the manufactured housing industry on New Mexico is significant. In 1998, the total economic impact on the state was over $264 million. Although most New Mexicans are familiar with the 157 retailers in the state, many are not aware that we also have two manufacturers located in the state. Last year, these manufacturers produced over 1,000 homes and the entire industry was responsible for employing more than 2,000 people. Anyone driving the highways of New Mexico is familiar with the site of a manufactured home moving across Interstate 40 or Interstate 25. However, many New Mexicans may not know that almost 7,000 homes were shipped into the state in 1998 alone. Manufactured housing serves an important role in New Mexico. With the rising cost of homes in the metropolitan areas, and even in the smaller northern communities, manufactured housing that have an average cost of only $42,900 enable many more individuals and families to become homeowners. Currently, 41.8% of the housing in New Mexico is manufactured housing. I think this bill is important not only to New Mexico but to all owners of manufactured housing. With a focus on construction safety standards, consumers will be safer and more secure in their new homes. Both the manufactured Housing Industry and the Congress need to take the concerns raised in the survey conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons seriously. The Consensus Committee created by this bill will play an important role in raising the standards for construction and safety. I hope the Committee thoroughly evaluates the construction concerns and safety issues raised by those responding to AARP's survey. It is critical to the success of this program that the owners, the builders and the regulators work together to achieve a higher level of safety and consumer satisfaction. I thank Senator Shelby for introducing this bill and I encourage the Senate to take up this bill and pass this worthwhile legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the life of a legendary figure in New Mexico sports history. Ralph Tasker, the dean of New Mexico high school boys basketball, died earlier this week at the age of 80. In New Mexico, you didn't have to refer to Ralph Tasker by name; you only had to say ``Coach'' and everyone knew who that was. He coached in Hobbs for decades, and was known throughout our state as a superb teacher of the game of Basketball. Ralph Tasker leaves behind an enduring legacy forged with the Hobbs Eagles, coaching 52 seasons in Lea County. During that time, he amassed 1,122 wins with only 291 losses. That's almost an 80% winning record; a record difficult to achieve in any sport, at any level. His teams won 12 state championships. He was also recognized as the National Coach of the year. He retired in 1998 as the third winningest head coach in the history of boys high school basketball in the United States and was elected to the National High School Coach Association Hall of Fame. With all those accolades, if you asked Ralph Tasker what he was most proud of, he would tell you he was most proud of the hard work, dedication, and educational achievements of the young men on his teams. When opposing teams prepared to play a Ralph Tasker-coached team, they knew they would face a disciplined and well-motivated team. Coach Tasker knew the value of team work and inspired young men to respect one another as they worked together toward a common goal. Coach Tasker coached and stood for the kind of ideals that we as state and country aspire as we work to motivate and teach young people. I extend my condolences to his three children, Nancy, Diane, and Tim and to his four grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. New Mexicans appreciate Coach Tasker's life, and we will always remember his great achievements on and off the court.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, at this point this appropriations bill does not provide any of the additional funding that the Census Bureau has requested in response to the Supreme Court's January ruling. In fairness to the chairman and the ranking member, and the members of the committee, the Census Bureau's revised request did not arrive until very late in the process. Consequently, the subcommittee may not have had sufficient time to review the supplemental request and conduct the normal oversight hearings. I understand the subcommittee intends to consider the Census Bureau's supplemental funding request in the near future. I thank the chairman for moving forward promptly and for working on this issue in a spirit of bipartisanship. What worries me is that even with the additional funds required for a head count, in all likelihood we will still fall well short of counting everyone and, as in the 1990 census, the undercount will hurt certain population groups the most. However, I have not come to the floor today to debate which enumeration method the Census Bureau should use. Except for apportionment, the Bureau will alleviate the undercount problem by using modern scientific methods. This is the only way to assure that States such as New Mexico will not be shortchanged again. The Supreme Court ruled the 2000 census must include a full head count. I believe Congress has an obligation to provide all the funds required. I appreciate the very tight budget situation in which we find ourselves. Time is getting short. Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their continued bipartisan work on this appropriations bill, and I hope that they can move quickly to provide the supplemental funds required for the 2000 census. Exhibit No. 1 Additional Costs for a Non-sampling Census On January 25, 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that the Census Act bars the use of statistical sampling for purposes of apportionment. Additional funds are therefore needed to cover the increased workload of a non-sampling census, principally follow-up visits to an additional 16 million households (50 percent more than under the sampling design). The President's Budget requests $2.8 billion in FY 2000 to conduct a sampling-based decennial census. The budget amendment will request $1,723 million. Major elements of the $1,723 million are discussed below: $954M for non-response follow-up.--To get responses from all households that do not answer the mail survey, Census will hire more enumerators and will expand non-response follow-up to ten weeks, four weeks more than expected in the previous census design. Training will be increased by half a day to sustain quality with a larger workforce, and each of the 520 Local Census Offices will be provided additional staff. For purposes of quality control, Census will randomly re-interview addresses to verify the data gathered during non-response follow-up. $268M for data collection infrastructure.--The larger workforce also requires that Local Census Office have additional space, phone lines, information technology support, supplies, recruiting materials and advertisements, and related items. $229M for coverage improvement efforts.--The Census Bureau will conduct coverage interviews where forms appear to have deficiencies (e.g., forms lacking complete information on all household members reported) as well as a program to recheck approximately 7.6 million vacant housing units initially classified as vacant or nonexistent and new construction. $219M for a variety of data collection operations, including: $96M in rural areas without street addresses (where surveys are delivered to households by Census rather than the Postal Service) for quality checks before the census date and related activities. Census has learned through its address listing program that this workload will be five million household units larger than originally estimated. $56M for activities including special enumeration methods in remote areas and field verification for the ``Be Counted'' program (which distributes census forms in post offices and other public places) to reduce duplicate and erroneous responses. $42M for enumerating soup kitchens, shelters, and similar facilities. This work will require advance visits as well as two enumerators per facility at census time. $25M to redeliver questionnaires where the Postal Service designated forms as undeliverable (e.g., areas where zip code boundaries have changed recently). The Census Bureau anticipates a workload of five million addresses. $14M to keep all the data processing centers open longer.-- The four data processing centers will remain open through September 30, 2000, and process a higher volume of data. $89M for advertising and promotion efforts.--Additional advertising and promotion, including more materials for schools, non-profits, and Sate and local governments, are intended to increase the speed and rate of response and public cooperation. Offsets from reduced sample size.--Because the sampling portion of the census will now be based on larger geographic units, the sample size for the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) program (i.e., sampling) can be reduced without compromising accuracy. Reducing the sampling size for A.C.E. will save $214M relative to the request in the President's Budget.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Alpert, who is a fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor during the consideration of S. 1217.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about what I see as a funding shortfall for the 2000 census. First, I compliment Chairman Gregg and Senator Hollings for their work on this bill. I fully appreciate the very tight budget constraints under which they have been working. However, I want to make sure all Senators also know that, even though we will soon pass this appropriations bill, our work is not yet finished. Census day, which is April 1 of the year 2000, is less than 9 months away. Still today, at this late date, this bill lacks sufficient funding to adequately conduct the 2000 census. The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of a fair and accurate count of the population. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution provides that Congress is to conduct a decennial census ``in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.'' In fact, the census is one of the few actions that is mandated by the Constitution. Let me take a few minutes to discuss the importance of a full and accurate census for all Americans. Data from the 2000 census will be used to apportion House seats among the States for the 108th through the 112th Congresses. The States also use census data to draw legislative districts for congressional seats as well as for State and local representatives. In addition, Federal, State, and local governments use census information to guide annual distribution of the $180 billion of Federal funds for critical services such as child care, Social Security, Medicare, education, and job training. By now, we have all heard details of the serious shortcomings of the 1990 census. In fact, at the time of the 1990 census, many of us spent many days and hours trying to ensure that a fair census was taken. Mr. President, 8.4 million people were missed in that census, and 4.4 million were counted twice. In my State of New Mexico, we suffered the highest undercount of any single State. There were nearly 50,000 New Mexicans left out of the census in 1990 and 20,000 of them were children. The worst undercounts were among our Native American and Hispanic communities. A recent General Accounting Office estimate found that the 1990 census shortchanged my State of New Mexico at least $86 million in much-needed Federal grants. The Census Bureau has made substantial efforts to avoid a repetition of the undercounts that have hurt my State in the past decade. I applaud the Bureau's efforts to reach out to every resident in New Mexico, particularly the extra efforts they have made to count everyone in the Hispanic and the Native American communities. In Spanish, the motto is: ``Hagarse Contar!''--``make yourself count.'' For Native American communities, I cannot give you the Navajo or Taos version of that, but clearly the slogan is ``generations are counting on this; don't leave it blank.'' So I think everyone agrees that a full and fair census must be our goal. Congress must appropriate all of the funds necessary to produce that full and fair census. The census is not a place where we should be cutting corners. It is time to put partisan politics aside to give the professionals in the Census Bureau the resources they need to get the job done. Indeed, the appropriations bill on the floor today does provide nearly $2.8 billion for the 2000 census. This is the full amount in the President's original budget. I thank the chairman for providing the Census Bureau's full initial request. However, as all Senators know, the Supreme Court ruled that under current statutes only a traditional head count may be used for apportionment of House seats among the States. In response to the ruling, the Census Bureau requested an additional $1.7 billion to provide the best census possible using only the traditional method. The additional funds were requested to cover the Bureau's additional workload, advertising, staffing, and data processing required to perform this actual head count which the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to require. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a detailed list of the additional costs for a head count be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for yielding. I thank him for his willingness to accommodate despite the concerns he just described. Of course, all of us have intended from the very beginning that all environmental laws be complied with. My concern has been that the Secretary, who is ultimately responsible for the entire Department and for the conduct of the entire Department, Secretary have the wherewithal and the legal authority to be sure that all of these environmental, safety, and health requirements be met. I believe this amendment adequately meets that concern. I think it is a compromise between a provision I earlier drafted and one that Senator Domenici drafted. I think it is a good resolution of this issue. I think it does clarify for all Senators what we intend in this regard. I am very pleased to cosponsor it. I urge all my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote On Amendment No. 1261

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there is no objection here.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we could get agreement to offer this amendment. It is a joint amendment that Senator Domenici, Senator Reid, and I have participated in drafting. It tries to ensure that our national laboratories, particularly those that are focused on defense-related activities and our nuclear weapons capability, are open to do other work, work for other parts of the Department of Energy, work for other agencies of the Government, and work with industry, where appropriate. We provide what the Secretary needs to ensure that this is the case, and that the Under Secretary, working under the direction of the Secretary, shall make the capabilities of the national laboratories available to these other entities that want to perform work there, and that these entities shall be able to do so in a manner that continues to provide them with direct programmatic control of the activities they are sponsoring at the laboratories. Mr. President, this concern has been for the future of civilian research and development at the DOE laboratories that carry out defense-related research. I was concerned that the Kyl amendment was setting up an architecture for these laboratories that well may make it more difficult to carry out civilian-related research. We don't want to wake up, 5 years from now, and discover that this architecture dictated the destiny of those laboratories in unfortunate ways. I don't quarrel with the notion that these labs have, and should continue to have, nuclear weapons as a core mission. But it seems to me that the task of science-based stockpile stewardship cannot succeed unless these labs are fully integrated into the larger world of science and technology. I believe that the civilian R&D programs at Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories play a critical role in attracting and keeping the best people in those laboratories. By civilian R&D, I am talking about the work funded at the laboratories by DOE programs other than the defense programs, programs funded by other civilian agencies of the government, and technology partnerships with industry. There have been numerous cases where this civilian R&D has provided new ideas for defense-related technical activities. In other cases, this civilian R&D has helped maintain core competencies at the labs needed for their defense missions. Our national security, in my view, would be damaged in the long run if these institutions stopped being national laboratories and just had a weapon focus. My colleagues and co-sponsors agree with this assessment. It is basic to a number of provisions of law that we have enacted in past Congresses, particularly the National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989, which I sponsored with Senator Domenici. The findings of that bill are as relevant today, 10 years later, as they were when we passed that bill as part of the Defense Act that year. Last week, before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, we heard testimony from one of DOE's most distinguished laboratory directors, Dr. Burt Richter. He's the head of a civilian DOE laboratory, but has a long acquaintance with the defense side of DOE. He stated, ``one has to face the fact that maintaining the credibility of a nuclear deterrent is not the most exciting job in science these days'', underlining the issues of attracting and retaining personnel. But he says, ``it needs some of the best people to do it''. He then went on to say, ``The scientists at the weapons labs have to be able to interact with the rest of the scientific community, because all of the science needed for stockpile stewardship is not in the weapons labs, and the best people will not go into isolation behind a fence in today's world.'' He concluded by reminding us, ``This is not World War II.'' I think that he's right. In creating this new Agency, we need to make sure that we are not damaging one of the most precious assets for which the Department of Energy is the custodian. I think this is an important clarification, an important provision to add to the bill. I appreciate the cooperation of my colleague in getting agreement on the amendment. I hope the Senate will adopt it. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there is an amendment that Senator Domenici, Senator Reid, and I have agreed to, which I offer at this time and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and my cosponsors, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid. The amendment does two things. The first sentence of the amendment says: Such supervision and direction of any Director or contract employee of a national security laboratory or of a nuclear weapons production facility shall not interfere with communication to the Department, the President, or Congress, of technical findings or technical assessments derived from, and in accord with, duly authorized activities. That sentence makes clear that communication which presently occurs is intended to continue. The clarification is necessary because in the underlying amendment officers and employees of contractors, including the Directors and employees of the three National Laboratories, are referred to as ``personnel of the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship'' and all personnel of the Agency are subject to the supervision and direction of the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship. We want to be sure if they have information of a technical nature or based on their technical assessment that they believe should be directly communicated, that communication occur. The Directors of the three nuclear weapons laboratories are responsible for certifying the adequacy of the nuclear weapons stockpile. Their independence and the integrity of their judgments are critical to the national security of the Nation. It is important that the legislation recognize and protect that independence and integrity by ensuring that these lab Directors and employees can communicate these technical findings and assessments to the Department, the President, and the Congress. The second sentence of the amendment simply provides that the Under Secretary for Nuclear Stewardship may use field offices for the programs and activities of the Agency. This is a departure from one of the recommendations of the Rudman report. The Rudman report proposed streamlining the reporting chain for the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship by cutting the ties between the weapons labs and the Department of Energy field offices. We had a hearing in the Energy Committee last week, and I asked Dr. Vic Reis, who is the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs, whether he agreed with that Rudman report recommendation. He said he did not. He said we certainly need weapons ties in the field office because ``we cannot run the operation entirely from Washington.'' All we are saying is the Secretary has authority to use the field offices in an appropriate fashion--we are not dictating how but in an appropriate fashion to carry out the policies of the Department. As I understand what Dr. Reis was saying, the important point is to clarify the lines of authority between the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship and the labs. The underlying amendment does that. But he said the new Under Secretary will still need field offices to help them oversee and run the complex of weapons laboratories and production facilities, and this gives the Under Secretary that option. I believe this amendment is straightforward. My colleague on the Republican side, Senator Domenici, is the prime cosponsor of this amendment. I hope it is acceptable. I believe it is acceptable to all Senators, and I hope the Senate will adopt it.

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