Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that I have sent to the desk. It relates to a very serious problem faced by a large number of Navajo people in my State. The issue is referred to as ``fractionated lands.'' Around the turn of the century, the Federal Government attempted to force Indian people to assimilate by breaking up traditional tribal lands and allotting parcels of the land to individual tribal members. In New Mexico, this policy created what is known as the ``checkerboard,'' because alternating tracts of land are now owned by individual Navajos, the state, the federal government, or private landowners. A Navajo allotment was generally 160 acres. Under the allotment system, the Navajo owner was granted an undivided interest in the entire parcel. The heirs of the original owner also inherit an undivided interest, geometrically compounding--or fractionating--the number of owners of the original 160 acres. This allotment policy, coupled with other federal laws governing Indian land ownership, land management, and probate, have not served the Navajo people well during this century. I am introducing legislation today to help address this problem. Mr. President, I'd like to take a few minutes to illustrate why the legislation I am proposing is needed. If a Navajo was allotted a 160- acre parcel and had four heirs, the heirs did not inherit 40 acres each when the original owner died. Rather, each heir inherited a 25 percent undivided interest in the full 160-acre allotment. Going forward, when the current four owners died, assuming again four heirs each, sixteen heirs inherited a 6.25 percent undivided interest in the allotment. The next generation would result in 64 heirs each with a 1.5625 percent undivided interest. And so forth. What makes this situation so unique is that each heir inherits an undivided interest in the allotment. Over time, individual owners may inherit tiny fractions in many different allotments around the reservation. In my state, there are about 4,000 individual allotments covering nearly 700,000 acres. At this point, these 4,000 Navajo allotments have a total of 40,000 listed owners, and the number grows every day. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in math to figure out what's wrong with this policy. Mr. President, in April I held a town meeting with Navajo allottees in Nageezi, New Mexico, a small chapter house in the Northeast section of the Navajo Reservation. The allottees talked about the serious problems that fractionated ownership has caused. Over 100 members of the Navajo Nation came from as far away as Aneth, Utah, to speak at the meeting. As you know, the Navajo Nation extends into three states, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, and there are allottees living in all three states. Record keeping of individual land ownership has become a nightmare. In many cases, owners can no longer be located. Also, ownership can be clouded when an owner dies without a legal will--a common situation in Indian Country. Some individuals do not even realize they own one or more of these allotments. Often, individuals are surprised to find out that they are an heir to an allotment on another reservation. Mr. President, we all recognize there are serious problems with BIA's management of its trust responsibilities for allotted lands in New Mexico. The management problems were brought out very clearly at a joint Senate hearing in March. The hearing also revealed the extent to which the government's allotment policy contributed to BIA's current trust management problems. On the Navajo reservation, a three-year pilot project is underway in Farmington, New Mexico, to try to unravel some of the management problems with allotted Navajo lands. This project, called the Farmington Indian Minerals Office, or FIMO, is trying to cut through the red tape created by three different Bureaus in the Department of Interior, BIA, BLM, and MMS, which share responsibility for management of allotted lands. The FIMO has worked hard to assist Navajo allottees determine who their fellow allottees are and what land each allottee owns. I support the efforts of FIMO. If this legislation is passed, FIMO could accomplish even more on behalf of the Navajo allottees in the three states. Mr. President, over the years, Congress has tried to deal with the problem of fractionated lands, and has failed every time. The long history of trust management problems is not going to be corrected quickly. Developing and implementing a comprehensive solution is going to take time. The Indian Land Working Group is one of the leaders in this area and has submitted a proposal for Congress to consider. I applaud the efforts of Senators Campbell and Inouye and the members of the Indian Affairs Committee for taking on this difficult issue. Some of the proposals include improved record keeping, probate and estate planning programs, and new processes for consolidating fractionated lands. I look forward to working with the Committee to craft a comprehensive solution. While the larger issue of fractionated ownership is being considered by the Senate, I believe it is appropriate to consider a stop-gap measure to help stimulate near-term economic development on fractionated Navajo lands. There is an abundance of oil and gas beneath the Navajo allotments, yet the allottees are unable to benefit from this wealth because of federal laws that make it very difficult for Indian allottees to lease their land. To illustrate, during the last 12 years, $7 million in leasing bonuses has been paid to the state and federal government for leases in the checkerboard region of New Mexico, while only $27,000 has been paid to owners of Navajo allotments. The problem lies in the 1909 Mineral Leasing Act. The Act requires all persons who have an undivided interest in any particular parcel to consent to its lease. In the case of Navajo allottees, 100 percent of the allottees must consent to a lease of their land. Because of the fractionated land problem, obtaining 100 percent consent is often impossible because many owners cannot be located. Consequently, the Navajo allottees are precluded from the beneficial use of their land. The bill I am introducing today will facilitate the leasing of Navajo allotted land for oil and gas development. In the case of non-Indians, most states already allow mineral leases with less than 100 percent consent of the owners as long as all persons who own an interest receive the benefits from the lease. My bill simply extends similar benefits to Navajo allottees. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to approve an oil or gas lease connected to Navajo allotted land when less than 100 percent of the owners consent to such a lease. A similar bill was passed in the 105th Congress to facilitate mineral leasing of allotted lands on the Ft. Berthold Reservation in North Dakota. My bill proposes a graded system for lease approval. In situations where there are 10 or fewer owners of an allotment, 100 percent of the owners must consent to a lease. However, where there exists 11 to 50 owners of an allotment, only 80 percent of the owners need consent. And, with more than 50 owners, 60 percent consent would be required. This graded system was suggested by the Navajo allottees. Mr. President, unemployment on the Navajo Reservation now exceeds 50 percent. The opportunities for economic development on this land are few. It is not appropriate for the federal government to continue to deprive the legal owners of Navajo allotted lands the option to develop their land as they choose. This bill is a small step toward correcting the mistakes of the past and a bigger step towards providing economic prosperity for future generations of Navajo allottees. The bill has the support of the Navajo Nation and the Shii Shi Keyah, the principal Navajo Allottees' Association. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a resolution from the Shii Shi Keyah Association and a letter from the Navajo Nation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to call the attention of my colleagues to an important day for one of our former colleagues; and that is, Senator Jim Sasser, who is returning from China where he has served this country very well as our Ambassador for the last 3\1/2\ years. He was confirmed in this Senate on December 19, 1995, and with an overwhelming vote. We are proud of the service he has performed, particularly in recent months, because of the strained relations we have had and the genuine misunderstanding which has existed concerning the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. I think all of us were proud to see the way former Senator Sasser, Ambassador Sasser, conducted himself, and how all of the American Embassy personnel conducted themselves in that circumstance. I think that is typical of the service he provided throughout the time he was in China. We are glad to see him back in the United States. We, of course, look forward to many years of friendship with him in the future. I think it is worth noting, because I understand he is returning today from China and has distinguished himself in that position and deserves recognition. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the time provided by the managers. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is being offered on behalf of myself, Senator Roberts, Senator Bob Smith, and Senator Max Cleland as well. It is, I believe, an important amendment. It is also an amendment that will be accepted. That is my expectation. We don't have a final decision on that, but we hope that is the result. This year's foreign operations appropriations bill designates $20 million in foreign military financing grant assistance to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the Baltic States. I am not concerned about the fact that we are designating funds for those states. I am concerned about the provision because of the intent that appears to lie behind the funding. Let me quote from the committee report. It says in the committee report: The assistance accelerates Baltic states integration into NATO and supports these democracies as they enhance military capabilities and adopt NATO standards. This amendment I have offered, with the help of the three other Senators I mentioned, would state that nothing in this bill concerning the foreign military financing intended to support the legitimate security needs of the Baltic States should be interpreted as also expressing the intent of the Senate to accelerate the membership of those countries into NATO. We recently observed the 50th anniversary of NATO, welcomed three new members into the alliance: the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary. I voted for the admission of those three into the alliance on this historic occasion. No other nations were admitted to the alliance, nor was there a commitment made to extend an invitation to any particular nation to join in the future. The language contained in the Senate report accompanying the bill suggests that the military financing authorized in the bill would be for the express purpose of accelerating the integration of those states into NATO. I believe that language is premature. I believe it is ill- advised at this time. Let me try to give a few indications as to why. Many of my colleagues share the concern, which we have heard on the floor, about the future of the NATO alliance. We, obviously, value NATO and its contributions to peace. We fervently intend that it continue to be a force for peace in the future. Recent events within the alliance have raised some concern. Despite the recent military victory in Kosovo, there is some evidence that the alliance may not be totally healthy at this stage. While the bombing campaign continued in Yugoslavia, for example, there were divisions among NATO members. Those were worked through. In addition, there is a major debate now underway concerning the equity of the burdens that different members of NATO have, both financial burdens and military burdens. I am not suggesting we debate the future of NATO today, although I do believe the Senate should soon review the Strategic Concept that is being proposed to guide future NATO potential military involvements. I am suggesting, however, that legislative provisions, such as the one I have called attention to today in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, could prematurely complicate the very difficult problems the alliance is facing. I don't believe anybody here would deny that a debate concerning the membership of the Baltic nations in NATO is likely to be a spirited one. This bill is not the appropriate venue for that debate to take place. I have reviewed, by the way, the Baltic charter that was signed in January 1998 to determine if I missed something with respect to the membership of the Baltic nations in NATO. There are many affirming words in the charter about cooperation between NATO and the Baltic nations, and there are several encouraging references with respect to possible future membership of those countries in the alliance. But there are no words that commit NATO to offering membership or to accelerating their integration of those nations into the alliance. The provision in the bill that would provide military assistance to the Baltic nations for that specific purpose is not grounded in a policy that I believe we should embrace at this time. The sense-of-the-Senate amendment I offer would permit foreign military financing to meet the security needs of the Baltic nations, but it does not commit the Senate, as a result of that assistance, to commit itself to approval or acceleration of the membership of the Baltic nations into NATO. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. I believe it is in our national interest and in the security interests of Europe as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 1165 be called up for consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President I rise today to introduce the Community Forest Restoration Act of 1999. This legislation provides incentives for collaborative forest restoration projects on National Forest System and other public lands in New Mexico. The densely stocked stands of small diameter trees in New Mexico present an increasing danger of catastrophic wildfire that endangers peoples' lives and livelihoods. These conditions dramatically reduce plant and animal biological diversity, decrease watershed productivity, and provide fewer benefits to people. Healthy, productive watersheds minimize the threat of catastrophic wildfire, provide diverse wildlife habitat, and produce a variety of timber and non-timber products including better quality water and increased water flows. My goal is to promote healthy watersheds and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire, insect infestation, and disease in the forests in New Mexico. To do this we must restore and maintain the forest ecosystem by reducing the unnaturally high number of small diameter trees on Federal, State, and tribal forest lands, and improve the utilization of small diameter material. This legislation directs the Secretary of Agriculture to create a program that provides forest restoration demonstration project grants to community organizations. The intent of the program is to encourage innovation and collaboration on forest restoration projects among stakeholders at the local level, and provide for multi-party assessment of those projects. Forest restoration activities that empower local organizations to implement activities which value local and traditional knowledge can help build ownership and civic pride, and can lead to healthy, diverse, productive forest ecosystems. This approach will encourage the development of industries which are based on the creation and maintenance of healthy forest ecosystems. This bill will encourage sustainable community development through collaborative partnerships that improve communication and joint problem solving. The objective of these partnerships is to restore the forests of New Mexico by reducing the density of stands that contain an unnaturally high number of small diameter trees and improving the use of those trees. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the bill in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President I rise today to introduce the Community Forest Restoration Act of 1999. This legislation provides incentives for collaborative forest restoration projects on National Forest System and other public lands in New Mexico. The densely stocked stands of small diameter trees in New Mexico present an increasing danger of catastrophic wildfire that endangers peoples' lives and livelihoods. These conditions dramatically reduce plant and animal biological diversity, decrease watershed productivity, and provide fewer benefits to people. Healthy, productive watersheds minimize the threat of catastrophic wildfire, provide diverse wildlife habitat, and produce a variety of timber and non-timber products including better quality water and increased water flows. My goal is to promote healthy watersheds and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire, insect infestation, and disease in the forests in New Mexico. To do this we must restore and maintain the forest ecosystem by reducing the unnaturally high number of small diameter trees on Federal, State, and tribal forest lands, and improve the utilization of small diameter material. This legislation directs the Secretary of Agriculture to create a program that provides forest restoration demonstration project grants to community organizations. The intent of the program is to encourage innovation and collaboration on forest restoration projects among stakeholders at the local level, and provide for multi-party assessment of those projects. Forest restoration activities that empower local organizations to implement activities which value local and traditional knowledge can help build ownership and civic pride, and can lead to healthy, diverse, productive forest ecosystems. This approach will encourage the development of industries which are based on the creation and maintenance of healthy forest ecosystems. This bill will encourage sustainable community development through collaborative partnerships that improve communication and joint problem solving. The objective of these partnerships is to restore the forests of New Mexico by reducing the density of stands that contain an unnaturally high number of small diameter trees and improving the use of those trees. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the bill in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the electricity restructuring bill I introduced in the last Congress. I offer the bill today because the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will be holding two legislative hearings next week on the pending electricity restructuring bills, and I want this bill to be included in the discussions. With the exception of two typographical corrections, the text of the bill is identical to S. 1276, which I introduced in the last Congress. The bill has three principal legislative objectives: (1) clarifying the line between state and federal jurisdiction, (2) strengthening the reliability of the transmission system, and (3) ensuring fair access to the interstate transmission grid. When I introduced the bill in the last Congress it received wide support as the nucleus of the most critical issues that Congress must address in any restructuring legislation. As many Senators are aware, I am working with the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my good friend Senator Murkowski, on developing a consensus electricity bill that can be marked up and reported to the full Senate. Although I had expected that we would be further along in the process by now, I remain fully committed to following this bi-partisan course. My introduction of this bill should not impeded that process. Much has happened in the electric utility industry since this bill was first drafted nearly two years ago. There are now six approved regional transmission operators, and several more are on the drawing boards. Twenty-two states, including New Mexico, have implemented some form of electric competition and two more may pass legislation this year. And there is now industry-wide consensus on the importance of federal legislation to assure the continued security and reliability of the nation's high-tension transmission grid. Mr. President, I continue to see a strong need for federal electricity legislation so that states that have elected retail competition can fully enjoy all of the benefits that completion brings. In addition, improvements in federal regulation will streamline wholesale markets in every state. At the same time, I believe Congress should not enact federal legislation that disrupts existing state laws or that forces unwilling states to restructure. I also have increasing concern about the mounting cloud of litigation pending in the federal courts that could frustrate the development of healthy wholesale and retail markets. Only Congress can clear up jurisdictional issues and let competitive markets fully develop. Interstate transmission must be a federal responsibility. Mr. President, I believe we now have a consensus on the core issues that Congress must address. The Energy Committee held an oversight hearing last month on the status of restructuring in the states. There was nearly universal agreement among the witnesses on the need for federal legislation addressing interstate transmission and federal- state jurisdiction I look forward to the legislative hearings next week on this and other bills and to reporting bi-partisan electricity legislation that can pass the Senate this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the electricity restructuring bill I introduced in the last Congress. I offer the bill today because the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will be holding two legislative hearings next week on the pending electricity restructuring bills, and I want this bill to be included in the discussions. With the exception of two typographical corrections, the text of the bill is identical to S. 1276, which I introduced in the last Congress. The bill has three principal legislative objectives: (1) clarifying the line between state and federal jurisdiction, (2) strengthening the reliability of the transmission system, and (3) ensuring fair access to the interstate transmission grid. When I introduced the bill in the last Congress it received wide support as the nucleus of the most critical issues that Congress must address in any restructuring legislation. As many Senators are aware, I am working with the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my good friend Senator Murkowski, on developing a consensus electricity bill that can be marked up and reported to the full Senate. Although I had expected that we would be further along in the process by now, I remain fully committed to following this bi-partisan course. My introduction of this bill should not impeded that process. Much has happened in the electric utility industry since this bill was first drafted nearly two years ago. There are now six approved regional transmission operators, and several more are on the drawing boards. Twenty-two states, including New Mexico, have implemented some form of electric competition and two more may pass legislation this year. And there is now industry-wide consensus on the importance of federal legislation to assure the continued security and reliability of the nation's high-tension transmission grid. Mr. President, I continue to see a strong need for federal electricity legislation so that states that have elected retail competition can fully enjoy all of the benefits that completion brings. In addition, improvements in federal regulation will streamline wholesale markets in every state. At the same time, I believe Congress should not enact federal legislation that disrupts existing state laws or that forces unwilling states to restructure. I also have increasing concern about the mounting cloud of litigation pending in the federal courts that could frustrate the development of healthy wholesale and retail markets. Only Congress can clear up jurisdictional issues and let competitive markets fully develop. Interstate transmission must be a federal responsibility. Mr. President, I believe we now have a consensus on the core issues that Congress must address. The Energy Committee held an oversight hearing last month on the status of restructuring in the states. There was nearly universal agreement among the witnesses on the need for federal legislation addressing interstate transmission and federal- state jurisdiction I look forward to the legislative hearings next week on this and other bills and to reporting bi-partisan electricity legislation that can pass the Senate this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President. I take the opportunity today to call to the attention of Members of the Senate and to the American people a very important event that took place last week but was not widely publicized. On Wednesday, June 16, representatives from the Department of Defense and Russia's Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Yuri Ushakov, signed an agreement extending the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program sponsored in 1991 by our distinguished colleagues, Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Lugar. The agreement signed last week extends the Nunn-Lugar threat reduction programs for 7 years until 2006. That extension will build upon the critical work already accomplished that has reduced Russia's military threat to the United States and our allies more effectively than any other measures undertaken since the end of the Cold War. In the context of these uncertain times and Russia's uncertain future, the investments made through Cooperative Threat Reduction programs promise to yield dividends that are essential to long-term peace and stability throughout the world. Indeed, the accomplishments of CTR are a more cost effective means to enhancing national security than any I know. Between 1992 and 1999, the Nunn-Lugar programs have eliminated the potential for nuclear threats from former members of the Soviet Union including Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, and Uzbekistan. For $2.7 billion that the United States has spent on CTR since 1992, a bit more than the cost of a single B-2 bomber, there are now 1,538 fewer nuclear warheads available for use against the U.S. or our allies. The Russians have eliminated 50 missile silos and 254 intercontinental ballistic missiles. In addition, we are in the process of dismantling some 30 strategic ballistic missile submarines that formerly threatened the United States from deep ocean sites. So far, U.S. and Russian teams have dismantled 148 missile launch tubes on those submarines and 30 sea-launched ballistic missiles. CTR programs have eliminated more than 40 Russian strategic bombers that used to be within hours of American military and civilian targets. Collectively, those actions under CTR have ensured that Russia has met and continues to meet its treaty obligations under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START. More important, they have significantly cut back on the potential threat posed by those weapons to the United States, our allies, and our worldwide security interests. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program extends beyond the elimination of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. Funds for this program are allocated to ensure the safe transportation, storage, security, accounting, and monitoring of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons scheduled for destruction and for weapons grade nuclear materials from weapons that have been dismantled. I have visited Russia and personally observed implementation of the Department of Energy's Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting program which enhances day-to-day security at dozens of nuclear sites across Russia. I remain deeply concerned that without that assistance, the possibility of smuggling nuclear materials into the wrong hands is a serious possibility that could threaten the entire world. Looking toward the future, funds from CTR are helping to convert Russia's reactors that produce plutonium to eliminate that capability. Ultimately, the cutoff of production of fissile materials is the tool by which we can help prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials from becoming an even greater problem than it is today. Conversion of Russia's nuclear production capability is a key part of addressing that problem. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program also assists the Russians in meeting obligations assumed under the Chemical Weapons Convention we ratified in the Senate two years ago. Under this program, the United States has assisted Russia in planning the construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility needed to destroy the large volume of aging chemical munitions in their inventory. Funds are essential to keep this program moving forward in order to ensure that we can reduce the threat of proliferation of chemical weapons and their use against our security interests. I am aware that some in the Congress believe that Russia has not shouldered its responsibilities under this and other CTR programs, but I prefer to consider such matters from our own selfish security point of view. To the extent that we are able to purchase or finance reductions to Russian military capabilities that directly threaten us, those are funds well spent. When Russians are able and agree to provide funding or support in kind for CTR programs, so much the better. I would like to point out an additional benefit to the Nunn-Lugar programs that is not often recognized or understood. I am certain that the Members of this body can recall the perceptions shared by many Americans concerning the government and people of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. I need not remind us of the unbridgeable gap that existed between our governments, our political systems, and our cultures. In the wake of the Cold War, however, many of those gaps have been bridged and important bonds have been forged between our two countries and citizens. Thousands of American and Russian technical and support personnel have built a foundation of trust and understanding through their cooperative efforts under the CTR program. I firmly believe that those bonds will pay dividends and serve the long-term interests of peaceful relations between our two countries--particularly if we in the United States continue to hold the course in supporting CTR and other cooperative programs such as the Initiative for Proliferation Prevention, the Nuclear Cities Initiative, and the Russian American Cooperative Satellite program. Key Russian personnel in implementing those programs have come to know Americans with whom they frequently meet and vice versa. I have spoken personally with many Russians and Americans who are directly involved in these programs all of whom share the same conviction that cooperation is the key to a peaceful future. These are very uncertain times. We are at a crucial juncture in our relations with Russia that could determine the direction of the global political climate for many years to come. No one is certain what the future of Russia will bring once President Yeltsin leaves office. Everyone is aware that a deep reservoir of distrust and fear exists among Russian citizens, officials, and military personnel concerning the United States and NATO. We have done much in the past couple of years to feed those fears and anxieties, thereby generating hostility that could threaten to reawaken Cold War tensions. On the other hand, we have established critical relationships that could weigh against such a reprise through programs such as CTR. The impending post-Yeltsin debate within Russia regarding its future direction must include the voice of cooperation rather than confrontation as the way to peace and stability. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program has built a constituency in Russia to articulate that voice. I salute its sponsors, Senators Nunn and Lugar for their visionary contribution, and celebrate its extension into the next millennium. I strongly encourage my colleagues to continue to support CTR and related programs through the ebbs and flows of U.S.-Russian relations. The prospects for long term global peace and stability will be the better for it.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like to use those 4 minutes to say a few things about the Patients' Bill of Rights and the importance of the issue to a great many people in my State and around the country. I think it is clear, from surveys I have seen, the American people want reform of this system of managed care and health maintenance organizations. There are a great many instances that have been called to our attention in our home States. I have heard of them in New Mexico, where people think the quality of care and the adequacy of care they are being provided with is not what it should be. Without passage of some type of meaningful managed care reform, critical health care services will continue to be denied to many of the people we represent. One of the issues I believe is very important is what is referred to as provider nondiscrimination. We need a managed care health system that does not permit health plans to leave out nonphysician providers. I am talking about groups of health care providers such as nurse practitioners, psychologists, nurse midwives, leaving those people out of the network so that patients of these health maintenance organizations, customers of these health maintenance organizations are denied the ability to obtain their health care from those types of individuals. In New Mexico, this is a critical concern. We have a shortage of physicians in our State. It is, in many parts of our State, very difficult to get health care, if you are required by your HMO to obtain that health care through a physician. What we would like to do as part of the bill, which we hope to get to vote on in the next week or so, is to ensure that health maintenance organizations, where these people are qualified and certified, permit nonphysician health care providers to participate in these networks. This is a critical concern in my State. I am sure it is a critical concern in many States. Another issue that clearly needs to be addressed here is access to specialists. That is an issue I know came up when we had the debate in the Health and Education Committee. An amendment was offered to correct that. I believe Senator Harkin offered that amendment; it was not successful. I believe it is a very important issue that needs to be revisited on the Senate floor. There are many people who need the care of a specialist. Whether it is a pediatrician, whether it is an oncologist, whatever the specialty is, those people should not have to go through a family practitioner prior to going to that specialist. We would try to correct that in the legislation as well. There are many other concerns we have with the bill that came out of the Health and Education Committee. I hope very much we get a full debate in the Senate on the deficiencies of that bill. I hope we get a chance to amend that bill. The American people have been anxious to see reform in this area now for two Congresses that I am aware of. I think for us to continue to delay and put off and evade this issue is not the responsible course for us to follow. Our constituents, the people we represent in our States, expect better of us. The people I represent in New Mexico expect me to do something about these very real problems they believe exist. In New Mexico, under the Republican bill that was reported out of the Health and Education Committee, there are almost 700,000 people who will not have substantive protections. In my State, there are 350,000 people who will not be covered at all if we pass the bill that came out of committee. Mr. President, I see my time is up. I appreciate the opportunity to make comments, and I yield the floor. Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert Mendoza, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak for just a few minutes. What is the status of business in the Senate?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to today to ask my colleagues to consider several intriguing questions. What would we do if I told you that Americans were deliberately being denied access to our country's greatest technologies and developments? What if I told you that there is a business in this country that is permitted to make any kind of business decision they want and potentially adversely effect millions of consumers' lives and not be held accountable? What if I told you that Congress has had the answer to these questions and, most importantly, the solutions to these problems but because of a few people and a great deal of money from one special interest group, the American people have been denied a substantially better quality of life? Well, unfortunately, all this is true. Over 200 organizations representing doctors, nurses, patients' right advocates, consumer organizations and labor groups and American people everywhere have all spoken loud and long: The time is now to pass a meaningful patient's bill of rights. My Democratic colleagues stand ready, once again, to engage in a discussion with our Republican colleagues so that we can finally put the American people's interest before health insurance company profits. Over 100 million workers who labor hard and pay health insurance are being denied critical medical services. We are led to believe by some that the health care system under managed care is working just fine. In our own circles of friends and family, we know that this is simply not true. The numbers are staggering. I have a chart here that will not surprise anyone. In 1998, 115 million Americans either had a problem or knew someone who had a problem with managed care and that number is dramatically on the rise. Let me say that again. At least, 115 million people in this country are experiencing difficulties obtaining medical services for which they pay for every month. The issue is clear. Managed health care reform is long overdue. First and foremost, we need a managed health care system that is inclusive, providing the best health care for everyone that spends their hard earned dollars on health insurance. The Republican managed care bill leaves out over 100 million Americans: two-thirds of those that have private health insurance. Let me be even more specific using my own State, New Mexico, as a example of what I am referring to. There are approximately 900,000 privately insured patients in the State of New Mexico. Without passage of the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights, look at the list of major patient protections that over 900,000 New Mexicans will not have. Under the Republican bill, almost 700,000 New Mexicans will not have substantive protections and 350,000 will not be covered at all if the Republicans pass their bill. The Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights will assure that 900,000 New Mexicans will receive all these protections that I have listed on this chart. These numbers represent real people with real health concerns. These numbers represent people who expect Congress to put the health interests of Americans first. Let me address just a few of the basic protections that I believe a managed care system should provide and that, in fact, the Democratic Patient's Bill of Rights includes. We need a managed care health system that does not financially penalize health care professionals who try to provide the best care for their patients. We can no longer permit managed care companies to fire providers who report quality concerns or who speak up on behalf of their patients and assist their patients when their HMO denies care. We need a managed care health system that does not allow HMO's to operate with few providers and long waiting periods for appointments, and that force patients to drive long hours to get needed care, even if there are qualified providers nearby. Where you live in our country should not be reason enough to exclude you from the best medical care available. In a state such as New Mexico this is a critical concern. We need a managed care health system that does not prohibit health plans from excluding non-physician providers such as nurse practitioners, psychologists, and social workers from their networks. Under the Republican bill, patients, especially those in rural and other areas without an adequate supply of physicians, could be left out in the cold. Once again, in the State of New Mexico these are critical concerns. Simply put, we need a managed health care system that puts patient protections first before insurance company profits. Let me also address one other issue. I have heard concerns from some of my Republican colleagues regarding the impact that reforming health insurance might have on small businesses. I too have long been concerned with the effect of federal policy on this part of the business sector. New Mexico relies significantly on the innovation and hard work of the small businessperson and I have consistently worked to protect their interests. But instead of trying to scare small businesses with inadequate information that seemingly threatens their livelihoods as some might do, let's take a look at the facts. In a recent study by the Small Business Alliance and the Kaiser Family Foundation, the overwhelming majority of small businesses would continue to provide health insurance after managed care reform and the majority of these business endorsed key elements of the Democratic Patient's Bill of Rights including real independent appeals, access to speciality care, and direct access to OB/GYN services, as well as the patient's right to hold insurance companies accountable for their decisions. I began my comments asking several fundamental questions about consumer rights. I would like to conclude by encouraging all of my colleagues to consider the issues which I have raised and I look forward to substantive debate on these critical matters that have such a profound effect on the health of this Nation. We have an opportunity to stand up for American families, protect American children and respond to the needs of American workers. I urge all of my colleagues to stand together with the overwhelming majority of the American people and begin a discussion that will ultimately lead to the passage of a meaningful patient's bill of rights for all Americans. The American people have waited long enough.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Dorgan and Byrd, in introducing the Standardized School Report Card Act. This bill would require States and schools to distribute an annual, easy-to-read report card to parents, taxpayers, educators, and the public. One of the top issues facing the nation's education system is the need for greater accountability and the need for greater parent involvement in schools. The bill we are introducing today will go a long way in helping to achieve these goals. In our efforts to make schools accountable for the resources they are given, we must develop better means for measuring and communicating progress in our schools; if we cannot measure progress, we cannot attain it. Our bill would require each school to report several key measures of progress. The bill would require reports of student performance in language arts and mathematics, as well as any other subject areas in which the State requires assessment. The report cards would breakdown student data by gender, major racial and ethnic groups, English proficiency, migrant status, disability status, and economic status. In this way, we can ensure that our schools are meeting the needs of all students and that all students are being taught to the same high standards. I also requested that the bill require reporting of dropout rates, because our educational system needs to do everything possible to keep our children in school until graduation. Many States with report cards do not currently report this measure of educational progress. Obviously, we are not making much progress if our children are giving up prior to graduation. We need to target our efforts to ensure that our children stay in school and an important step in achieving that goal is to monitor and raise awareness of the problem. The report cards required in this bill also would provide parents and taxpayers with valuable information regarding the resources available and environment at each school. Our bill would require schools to report average class sizes and student access to technology, including the number of computers for educational purposes, the number of computers per classroom, and the number of computers connected to the Internet. In addition, schools would be required to report measures of school safety, including the safety of school facilities and incidents of school violence, and measures of parental involvement. Based on this information, parents--as consumers of public education--can make informed decisions about their children's education and monitor how public resources are being used in their community. Last session, I introduced an amendment to the Higher Education Act-- which was ultimately passed and signed into law--which requires colleges of education to report their performance in producing qualified teachers. That effort will help to ensure that teachers coming into a school system have been properly prepared to teach. The bill we are introducing today will build on that legislation, by holding states and schools district accountable for the training, level of preparation, and proper placement of new teachers as well as teachers already in the system. Under the Standardized Report Card Act, schools would be required to report the professional qualifications of its teachers, including the number of teachers teaching out of field and the number of teachers with emergency certification. I have spoken with many parents in my home state of New Mexico about their role in the public education system. These parents are eager to support their local schools and participate in their children's education. But in order to do this, they need to be better informed about how schools are performing and what resources are being devoted to each school. With over $350 billion spent each year on education, parents and taxpayers deserve to know how their schools are performing. We owe it to them and to ourselves to provide public measures of progress which will assist our communities in their efforts to improve our systems of education. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me by supporting the standardized School Report Card Act.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Dorgan and Byrd, in introducing the Standardized School Report Card Act. This bill would require States and schools to distribute an annual, easy-to-read report card to parents, taxpayers, educators, and the public. One of the top issues facing the nation's education system is the need for greater accountability and the need for greater parent involvement in schools. The bill we are introducing today will go a long way in helping to achieve these goals. In our efforts to make schools accountable for the resources they are given, we must develop better means for measuring and communicating progress in our schools; if we cannot measure progress, we cannot attain it. Our bill would require each school to report several key measures of progress. The bill would require reports of student performance in language arts and mathematics, as well as any other subject areas in which the State requires assessment. The report cards would breakdown student data by gender, major racial and ethnic groups, English proficiency, migrant status, disability status, and economic status. In this way, we can ensure that our schools are meeting the needs of all students and that all students are being taught to the same high standards. I also requested that the bill require reporting of dropout rates, because our educational system needs to do everything possible to keep our children in school until graduation. Many States with report cards do not currently report this measure of educational progress. Obviously, we are not making much progress if our children are giving up prior to graduation. We need to target our efforts to ensure that our children stay in school and an important step in achieving that goal is to monitor and raise awareness of the problem. The report cards required in this bill also would provide parents and taxpayers with valuable information regarding the resources available and environment at each school. Our bill would require schools to report average class sizes and student access to technology, including the number of computers for educational purposes, the number of computers per classroom, and the number of computers connected to the Internet. In addition, schools would be required to report measures of school safety, including the safety of school facilities and incidents of school violence, and measures of parental involvement. Based on this information, parents--as consumers of public education--can make informed decisions about their children's education and monitor how public resources are being used in their community. Last session, I introduced an amendment to the Higher Education Act-- which was ultimately passed and signed into law--which requires colleges of education to report their performance in producing qualified teachers. That effort will help to ensure that teachers coming into a school system have been properly prepared to teach. The bill we are introducing today will build on that legislation, by holding states and schools district accountable for the training, level of preparation, and proper placement of new teachers as well as teachers already in the system. Under the Standardized Report Card Act, schools would be required to report the professional qualifications of its teachers, including the number of teachers teaching out of field and the number of teachers with emergency certification. I have spoken with many parents in my home state of New Mexico about their role in the public education system. These parents are eager to support their local schools and participate in their children's education. But in order to do this, they need to be better informed about how schools are performing and what resources are being devoted to each school. With over $350 billion spent each year on education, parents and taxpayers deserve to know how their schools are performing. We owe it to them and to ourselves to provide public measures of progress which will assist our communities in their efforts to improve our systems of education. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me by supporting the standardized School Report Card Act.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I cosponsored the oil and gas loan guarantee program on the emergency supplemental because I believe this is an important and necessary program to ensure independent producers are able to continue operating in the United States. This program is available only to small producers who do not own refineries of any size. No major oil company is eligible. We are currently importing well over 50 percent of our oil needs. The Energy Information Administration projects that by 2020 we will be importing 65 percent of the oil we consume. The independent oil and gas producers, those companies eligible for this program, have remained committed to domestic production. They are the backbone of our domestic oil supply. They do not import oil, and they do not sell gasoline. Every barrel these independents produce generates jobs, tax and royalty revenues and eliminates another barrel of imports. Oil prices were as low as $7 per barrel in New Mexico a few months ago. Although prices have recovered somewhat, small producers were devastated. In addition to the pending loan guarantee program, I believe we need to implement other policy changes to protect our domestic production. Our tax and royalty policies need to be changed to ensure independent oil and gas producers have enough cash flow so they can avoid shutting in production again when prices fall as low as they were recently. I urge support for this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, renewable energy is a win-win. Renewable technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass are domestic and clean. Many renewable applications are especially suited to remote rural locations where construction of electric transmission facilities are prohibitively expensive. The federal government has had a very successful program installing 122 photovoltaic systems in place of diesel generators at remote locations of the National Park Service, Forest Service and BLM. (Chart) These systems produce electric power without any noise or emissions. Photovoltaics are also well-suited for use on remote areas of Indian Reservations. Collaboration between the National Labs and U.S. industry has made huge strides in photovoltaic efficiency and cost-competitiveness. The cost of photovoltaic systems have declined 10 fold since 1980. Ongoing work in system reliability and long-term performance is crucial to continued development of U.S. leadership in this area. The Department of Energy's proposed budget is barely 40% of what Japan and half of what Germany spend on photovoltaic research. Another important technology is concentrating solar power, where the sun's energy is first converted to heat then used to generate electricity in a conventional generator. The federal research program, centered at Sandia, has been a true success. Further work in advanced trough technology and dish based systems, which can be dispatched into the electricity grid, promise to dramatically lower costs. Based on World Bank estimates of capacity installation for these technologies, up to $12 billion in sales of U.S.-manufactured products and up to 13,000 new jobs could be created by U.S. industry by 2010. Since the 1980's the cost of wind power has declined 80% (from 25 cents to 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour.) With the necessary support, the cost of wind will be down to 3 cents per kilowatt hour or lower within five years. This amendment will fund U.S.-based turbine certification, international consensus standards, wind mapping to assist in targeting key areas, and support to industry on solving near term problems. The export opportunities for U.S. industry are large, but the U.S. must compete against the highly subsidized European manufacturers. The opportunities for economic development of geothermal power in the U.S. west are vast. The Department of Energy has an initiative underway to cut the cost of drilling for geothermal resources by 25% within the next two years. Geothermal, especially using non-drinking water sources and treated wastewater, can become an important energy source for arid states. This research with commercial development could result in development of 30,000 jobs in the U.S. and open up significant international marketing opportunities for U.S. manufacturers. The research programs funded by this amendment are making important contributions to the ongoing restructuring of the electric utility industry. For example, many experts believe the future of electric power generation will be in the form of small, so-called ``distributed'' generation technologies. Smaller power plants offer advantages in terms of improved efficiency and reliability as well as reduced environmental impacts. Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and other generating technologies such as fuel cells and micro-turbines are all likely approaches to distributed generation. The Energy Committee will hold an oversight hearing on distributed generation next week. Finally, research in this bill is also helping assure the continued security and reliability of the nation's high-tension transmission grid. Sandia Labs in New Mexico is a key partner in DOE's transmission research program. I think it is critical to maintain our momentum in renewable energy research. The proposed budget cuts in the bill are unfortunate and unnecessary. I am pleased to support the amendment and I thank Senator Jeffords for his efforts.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to state my concern about a provision in the Military Construction Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2000 that the Senate is considering today. I am very concerned about the potential effects of Section 129 of the bill relating to the chemical weapons demilitarization program planned for the Bluegrass Army Depot. My concern, simply stated, is that Section 129 could delay the chemical demilitarization process beyond the deadline for destroying all our chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). This provision, which would levy additional requirements before demilitarization work can begin at the depot, could prevent the United States from complying with its obligations under the CWC. The Administration shares my concern and strongly opposes this provision of S. 1205. In fact, their opposition is stated in the first item listed in the Statement of Administration Policy regarding this bill. Here's what the Administration has to say about this matter: The Administration strongly opposes Section 129, which would require the demonstration of six alternative technologies to chemical weapons incineration before construction of the Chemical Demilitarization facility at Bluegrass, Kentucky could begin. Prompt construction of the Bluegrass site is critical to ensuring U.S. compliance with the deadline for chemical weapons destruction agreed to under the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Department of Defense has demonstrated three alternative technologies, one more than required by P.L. 104-208, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. This provision would delay construction of the Bluegrass site by at least one year, resulting in a breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention deadline. The President of the United States signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Senate provided its advice and consent to ratification of that treaty. The treaty is now in force and the United States is a party to it, so we are bound by its terms and requirements. I am very disturbed and dismayed that the United States is not in compliance with this treaty, a situation that could worsen if legislation such as contained in Section 129 is enacted into law. I remind my fellow Senators that the United States has still not gathered and declared information regarding U.S. industrial chemical facilities that is required by the treaty. In addition, the U.S. has not complied with treaty provisions governing inspections of military facilities authorizing the use of treaty-approved inspection equipment. Finally, the implementing legislation for the CWC contains provisions that are antithetical to treaty provisions. Should the President exercise the option approved in the implementing legislation to refuse a challenge inspection, such action would directly contravene both the intent and the letter of the treaty that entered into force. I urge my fellow Senators to be aware of these problems and to support efforts to resolve them so that the United States can become compliant with its international treaty obligations and assume the leadership needed in order to make this treaty effective. One of the central requirements of the Chemical Weapons Convention is that parties must destroy their chemical weapons stockpile within 10 years of the date of entry into force of the treaty. That means that the United States must destroy all its chemical weapons by April 29, 2007. I am concerned that Section 129 of this bill would prevent the United States from meeting its legal obligation to destroy all its chemical weapons before this deadline. I believe it would be both unwise and unnecessary to enact legislation that would have the effect of preventing the United States from meeting one of its treaty obligations. To be specific, Section 129 would prevent the obligation or expenditure of any funds made available by the Military Construction Appropriations Act or any other Act for the purpose relating to construction of a facility at Bluegrass Army Depot in Kentucky for demilitarization of chemical weapons until the Secretary of Defense reports to the Congress on the results of evaluating six alternative technologies to the current baseline incineration process for destroying chemical weapons. While this may sound quite reasonable, it poses a problem that I want to highlight. It would effectively delay the chemical demilitarization process at Bluegrass to the point that we would likely not be able to meet the Chemical Weapons Convention. This is because it would add a new requirement to demonstrate and evaluate three additional alternative destruction technologies, and for the Secretary of Defense to report to the Congress on those additional technologies before any demilitarization construction funding could be used at the Bluegrass Depot. There are currently three alternative technologies being considered by the Defense Department under the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program. This program was established in law several years ago, but the law required the Department to evaluate at least two alternative technologies---not six. Section 129 would add the requirement to evaluate four additional technologies which will take additional time and money. That will result in a one-year delay in starting the chemical demilitarization process at Bluegrass which would prevent the U.S. from destroying all the chemical weapons there before the CWC deadline. I note that the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, has no provision in the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2000 that places any restriction on the chemical demilitarization program. In fact, the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, on which I serve as the Ranking Member, included report language that emphasizes the importance of meeting our CWC Treaty obligation to destroy all of our chemical weapons by the treaty deadline. Moreover, the Defense Authorization bill which passed the Senate on May 27, 1999, fully funds the Defense Department's request for funds for the chemical demilitarization program. I do not believe that it is the intent of this provision or of its sponsors to prevent the United States from meeting its treaty obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, or to force the U.S. to violate the treaty. Therefore, I urge my fellow Senators during the forthcoming conference on the Military Construction Appropriations bill to support modifications to Section 129 so that the bill will not have this unintended effect. I'm certain that my colleagues agree that it is essential for the Senate to take all actions necessary to ensure that we uphold our treaty obligations just as we would demand of other states. Modification of Section 129 would constitute such an action.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am aware of the very tight budgetary constraints under which this bill is being considered and I commend the chairman and ranking member for their good, hard work. One concern I have, however, is that the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill does not fund the Department of Energy's Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI). The SSI is not only an integral part of the President's Information Technology Initiative for the 21st Century, but also a key element in the Department's effort to keep the United States at the leading edge of scientific discovery. It is only through scientific modeling on computers 10-100 times more powerful than those now available to civilian scientists that we can address many scientific problems with an enormous potential payoff for the Nation. The SSI will build on DOE's successful history of making leading edge computers available for scientific modeling to provide us with reliable, quantitative and regional information about changes in climate, and help us design more efficient internal combustion engines. It will also help us create more effective drugs and materials, and contribute to our understanding of basic scientific problems in a wide range of disciplines. I hope that, should more funding become available during this year's congressional appropriations process, the Senate will work with the House of Representatives to fully fund this important program.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do not object to my colleague's amendment to renew the public land withdrawal for the McGregor Range in New Mexico, however, I believe the preferable course of action is to follow the process the Senate agreed to just last month, and allow the Defense and Interior Departments the opportunity to jointly develop a legislative proposal. The McGregor Range in southern New Mexico was one of several military ranges that was last withdrawn for military purposes in 1986 under Public Law 99-606. The withdrawal period for McGregor and the other ranges is for 15 years, and does not expire until November, 2001. Last month, language was included in the Committee-reported version of S. 1059, the DOD Authorization bill, that would have extended public land withdrawals at four of the six military installations covered by Public Law 99-606: the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range in Arizona, the McGregor Range in New Mexico, and Fort Wainwright and Fort Greely in Alaska. During the consideration of the bill on the Senate floor, I offered an amendment which replaced the withdrawal language with a ``sense of the Senate'' statement urging the Administration to submit legislative proposals for these four military withdrawals by July 1. I understand that both the Defense and Interior Departments are currently working on such a legislative proposal and that we still anticipate being able to incorporate legislative language in the conference report for the DOD Authorization bill. With respect to the proposed amendment for the McGregor Range, I want to be clear that I recognize the critical role the range serves for our national defense training needs and I support their continued use for these purposes. In my opinion, however, I think it makes much more sense, and will result in less controversy in the long run, if we allow the normal process for the renewal of the public land withdrawals to be completed. In short, this means allowing the Interior Department the opportunity to review the Army's environmental impact statement, which I understand has only just been completed, and that following that review, the Administration has the opportunity to submit its legislative proposal for our consideration. The McGregor withdrawal encompasses approximately 608,000 acres of land in New Mexico. The renewal of the withdrawal and future uses of the range are of interest not only to the Army, but also to area residents and other public land users. Although the amendment is not clear, I am concerned that it materially changes some of the withdrawal terms from the 1986 Act. For example, the 1986 Act authorized a withdrawal period of 15 years. This amendment provides for a 50-year withdrawal. I understand that the military desires a longer withdrawal period than the current 15 years, and I am not opposed to considering a longer term. But meaningful periodic reviews and environmental analyses serve an important purpose. They provide local communities with an opportunity to raise issues about the way these lands are managed, and they allow us to consider new land management issues which may not have been present when the original withdrawals were made. I think it is a mistake to significantly change this policy without at least the opportunity for public hearings. Another aspect of the amendment that seems to be a significant departure from past management practices is a requirement that the Secretary of the Army manage the withdrawn lands. Under current law, the lands are managed by the Bureau of Land Management for a variety of multiple use purposes, subject to the limitations of the military uses. For example, the 1986 Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to manage the lands in a manner permitting the continuation of grazing, the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat, the control of predators, recreation, and the suppression of brush fires. This amendment now provides for management by the Army, under the terms of a new agreement to be developed between the Army and the Interior Department, which is to provide for the proper management and protection of natural and cultural resources. It may very well be that such an agreement will adequately provide for other non-military uses and protect sensitive natural and cultural resources. However, there is no requirement that the lands be managed under existing law, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The amendment also appears to leave very important land management questions unanswered. For example, the BLM currently manages the Culp Canyon Wilderness Study Area within the McGregor Range, as well as an ``Area of Critical Environmental Concern.'' Under this amendment, is the Army required to manage those areas to the same degree of protection as required of the Secretary of the Interior? Again, at the very least, I think it is important that all interested parties should be heard on these issues before we decide how to proceed. Mr. President, I would like to conclude by again urging the Administration to expeditiously complete its legislative proposal by the end of this month. Although I would prefer to hear the Administration's proposal, I am committed to seeing that the McGregor range renewal is enacted this year. If, however, a timely proposal is submitted by the Administration, I hope that we will be able to include appropriate legislative language to renew the withdrawal for McGregor and the other affected ranges as part of the conference report for the DOD Authorization bill.