Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do not know if the other proponents of the amendment want to speak at this time. I gather they do not since they are not on the floor, so I will take a very few minutes of our time and make a few moments. First of all, I think this is a good result we have come up with that allows for a reasoned and deliberate consideration of this proposal. I certainly repeat what I said earlier today, which is, I question nobody's motives. I am sure everyone's motives are the same as mine, and that is, how do we improve the security of our nuclear weapons program and, at the same time, maintain the good things about our nuclear weapons program in our National Laboratories in our Department of Energy. I, for one, started this from the proposition that the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which is the program that is essentially responsible for maintaining our nuclear deterrent, has been a success. That is my strong impression, and the suggestion that it has been fettered and burdened-- I believe that is the language that was used--by other activities in the Department, I do not believe is true. My strong impression is that the Stockpile Stewardship Program is alive and well, that our nuclear deterrent is secure and reliable, and that in fact there is a lot we can point to with pride in that regard. Clearly, there have been security lapses. Clearly, classified information has been stolen, and we need to put in place safeguards against that ever recurring. I favor that, and I believe we have some strong provisions in this underlying bill which will accomplish that and will move us in the direction of accomplishing that. Maybe there should be more. I am not totally averse to considering reorganization in parts of the Department of Energy. That may be a very constructive suggestion for us to look into. But I do believe that the way to do it is through hearings. Hopefully, we can have hearings in the Armed Services Committee. This is the appropriate committee, I believe. I serve on that committee. Perhaps Senator Warner can schedule some hearings as early as the week after next when we return, if there is a sense of urgency, and I share a sense of urgency about doing all that is constructive to do. I am not in any way arguing that we should not look into this issue. I believe if we have hearings, we should give the Secretary of Energy the chance to testify. I do believe that if we are going to embark upon a major reorganization of the Department of Energy, the logical thing to do is to ask the Secretary of Energy his reaction to our proposed reorganization. That is the kind of responsible, deliberate action that our constituents expect of us. That is what the Secretary of Energy has a right to expect. That is what the President expects. I hope that is the course we follow. I will briefly respond to the point my colleague, Senator Domenici, made about a 1990 report by the Clark task force. I am not personally familiar with that report, but I point out to my colleagues that in 1990 the Secretary of Energy was Admiral Watkins. That was not a Democratic administration; that was a Republican administration. Admiral Watkins was a very, very qualified individual to be our Secretary of Energy. His credentials for line management and command and control and maintaining military security cannot be questioned. Admiral Watkins, of course, evidently did not think the recommendations from that Clark task force alluded to should be followed up and implemented, and did not do that. There have been a lot of capable people in the Department of Energy, some in the position of Secretary, who have spent substantial time looking at this problem. They have made some improvements. Perhaps more are needed, and I certainly will embrace additional improvements if that is the case. I do, once again, make the point I made earlier today, and that is that we do not want to do something that has not been thoroughly discussed, has not been thoroughly analyzed, and which can have very, very adverse consequences, unintended adverse consequences, on the strength of our National Laboratories, on our ability to retain, to maintain, and to recruit the top scientists and engineers in this country to work on these programs and to work in these laboratories. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time to see if other of my colleagues wish to speak on this issue as well. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first just say that I have had a chance now to read the amendment. We received it at about 1:15, about 10 minutes into the description of the amendment by the Senator from Arizona. I have had that chance to read it. It is really three separate provisions. I just want to briefly point out that two of them are totally acceptable to this Senator, at least as I see it. The first, of course, would put into statute the provision establishing an Office of Counterintelligence in the Department of Energy. This is something which was done as a result of Presidential Decision Directive 61 in February of 1998. It is something which the previous Secretary of Energy has done administratively. This Secretary has carried through on that. Clearly, this is a good thing to do, and putting it in statutory form is also helpful. So I have no problem with that part of the amendment at all. I would support that. In fact, I point out that those provisions, with very few changes, are in the underlying bill. But I can certainly agree to whatever changes the authors of this amendment would like to see in that section. The second part of the three parts in this bill is establishing the Office of Intelligence. Again, I believe this is totally appropriate. Again, this is something that the administration has already done administratively, but clearly there can be a good argument made that we should put this in statute. I have no problem with that. Again, the underlying bill which we are considering has in it the establishment of the Office of Intelligence. So if this version of that legislative provision has some improvements in it, that certainly is appropriate. I do not oppose that. The third part of the amendment is the part which I find very objectionable. Let me use the rest of my time to just describe the nature of my concern about the rest of it. The third part of the amendment is the part designated ``Nuclear Security Administration.'' This sets up a totally new organizational structure within the Department of Energy which is, as my good friend and colleague from Nevada said, by far the most far-reaching reorganization of the Department of Energy since that Department was created 22 years ago in 1977. The reasons I object to this provision, as it now stands, are several. Let me start by saying that I object to it because of the procedure we followed in getting to where we are today. This is an important proposal. It has far-reaching ramifications. Much of what we do here in the Senate is impacted by the law of unintended consequences, and this is a prime example of something that is going to produce substantial unintended consequences, in my opinion. We have had many studies about the problems in the Department of Energy. Some of those have been very useful. None of those studies have suggested that we solve the problems with this solution. The last time we had a hearing on the problems of organization in the Department of Energy was in September of 1996. That was nearly 3 years ago. I sit on the committee, as does my colleague from New Mexico, as do many of us involved in this discussion, I sit on the committee that has jurisdiction over this Department, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. In that committee, we have had a great many hearings on the Chinese espionage problem. We have had six hearings in that committee alone. We have had one joint hearing with the Armed Services Committee, which I also sit on. That is seven hearings. In none of those hearings have we considered any of this set of recommendations. In none of those hearings have we asked the Secretary of Energy to come forward and explain what changes he thinks might be appropriate or whether or not these kinds of proposals might be appropriate as a way to fix the problem. My friend, the Senator from Arizona, said it would be a derogation of our duty if we didn't go ahead and pass this this afternoon. I say it is almost a derogation of our duty if we do pass it this afternoon, because we will not have given the administration a chance to react. We will not have given the administration a chance to explain why they oppose this. I think that is the only reasonable course to follow. Another suggestion was made by my colleague from Arizona that although Secretary Richardson had objected to an earlier draft, he was fairly confident that those problems had been resolved in the latest bill, which is the one we received at 1:15. I have in my hand here--I will ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record--a letter from Secretary Richardson just received a few minutes ago in which he says: I have reviewed the latest version of the amendment being offered by Senator Domenici to the Defense Authorization bill. I am still deeply concerned that it moves the Department of Energy and its effort to improve security in the wrong direction. I remain firmly opposed to the amendment, and I want to reiterate my intention to recommend to the President that he veto the Defense Authorization bill if this proposal is adopted by the Congress. He goes on to explain in more detail why that is his view. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks not count against the two-speech rule.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a truly historic event that took place in my state of New Mexico last Saturday--the nation's largest act of Native American repatriation. The ``Jemez-Pecos Repatriation'' resulted in the reburial of nearly 2,000 human remains and artifacts unearthed from what should have been their final resting place over 70 years ago. On the Wednesday before the reburial, over 300 people started the 120 mile walk from Jemez Pueblo in northern New Mexico to the ruins of the Pecos Pueblo. The journey is a long one in the dry New Mexico sun. The group, both young and old, traveled across three counties and through the beautiful Jemez Mountains before arriving at the former site of the Pecos Pueblo. But the journey of their ancestors is much more remarkable. Prior to the 1820's, the Pueblo was a thriving community and center for trade. The Pecos interacted extensively with the Plains Indians to the east, the neighboring Pueblos to the west and the nearby Spanish communities. However, years of disease and warfare eventually decimated the population. In 1838, the remaining residents of Pecos Pueblo relocated to the Pueblo of Jemez, in order to protect their traditional leaders, sacred objects and culture. This decision reflects the fact that Jemez and Pecos cultures were intricately linked by blood, language and spiritual beliefs as well as through their ``origin stories''. In 1936, Congress formally merged the two tribes into one, with the Pueblo of Jemez named as the legal representative of the Pecos culture and administrative matters. When the Pecos Pueblo was abandoned in 1838, it likely did not occur to the few surviving members of the Pecos that their burial site would be disturbed during the next century. However, the famed archaeologist Alfred V. Kidder unearthed the remains and artifacts during ten excavations between 1915 and 1929. The remains were housed at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology in Cambridge, Massachusetts and the artifacts were held at the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. On May 18, 1999, Harvard University turned over the human remains and artifacts of nearly 2,000 people formerly buried at the Pecos Pueblo to the Pueblo of Jemez. Last Saturday, in a solemn private ceremony, the thousands of human remains and artifacts were reburied in the Pecos National Historical Park in a grave that was 6 feet deep, 600 feet long and 10 feet wide. The current burial site is near the former Pecos Pueblo. The historical event last Saturday reflects the close relationship of the Jemez and Pecos people and the strong commitment the Pueblo of Jemez has to the beliefs of their ancestors. Some of the remains and artifacts that were reburied date back to the 12th century. With the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 1990, the current members of the Pueblo of Jemez were able to fulfill the dreams of many of their ancestors who longed to have the remains of their people returned to their homeland. NAGPRA was drafted to protect burial sites on tribal and federal land and to enable tribes to obtain the return of human remains and associated funery objects to the culturally affiliated tribes. I commend the Pueblo of Jemez, and particularly the Governor, Raymond Gachupin, and the many governors before him, who worked tirelessly to get to this day of repatriation. It took eight years of negotiations and persistence to achieve the final goal of repatriation. In a private tribal ceremony on May 22, 1999, the remains and artifacts of the Pecos ancestors were returned to their rightful place. Many people would be angry or resentful if their ancestors were unearthed and relocated. But for the descendants of the Pueblos of Jemez and Pecos, May 22, 1999 was looked upon as a day of unity and healing. By focusing on the future, the descendants truly honored their ancestors. I understand that at the end of the ceremony, the New Mexico sky turned dark and the rain began to fall. Mr. President, rain in May is not a common occurrence in New Mexico, but neither is the repatriation of 2,000 Native Americans. I want to convey my respect and admiration to the members of the Pueblo of Jemez, past and present, for their commitment and dedication to the Jemez-Pecos Repatriation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to provide for the protection of various historical sites in the Galisteo Basin. The Basin is located in and around Santa Fe County, New Mexico, as depicted by this map. (See, map) To understand the importance of these sites, it's important to understand the history of this Basin. Mr. President, when the Spanish Conquistadores arrived in New Mexico in 1598, they found a thriving native Pueblo culture with its own unique traditions of religion, architecture, and art, which was enriched and influenced by an extensive system of trade. The subsequent history of conflict and coexistence between these two cultures, Pueblo Indian and Spanish, shaped much of the language, art, and cultural worldview of New Mexicans today. That initial history of cultural interaction in New Mexico encompassed a period of a little over one hundred years from the 1598, through the Pueblo revolt in 1680, and the recolonization by the Spanish in the early 1700s. Among these sites are examples of both the stone and adobe pueblo architectural styles which typified Native American pueblo communities prior to and during early Spanish colonization, including two of the largest of these ancient towns, San Marcos and San Lazaro Pueblos, which each had thousands of rooms at their peak. Also included in these sites are spectacular examples of Native American petroglyph art as well as historic missions which were constructed as part of the Spaniards' drive to convert the native populace to Catholicism. The twenty six archeological sites addressed in this bill provide cohesive picture of this crucial nexus in New Mexican history, depicting the culture of the pueblo people, and illustrating how it was affected by the Spanish settlers . Mr. President, through these sites, we have an opportunity to truly understand the simultaneous growth and the coexistence of these two cultures. Unfortunately, this is an opportunity we may soon lose. Most of these sites are not currently part of any preservation program and through weathering, erosion, vandalism, and amateur excavations are losing their interpretive value. This legislation creates a program under the Department of the Interior to preserve these sites, and to provide interpretive research in an integrated manner. While many of these sites are on federal public land, many are privately owned and a few are on state trust lands. The vision behind this legislation is that an integrated preservation program at sites on Federal lands could serve as a foundation for archaeological research that could be augmented with voluntary cooperative agreements with state agencies and private land owners. These agreements would provide landowners with the opportunity for technical and financial assistance to preserve the sites on their property. Where the parties deem it appropriate, the legislation would also allow for the purchase or exchange of property to acquire these very valuable sites. With such a program in place, we should be able to preserve the history embodied in these sites for future generations. Mr. President, I would also like to add that this legislation is supported by Cochiti Pueblo which is culturally and historically tied to these sites. I have received a letter from Isaac Herrera , the Governor of Cochiti Pueblo expressing his support and that of the tribal council. Governor Herrera notes that the tribe has already donated $10,000 to the preservation of one of these sites. This legislation is also supported by the State Land Commissioner. Let me conclude by showing you some examples of these magnificent sites. These first 2 charts are from the Comanche Gap site, they are outstanding examples of petroglyph art. The next three charts I have show three of the various pueblo sites. The first, Pueblo Blanco. As you can see the drywash at the top of the picture and the road at the bottom, these are the types of erosion threats which I mentioned earlier. The next picture is Arroyo Hondo. Again, you have a drywash at the top, a major road along the site, and development around the site, which shows the threats posed. Finally is the Pueblo of Colorado, once again showing the threat of erosion from the drywashes above. Mr. President, I want to especially thank Jessica Schultz who has been an intern in my office this past year, and has done yeoman work in providing research for this bill and in helping to draft it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Protection Act of 1999 printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to provide for the protection of various historical sites in the Galisteo Basin. The Basin is located in and around Santa Fe County, New Mexico, as depicted by this map. (See, map) To understand the importance of these sites, it's important to understand the history of this Basin. Mr. President, when the Spanish Conquistadores arrived in New Mexico in 1598, they found a thriving native Pueblo culture with its own unique traditions of religion, architecture, and art, which was enriched and influenced by an extensive system of trade. The subsequent history of conflict and coexistence between these two cultures, Pueblo Indian and Spanish, shaped much of the language, art, and cultural worldview of New Mexicans today. That initial history of cultural interaction in New Mexico encompassed a period of a little over one hundred years from the 1598, through the Pueblo revolt in 1680, and the recolonization by the Spanish in the early 1700s. Among these sites are examples of both the stone and adobe pueblo architectural styles which typified Native American pueblo communities prior to and during early Spanish colonization, including two of the largest of these ancient towns, San Marcos and San Lazaro Pueblos, which each had thousands of rooms at their peak. Also included in these sites are spectacular examples of Native American petroglyph art as well as historic missions which were constructed as part of the Spaniards' drive to convert the native populace to Catholicism. The twenty six archeological sites addressed in this bill provide cohesive picture of this crucial nexus in New Mexican history, depicting the culture of the pueblo people, and illustrating how it was affected by the Spanish settlers . Mr. President, through these sites, we have an opportunity to truly understand the simultaneous growth and the coexistence of these two cultures. Unfortunately, this is an opportunity we may soon lose. Most of these sites are not currently part of any preservation program and through weathering, erosion, vandalism, and amateur excavations are losing their interpretive value. This legislation creates a program under the Department of the Interior to preserve these sites, and to provide interpretive research in an integrated manner. While many of these sites are on federal public land, many are privately owned and a few are on state trust lands. The vision behind this legislation is that an integrated preservation program at sites on Federal lands could serve as a foundation for archaeological research that could be augmented with voluntary cooperative agreements with state agencies and private land owners. These agreements would provide landowners with the opportunity for technical and financial assistance to preserve the sites on their property. Where the parties deem it appropriate, the legislation would also allow for the purchase or exchange of property to acquire these very valuable sites. With such a program in place, we should be able to preserve the history embodied in these sites for future generations. Mr. President, I would also like to add that this legislation is supported by Cochiti Pueblo which is culturally and historically tied to these sites. I have received a letter from Isaac Herrera , the Governor of Cochiti Pueblo expressing his support and that of the tribal council. Governor Herrera notes that the tribe has already donated $10,000 to the preservation of one of these sites. This legislation is also supported by the State Land Commissioner. Let me conclude by showing you some examples of these magnificent sites. These first 2 charts are from the Comanche Gap site, they are outstanding examples of petroglyph art. The next three charts I have show three of the various pueblo sites. The first, Pueblo Blanco. As you can see the drywash at the top of the picture and the road at the bottom, these are the types of erosion threats which I mentioned earlier. The next picture is Arroyo Hondo. Again, you have a drywash at the top, a major road along the site, and development around the site, which shows the threats posed. Finally is the Pueblo of Colorado, once again showing the threat of erosion from the drywashes above. Mr. President, I want to especially thank Jessica Schultz who has been an intern in my office this past year, and has done yeoman work in providing research for this bill and in helping to draft it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Protection Act of 1999 printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I am today joining with my good friend Senator Murkowski, the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to introduce the president's electricity restructuring legislation. The administration has presented Congress a fully comprehensive set of legislative proposals. For the first time we have detailed provisions on every major issue affecting the electricity industry as it moves into the new world of competition. Significantly, the president's comprehensive proposals include a framework for the transition of the Bonneville Power Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority into the new competitive arena. In considering the administration's proposals, Congress should look to areas that complement the states' ongoing restructuring activities, while leaving the key decisions on retail competition to state and local authorities. Let me mention three areas for federal concern. First, I believe Congress should remove federal impediments to states that chose to implement retail competition. Second, we should take steps to improve the regulation of interstate transmission and assure the continued security and reliability of the nation's grid. And third, Congress should ensure that fair competition can operate at both the wholesale and retail levels. These are the issues that only Congress can address. Mr. President, Congress should not dwell any longer on whether retail competition is good or bad, or whether or not it will benefit all consumers--the states are already making these decisions. It should be clear to all senators that retail competition for electric power generation is quickly becoming a reality. Nearly half of the states have now enacted restructuring legislation. Last month, New Mexico enacted restructuring legislation that will soon bring retail competition in electricity to my state. The consensus is growing on the need for federal legislation focused narrowly on wholesale transactions, interstate transmission, and reliability. Mr. President, this is not a simple question of ``de- regulation'' versus ``re-regulation;'' this is about keeping America's high-tension grid system secure, reliable, and economical. The federal role in regulating interstate commerce in electric power is clear. I hope we will move forward soon to resolve, at a minimum, the critical federal issues. Rather than commenting here on the pros and cons of any particular provision in the president's bill, I will wait until the administration has a fair opportunity to explain the bill to the Energy Committee in a legislative hearing. I know the committee already has a very full plate, but I hope the Chairman will find time to hold a hearing soon on this important topic. Mr. President, Congress still has time to pass vital federal electricity legislation, but we've got to get the process underway promptly. I hope the administration's proposals will help fuel interest in the Senate. Today America has the world's best electric power system. Let's not wait until serious problems develop to begin making the needed changes in federal regulation. Electricity is too important to the nation to leave critical federal issues unresolved.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my co- sponsors, Senators Domenici, Lieberman, Frist, and Snowe in introducing the Private Sector Research and Development Investment Act of 1999. This bill will finally make the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit permanent, a provision of the federal tax code that was first enacted in 1981, and has been extended 9 times since. In addition to the provision of permanence, our bill has other improvements that I believe will address many of the shortcomings of existing law, and will bring the code more in synch with the ways industry is performing R&D today. But before I speak to some of those provisions, I would like to spend a little time discussing why I think we need to enact this legislation now. I think it is fair to say that the nation's economy owes much of its resurgence to the increases in productivity attributable to the infusion of high technology products and services. Our nation is today in the enviable position of not only having the greatest access to these products, but also being the primary provider of these products for the rest of the world. These capabilities have enabled American businesses to be in a position of world leadership in areas as diverse as medical and bio technologies, microelectronics, and financial services. In order for us to insure that the economic engine continues to run at peak form, we must assure that there is a continual infusion of new technologies that will spawn the products and services of the future market. Many economists state that the best way to do this is to create a stable incentive for research investment and an environment where businesses have the flexibility to choose among all the options available to perform the research. A policy which achieves these goals will provide businesses with the long-term incentive to invest in both the research and the people that will create the next generation of commercially successful products. That is exactly what the ``Private Sector Research and Development Investment Act of 1999'' does. First, it makes Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code permanent, creating a stable long-term environment for investment. But it goes beyond that. Present law does not allow all companies to benefit equally from the Tax Credit. Some companies, simply as a result of where they were in the business cycle in the late 80's, find that they cannot attain the full benefit of the credit. And, if the company did not exist at all in the 80's, as is the case with most of the Internet and many of the biotech start-up firms, there is simply no way at all for them to access the full credit rate. This is simply not fair. Our bill proposes to correct that inequity by making the 20% marginal rate available to all companies that are growing their research investment. With much of the nation's research talent residing in our universities and federal laboratories, we are proposing to extend the full Tax Credit for research investments companies make in those institutions. I am particularly pleased with the part of this provision that provides a more cost effective way for companies to invest in the education of our future generation of scientists and engineers at our universities. If this bill becomes law, as many as 3000 additional masters and doctoral level engineers and scientists could be produced each year, with up to 1000 of these being women and minorities, all at no additional cost to businesses. I fully expect that the ``Private Sector Research and Development Investment Act of 1999'' will accelerate business investment in universities, growing the number of trained scientists and engineers even faster. At a time when there has been much debate over providing additional employment visas to foreign engineers, this bill provides one mechanism for educating qualified Americans to fill these high tech jobs. As the cost of doing research continues to escalate, and companies find it more difficult to go it alone, our bill proposes that the research investments companies make in research consortia with other businesses, universities, and federal laboratories be fully available for the Tax Credit. I have seen firsthand, at places like Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories, the results of consortia partnerships between industry and our national labs, and I believe that it is in our nation's best interest to promote these research arrangements. All of our studies indicate that small businesses are the ``high test'' fuel of the nation's economy, producing more and highly paid jobs. Yet it is this group of companies that have the hardest time in accessing the Tax Credit under existing law. We propose to modify the law so that small businesses have greater benefit in their early years, when the value of the credit can have the greatest impact on a rapidly growing, but often cash-limited, company. Finally, to assure that these small businesses are truly able to compete in the global market and to protect their intellectual assets, we are proposing that the full value of the Tax Credit be applied to their patent filing fees, both here and abroad. In speaking with owners of small, high tech businesses in New Mexico, I hear that anything we can do to increase the capital funds available to these businesses as they are starting up is critical to their success. These two special provisions for small businesses are positive steps in that direction. Mr. President, many of my fellow Senators and Members of the House have already endorsed the concept of a permanent R&D Tax Credit. With that base of enthusiasm already in place, I encourage my colleagues to seize the opportunity to move forward and complete the job. Let's make it permanent, and let's make it right.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my co- sponsors, Senators Domenici, Lieberman, Frist, and Snowe in introducing the Private Sector Research and Development Investment Act of 1999. This bill will finally make the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit permanent, a provision of the federal tax code that was first enacted in 1981, and has been extended 9 times since. In addition to the provision of permanence, our bill has other improvements that I believe will address many of the shortcomings of existing law, and will bring the code more in synch with the ways industry is performing R&D today. But before I speak to some of those provisions, I would like to spend a little time discussing why I think we need to enact this legislation now. I think it is fair to say that the nation's economy owes much of its resurgence to the increases in productivity attributable to the infusion of high technology products and services. Our nation is today in the enviable position of not only having the greatest access to these products, but also being the primary provider of these products for the rest of the world. These capabilities have enabled American businesses to be in a position of world leadership in areas as diverse as medical and bio technologies, microelectronics, and financial services. In order for us to insure that the economic engine continues to run at peak form, we must assure that there is a continual infusion of new technologies that will spawn the products and services of the future market. Many economists state that the best way to do this is to create a stable incentive for research investment and an environment where businesses have the flexibility to choose among all the options available to perform the research. A policy which achieves these goals will provide businesses with the long-term incentive to invest in both the research and the people that will create the next generation of commercially successful products. That is exactly what the ``Private Sector Research and Development Investment Act of 1999'' does. First, it makes Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code permanent, creating a stable long-term environment for investment. But it goes beyond that. Present law does not allow all companies to benefit equally from the Tax Credit. Some companies, simply as a result of where they were in the business cycle in the late 80's, find that they cannot attain the full benefit of the credit. And, if the company did not exist at all in the 80's, as is the case with most of the Internet and many of the biotech start-up firms, there is simply no way at all for them to access the full credit rate. This is simply not fair. Our bill proposes to correct that inequity by making the 20% marginal rate available to all companies that are growing their research investment. With much of the nation's research talent residing in our universities and federal laboratories, we are proposing to extend the full Tax Credit for research investments companies make in those institutions. I am particularly pleased with the part of this provision that provides a more cost effective way for companies to invest in the education of our future generation of scientists and engineers at our universities. If this bill becomes law, as many as 3000 additional masters and doctoral level engineers and scientists could be produced each year, with up to 1000 of these being women and minorities, all at no additional cost to businesses. I fully expect that the ``Private Sector Research and Development Investment Act of 1999'' will accelerate business investment in universities, growing the number of trained scientists and engineers even faster. At a time when there has been much debate over providing additional employment visas to foreign engineers, this bill provides one mechanism for educating qualified Americans to fill these high tech jobs. As the cost of doing research continues to escalate, and companies find it more difficult to go it alone, our bill proposes that the research investments companies make in research consortia with other businesses, universities, and federal laboratories be fully available for the Tax Credit. I have seen firsthand, at places like Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories, the results of consortia partnerships between industry and our national labs, and I believe that it is in our nation's best interest to promote these research arrangements. All of our studies indicate that small businesses are the ``high test'' fuel of the nation's economy, producing more and highly paid jobs. Yet it is this group of companies that have the hardest time in accessing the Tax Credit under existing law. We propose to modify the law so that small businesses have greater benefit in their early years, when the value of the credit can have the greatest impact on a rapidly growing, but often cash-limited, company. Finally, to assure that these small businesses are truly able to compete in the global market and to protect their intellectual assets, we are proposing that the full value of the Tax Credit be applied to their patent filing fees, both here and abroad. In speaking with owners of small, high tech businesses in New Mexico, I hear that anything we can do to increase the capital funds available to these businesses as they are starting up is critical to their success. These two special provisions for small businesses are positive steps in that direction. Mr. President, many of my fellow Senators and Members of the House have already endorsed the concept of a permanent R&D Tax Credit. With that base of enthusiasm already in place, I encourage my colleagues to seize the opportunity to move forward and complete the job. Let's make it permanent, and let's make it right.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure that is one cornerstone of a series of initiatives that are designed to help ensure that the fundamental needs of children in New Mexico and this country are met. This cornerstone, the Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 1999, is built on the belief that children must have access to quality, affordable health care. A child who is sick cannot go to school, cannot be expected to learn, and cannot be expected to grow and thrive. For New Mexico, this is a particularly compelling need because according to the Children's Defense Fund, no state has a greater percentage of uninsured children than New Mexico. Specifically, the bill is designed to increase access to dental services for our children. Some will say: ``Why care about a few cavities in kids?'' In reality, this is a complex children's health issue. Chronically poor oral health is associated with growth and development problems in toddlers and compromises children's nutritional status. These children suffer great pain and cannot play or learn. It is estimated that lack of treatment for these children results in missed school days: an estimated 52 million school hours annually. Their personal suffering is real. In reality, untreated dental problems get progressively worse and ultimately require more expensive interventions. Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment, or ``EPSDT,'' program requires states to not only pay for a comprehensive set of child health services, including dental services, but to assure delivery of those services. Unfortunately, low income children do not get the dental service they need. Despite the design of the Medicaid program to reach children and ensure access to routine dental care, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported in 1996 that only 18 percent of children eligible for Medicaid received even a single preventive dental service. The same report shows that no state provides preventive services to more than 50% of eligible children. Dentist participation is too low to assure access. We are falling short of our obligation to these children. In the past few months, I have had the opportunity to speak to many of New Mexico's rural health care providers and have learned that for New Mexico, the problem is of crisis proportions. Less than two percent of New Mexico's Medicaid dollars are used for children's oral health needs. My state alone projects a shortage of 157 dentists and 229 dental hygienists. Children in New Mexico and elsewhere are showing up in emergency rooms for treatment of tooth abscesses instead of getting their cavities filled early on or having dental decay prevented in the first place. Tooth decay remains the single most common chronic disease of childhood and according to the Children's Dental Health Project, it affects more than half of all children by second grade. Tooth decay in children six years old is five to eight times more common than asthma which is often cited as the most common chronic disease of childhood. National data confirm that pediatric oral health in the U.S. is backsliding. Healthy People 2000 goals for dental needs of children will not be met. As this chart shows: 52% of our 6 to 8 year olds have dental caries or cavities compared to 54% in 1986. Our goal was to decrease this to 35% by the year 2000; we have succeeded in a mere 2% change in this area. Additionally, we have slid backwards in some areas. The Healthy People 2000 oral health indicators show an increase in the percentage of children with untreated cavities. In 1986, 28% of our 6 to 8 year olds had untreated cavities compared to now when we find 31% of these children have untreated cavities. Tooth decay is increasingly a disease of low and modest income children. A substantial portion of decay in young children goes untreated. In fact, forty seven per cent of decay in children aged 2 through 9, is untreated. The Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 1999 is designed to attack the problem from many fronts. First, the bill addresses the issue of provider shortage by expanding opportunities for training pediatric dental health care providers. It allows for the Secretary to look at the reimbursement rates for dental providers as an incentive for dentists to participate in the Medicaid program so that we work toward increasing the actual care provided under the Medicaid program. Additionally, I have looked at the need for pediatric dental research to facilitate better approaches for care and it will put into place greater measures for surveillance of the problem. The bill would lead to increased accountability in the area of actual treatment once a problem is identified. Finally, I have included a section on health promotion and disease prevention to increase the number of children who have access to fluoridated water systems and dental sealants to prevent cavities. I recognize that this is an ambitious bill and that the issue of access to dental care for children covered by the Medicaid program is a complex one. I want to thank the various groups that have worked on the formulation of this legislation. In particular, I want to thank Drs. Burt Edelstein and Heber Simmons of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry for their hard work and excellent information. I also want to thank the American Association of Dental Schools, the American Dental Hygienist Association, the American Dental Association, the Hispanic Dental Association, the National Dental Association, and the American Association for Dental Research for their valuable input and I look forward to working with them all to ensure that we achieve increased access to oral health care for our children. I am committed to solving the problem of adequate access to dental care for our children and view this as a public health issue that has gone unnoticed for too long. I will welcome my colleagues to work with me to ensure that these children have healthy smiles instead of chronic pain from untreated problems. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 1999 printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure that is one cornerstone of a series of initiatives that are designed to help ensure that the fundamental needs of children in New Mexico and this country are met. This cornerstone, the Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 1999, is built on the belief that children must have access to quality, affordable health care. A child who is sick cannot go to school, cannot be expected to learn, and cannot be expected to grow and thrive. For New Mexico, this is a particularly compelling need because according to the Children's Defense Fund, no state has a greater percentage of uninsured children than New Mexico. Specifically, the bill is designed to increase access to dental services for our children. Some will say: ``Why care about a few cavities in kids?'' In reality, this is a complex children's health issue. Chronically poor oral health is associated with growth and development problems in toddlers and compromises children's nutritional status. These children suffer great pain and cannot play or learn. It is estimated that lack of treatment for these children results in missed school days: an estimated 52 million school hours annually. Their personal suffering is real. In reality, untreated dental problems get progressively worse and ultimately require more expensive interventions. Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment, or ``EPSDT,'' program requires states to not only pay for a comprehensive set of child health services, including dental services, but to assure delivery of those services. Unfortunately, low income children do not get the dental service they need. Despite the design of the Medicaid program to reach children and ensure access to routine dental care, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported in 1996 that only 18 percent of children eligible for Medicaid received even a single preventive dental service. The same report shows that no state provides preventive services to more than 50% of eligible children. Dentist participation is too low to assure access. We are falling short of our obligation to these children. In the past few months, I have had the opportunity to speak to many of New Mexico's rural health care providers and have learned that for New Mexico, the problem is of crisis proportions. Less than two percent of New Mexico's Medicaid dollars are used for children's oral health needs. My state alone projects a shortage of 157 dentists and 229 dental hygienists. Children in New Mexico and elsewhere are showing up in emergency rooms for treatment of tooth abscesses instead of getting their cavities filled early on or having dental decay prevented in the first place. Tooth decay remains the single most common chronic disease of childhood and according to the Children's Dental Health Project, it affects more than half of all children by second grade. Tooth decay in children six years old is five to eight times more common than asthma which is often cited as the most common chronic disease of childhood. National data confirm that pediatric oral health in the U.S. is backsliding. Healthy People 2000 goals for dental needs of children will not be met. As this chart shows: 52% of our 6 to 8 year olds have dental caries or cavities compared to 54% in 1986. Our goal was to decrease this to 35% by the year 2000; we have succeeded in a mere 2% change in this area. Additionally, we have slid backwards in some areas. The Healthy People 2000 oral health indicators show an increase in the percentage of children with untreated cavities. In 1986, 28% of our 6 to 8 year olds had untreated cavities compared to now when we find 31% of these children have untreated cavities. Tooth decay is increasingly a disease of low and modest income children. A substantial portion of decay in young children goes untreated. In fact, forty seven per cent of decay in children aged 2 through 9, is untreated. The Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 1999 is designed to attack the problem from many fronts. First, the bill addresses the issue of provider shortage by expanding opportunities for training pediatric dental health care providers. It allows for the Secretary to look at the reimbursement rates for dental providers as an incentive for dentists to participate in the Medicaid program so that we work toward increasing the actual care provided under the Medicaid program. Additionally, I have looked at the need for pediatric dental research to facilitate better approaches for care and it will put into place greater measures for surveillance of the problem. The bill would lead to increased accountability in the area of actual treatment once a problem is identified. Finally, I have included a section on health promotion and disease prevention to increase the number of children who have access to fluoridated water systems and dental sealants to prevent cavities. I recognize that this is an ambitious bill and that the issue of access to dental care for children covered by the Medicaid program is a complex one. I want to thank the various groups that have worked on the formulation of this legislation. In particular, I want to thank Drs. Burt Edelstein and Heber Simmons of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry for their hard work and excellent information. I also want to thank the American Association of Dental Schools, the American Dental Hygienist Association, the American Dental Association, the Hispanic Dental Association, the National Dental Association, and the American Association for Dental Research for their valuable input and I look forward to working with them all to ensure that we achieve increased access to oral health care for our children. I am committed to solving the problem of adequate access to dental care for our children and view this as a public health issue that has gone unnoticed for too long. I will welcome my colleagues to work with me to ensure that these children have healthy smiles instead of chronic pain from untreated problems. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 1999 printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to make a very short comment on two measures that comprise a basic cornerstone for the efforts that I made to ensure that the fundamental needs of children in my State of New Mexico and throughout the country are met. The basic idea here is that children have to have, if they are going to grow into full and honorable adulthood, access to quality, affordable health care. A child who is sick cannot go to school, and cannot be expected to learn in school, and cannot be expected to grow up and thrive and go on to be a productive citizen. In New Mexico, we have a particularly compelling case because the Children's Defense Fund, this last year, identified our State as having a higher number of uninsured children than any other State in the Union--uninsured for health care insurance. Consequently, I have two measures that try to address this need. The first deals with a problem that has sadly become an epidemic in New Mexico; it is the Youth Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. This is designed to increase access to drug prevention and treatment services for young people in the country. Second is the Children's Dental Health Improvement Act, which is designed to increase access to dental services for young people, particularly young people who are eligible to participate in Medicaid. Mr. President, I will be introducing both of those bills and I commend them to my colleagues. I hope they will also get a full hearing this Congress and that we can enact them into law and send them to the President as well. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this bill that I have sent to the desk is being introduced on behalf of myself and Senator Chafee. It is entitled ``The Earth Day Act.'' Its purpose is to designate April 22 as Earth Day. Today, of course, is April 22. Let me provide a little history for my colleagues or anyone listening. The first Earth Day was 29 years ago, in 1970, and I think we are all aware that Earth Day was first conceived by our former colleague, Senator Gaylord Nelson, who is universally considered the founder of Earth Day. He has written a short summary of what brought Earth Day about, how it came about. In it he points out that in a speech that he gave in Seattle in September of 1969, he announced that there would be a national environmental teach-in in the spring of 1970. And the wire services picked up that story. And the next thing he knew, there was a movement afoot to actually have that happen. That first Earth Day involved some 20 million Americans. Since then, the concept and the idea of Earth Day has focused the attention of the country, focused the attention of the world, in fact, on the importance of our environment and the importance of preserving and maintaining our environment. We have a great debt of gratitude we owe to former Senator Nelson for his leadership on this. We also owe a great debt of gratitude to the person that did the nuts and bolts work of organizing that first Earth Day, and that, of course is Denis Hayes. He is now president of the Seattle-based Bullitt Foundation, but he has been recognized recently by Time magazine as one of their heroes of the planet. I think his instrumental role, his essential role in bringing about that first Earth Day, making such a success of it, has been recognized by all. He is now, of course, trying to get in place the organization to make Earth Day 2000, which will occur exactly a year from today, an even greater celebration than we have known before. Mr. President, I firmly believe that it is appropriate that we officially designate April 22 as Earth Day and that we permanently designate it as Earth Day. It has come to be known as Earth Day--April 22--for all of us. There are celebrations and teach-ins, and recognitions going on throughout our country today. As we hear the news about Kosovo, which is bad, and the news about Littleton, Colorado, and the terrible tragedy there, which is bad, and many of the other news stories that bombard us, it is good to know that there is one news story that we can all celebrate and rally around, and that is that today, again, we will be able to celebrate Earth Day. Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that Senator Chafee and I can work in the next year to gain additional cosponsors and to obtain enactment of this, so that by the time Earth Day 2000 arrives, we will be able to have this in law, have it signed by the President. I am sure it will be supported by all of our colleagues. I think we all recognize the importance of this to many of the people we represent. I hope very much that the bill can be enacted.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this bill that I have sent to the desk is being introduced on behalf of myself and Senator Chafee. It is entitled ``The Earth Day Act.'' Its purpose is to designate April 22 as Earth Day. Today, of course, is April 22. Let me provide a little history for my colleagues or anyone listening. The first Earth Day was 29 years ago, in 1970, and I think we are all aware that Earth Day was first conceived by our former colleague, Senator Gaylord Nelson, who is universally considered the founder of Earth Day. He has written a short summary of what brought Earth Day about, how it came about. In it he points out that in a speech that he gave in Seattle in September of 1969, he announced that there would be a national environmental teach-in in the spring of 1970. And the wire services picked up that story. And the next thing he knew, there was a movement afoot to actually have that happen. That first Earth Day involved some 20 million Americans. Since then, the concept and the idea of Earth Day has focused the attention of the country, focused the attention of the world, in fact, on the importance of our environment and the importance of preserving and maintaining our environment. We have a great debt of gratitude we owe to former Senator Nelson for his leadership on this. We also owe a great debt of gratitude to the person that did the nuts and bolts work of organizing that first Earth Day, and that, of course is Denis Hayes. He is now president of the Seattle-based Bullitt Foundation, but he has been recognized recently by Time magazine as one of their heroes of the planet. I think his instrumental role, his essential role in bringing about that first Earth Day, making such a success of it, has been recognized by all. He is now, of course, trying to get in place the organization to make Earth Day 2000, which will occur exactly a year from today, an even greater celebration than we have known before. Mr. President, I firmly believe that it is appropriate that we officially designate April 22 as Earth Day and that we permanently designate it as Earth Day. It has come to be known as Earth Day--April 22--for all of us. There are celebrations and teach-ins, and recognitions going on throughout our country today. As we hear the news about Kosovo, which is bad, and the news about Littleton, Colorado, and the terrible tragedy there, which is bad, and many of the other news stories that bombard us, it is good to know that there is one news story that we can all celebrate and rally around, and that is that today, again, we will be able to celebrate Earth Day. Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that Senator Chafee and I can work in the next year to gain additional cosponsors and to obtain enactment of this, so that by the time Earth Day 2000 arrives, we will be able to have this in law, have it signed by the President. I am sure it will be supported by all of our colleagues. I think we all recognize the importance of this to many of the people we represent. I hope very much that the bill can be enacted.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I also thank my good friend from Vermont, the chairman of the committee that I serve on with him. I wanted to just take a few minutes to focus the attention of the Senate on this terrible tragedy that occurred yesterday in our schools. We all now know two students of Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, stormed into their school and began shooting at students and teachers, yesterday. The last that I heard, police believed that 16 people have been killed. Many of them were either just beginning their lunch or were studying in the library at the time they were assaulted. The details behind the violence are overwhelming, and the motivations leading to it are incomprehensible to all of us. But we are left wondering how this could happen in a suburban community like Littleton, CO. I know we all grieve with the parents of those students and the families of the faculty who were killed yesterday. Our Nation has witnessed five violent events in our schools during the past 17 months and we need to focus on that pattern of activity. Five communities have experienced this violence firsthand: In Paducah, KY, in December of 1997, December 1, 1997, a 14-year-old boy shot and killed three girls at Heath High School in Kentucky and the shooter wounded five others. On March 24, 1998, in Jonesboro, AR, two young boys hiding in the woods began shooting at their classmates and their teachers. At Edinboro, PA, on April 25 of 1998 another 14-year-old student of Parker Middle School shot and killed a teacher and two other boys were wounded. In Fayetteville, TN, less than a year ago, on March 19 of 1998, a senior at Lincoln County High School in Tennessee shot and killed a fellow student. And then in Springfield, OR, 2 days after the Tennessee incident, on May 21 of 1998, a 15-year-old student opened fire at Thurston High School in Oregon and killed two students and wounded 22 others. We should not wait for another incident to happen before we take some action here in the Congress. These tragedies are the reason that last year I introduced a bill entitled ``The Safe Schools Security Act.'' The bill passed the Senate unanimously, I believe. Unfortunately, it was dropped in the conference. This year, a little over a month ago, on March 17, I again introduced the Safe Schools Security Act. In my view, we need to move ahead with that legislation. We have waited too long. Yesterday the importance of this bill was made more evident by what we observed in Colorado. Recent studies show that our children fear they will be the victims of crime in school. Mr. President, 29 percent of our elementary schoolchildren fear that, 34 percent of our junior high, and 20 percent of our high school students fear they will be a victim of a crime while at school, according to a recent poll. The schoolyard fight which I was familiar with when I was growing up is no longer the worst fear that students have. Mr. President, 75 percent of children ages 7 through 10 say they do worry about being shot or stabbed, and 13 percent of high school seniors report being threatened by a weapon between 1995 and 1996. In 1997, a high school in my home State, Belen High School in Belen, NM, decided to improve school security. They did so in an effort to protect their students and their teachers and the school property. Belen partnered with Sandia National Laboratories, one of our Department of Energy Labs in Albuquerque, to try to accomplish this security upgrade. The results have been impressive. After 2 years, Belen High School experienced a 75-percent reduction in school violence, a 30-percent reduction in truancy, an 80-percent reduction in vehicle break-ins in the school parking lot, and a 75-percent reduction in vandalism. Most noteworthy, Belen realized a 100-percent reduction in the presence of unauthorized people on school grounds. This is an issue in more and more of our schools today. They implemented several security measures, including placing security officers on permanent patrol on the campus, fencing the property, and restricting access to a single entrance where students and visitors could be monitored. They installed cameras in the parking lots to monitor vehicles and student activities. Through cooperation with the local police, the high school in Belen secured a police officer to work with the campus security officers and to patrol the school grounds after school to prevent unauthorized access. This Safe Schools Security Act, which I have introduced again this year, S. 638, will also establish a security technology center that Sandia would operate to provide security assessments of middle schools and high schools, and to offer advice to schools about the security measures that are needed to be implemented and improved. The act would provide money and grants to local schools so they could purchase the appropriate technology and hire the necessary personnel to beef up security. Obviously, improving school security will not guarantee that violence ceases in our schools. It is a start. By restricting access, we can reduce unauthorized persons coming onto school grounds. By installing cameras on some of our school campuses, schools can be forewarned of problems in certain areas of the campus, and law enforcement can utilize those cameras in situations like the hostage situation that occurred yesterday in Colorado. By planning the construction of schools with security in mind, we can begin to minimize the risks of violence occurring in our schools. Teachers and administrators need to identify their schools' security weaknesses. The personnel who have been working on this issue at Sandia Labs, with Federal money I should point out, have developed some expertise that can be helpful to some of our schools in this regard. Because of yesterday's tragedy, parents, teachers, and community leaders are asking, what can be done to protect our schools, and all of us in America are debating what can be done. This bill cannot ensure that our children will be safe in school, but it will provide schools with a course of action to follow and with some resources to begin addressing this problem in a meaningful way. We all know that most schools do not have the financial resources to purchase security technology, and high schools and middle schools often lack the technical expertise to know what kind of technology will best serve their school. This bill could help to provide that expertise and help to give good advice, expert advice to schools on appropriate technology and on appropriate actions that could be taken to make our schools more secure. Mr. President, with this terrible tragedy still very much in front of us, I urge that we consider the proposals that I have set forth in this bill. I urge that we think about what action we can take to lessen the likelihood of these types of incidents in the future. Obviously, our children are our most important resource in this country, and I believe some additional effort in this regard would be well advised and strongly supported by all my colleagues. I hope we can move ahead on this bill. I appreciate very much the chance to speak on it today. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'm very pleased to be joined by Senators from both sides of the aisle in offering this amendment regarding the Defense Science and Technology program. Senators DeWine, Kennedy, Hutchison, Graham, Santorum, Schumer, Chafee, Moynihan, and Lieberman are all cosponsors, and I thank them for their valuable support. This sense of the Senate amendment reemphasizes Congressional support for modest but needed increases in the Defense Science and Technology program budget. It reinforces that the Senate, honoring its responsibility for maintaining the long-term strength of our national defense, intends to see that the DoD places a greater priority on this high payoff investment in our national security. A little background is in order. Technological superiority, coupled with outstanding training, remains a keystone of our military strategy and might. Undergirding that superiority has been the patient, long- term investment we have made in the Defense Science and Technology program--often known around here as ``S&T'' or ``6.1, 6.2, and 6.3'' funding. That investment gave us things like stealth and the advanced information systems that allowed us to totally dominate the battlespace during Desert Storm. It's sometimes said that the S&T of the 60's and 70's was used to fight and win the Gulf War of the 90's, at a relatively low cost of American lives. And, it's worth remembering that each time you use the Internet, you're using the results of Defense S&T. Yet, despite the widely acknowledged and proven value of Defense S&T, despite the fact that new technology will help us counter the new threats we see emerging, despite the fact that overall Defense spending will significantly increase, the DoD plans to cut and continue cutting S&T. The fiscal 1999 S&T funding is $7.8 billion, whereas the budget request for fiscal 2000 is $7.4 billion, down around 15% in real terms since 1995. Moreover, that request includes the lowest level of S&T by the military services in 22 years. Worse yet, S&T is slated to decline to around $7 billion in constant dollars in the outyears--$1 billion less than the level recommended just last summer by the independent Defense Science Board. To my mind, that is just not consistent with maintaining the long term technological edge of our military. Now, both Houses of Congress have recognized this problem. Last year, we included in the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act a sense of the Congress provision, Section 214, calling on the Secretary of Defense to increase the S&T budget request by at least 2% a year over inflation during fiscal 2000 through 2008. That provision was designed to be a flexible way of urging the DoD to place a higher priority on S&T. It contemplated they would plan sensible, gradual increases in S&T, which would reach the Defense Science Board target in real terms by fiscal 2005 or so. Unfortunately, the DoD may be falling into a classic trap that can catch the best of managers, that of focusing so hard on the short term problems that they shortchange the future. This year's plans continue to show declines for S&T in the outyears, and are largely unchanged from last year's plans. That's where we come in. The Senate is perhaps uniquely suited to take the long term view, to look after those things that require patience, yet lie at the very foundation of our national security--like Defense S&T. We have the luxury of not being subject to the day to day pressures of DoD managers, but we have the responsibility to make sure they don't shortchange the future. Hence, this amendment says that within the budgetary levels for National Defense, function 050, we assume the DoD will increase the S&T budget as called for in last year's Defense authorization act. This assumption, in turn, signals that we continue to be very serious about our long term investment in S&T, and will not just let the issue slide. Over time, I believe the DoD will hear our message and begin placing a higher priority on S&T and fix this problem. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join the ten of us and support this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to state that today marks the first anniversary since the tragic school shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas. We all remember hearing about the gun shots fired by two young boys hiding in the woods--shots that led to the tragic death of four of their classmates and a Jonesboro teacher. March 24th will forever be ingrained in our memories as the day our children's safety at school was threatened in a way we could hardly imagine. One of the bills I introduced recently was aimed at keeping our kids in school. But solving the truancy problem is only one of the issues we must work together to tackle. Not only do we need to keep our kids in school, we need to keep our kids in school safe! The Safe School Security Act I introduced last week is intended to do just that. Children should not have to fear for their safety while attending our public schools. At a time when violent crime in the nation is decreasing, ten percent of our public schools reported at least one serious violent crime during the 1996-97 school year. Because of this level of violence, 29 percent of elementary, 34 percent of junior high and 20 percent of high school students fear that they will be a victim of crime while at school. The school yard fist fight is no longer a child's worst fear: 71 percent of children ages 7 to 10 say they worry about being shot or stabbed. In fact, 13.2% of high school seniors reported being threatened by a weapon between 1995 and 1996. We all know that a violent environment is not a good learning environment. Educators and law enforcement know that technology is the key to preventing and reducing crime in our schools. Most of us understand the importance of protecting our assets, yet we have neglected to protect our biggest investment of all: our school children. The Safe School Security Act would establish the School Security Technology Center at Sandia National Laboratory and provide grant money for local school districts to access the technology developed and tested by the lab. Because Sandia is one of our nation's premier labs when it comes to providing physical security for our nation's most important assets, it is fitting that Sandia would be chosen to provide security to our school districts throughout our nation. Increased school security not only reduces violent crime, it reduces truancy and property crime. The latest technology was recently tested in a pilot project involving Sandia Labs and Belen High School in Belen, New Mexico and the results were astounding. After two years, Belen High School experienced a 75 percent reduction in school violence, a 30 percent reduction in truancy, an 80 percent reduction in vehicle break-ins and a 75 percent reduction in vandalism. More important, Belen realized a 100% reduction in the presence of unauthorized people on the school grounds. Also, Belen saw insurance claims due to theft or vandalism at the high school drop from $50,000 to $5,000 after the pilot project went into effect. Clearly, the cost of making our schools safer and more secure is a good investment for our nation. The School Security Technology Center will partner with the Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center in Georgia to facilitate the transfer of available security technology to schools that could benefit the most from such technology. The School Security Technology Center will also provide security assessments for schools so they do not spend limited school resources on security tools that do not work. This bill will authorize $10,000,000 for schools to access the technical assistance from Sandia and to purchase security tools that fit their needs. This one year anniversary of the horrible tragedy in Jonesboro should make it clear to everyone that it is time to focus on making our kids feel safe in school and ultimately putting kids first.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the amendment that Senator Stevens just referred to. Senator Murkowski's amendment related to Glacier Bay. Senator Murkowski's amendment would prohibit the Secretary of Interior from expending any funds to implement closures or other restrictions of subsistence or commercial fishing or subsistence gathering within Glacier Bay National Park. This prohibition would continue under the language of the amendment. The prohibition would continue until the State of Alaska's claim to jurisdiction over ownership of the submerged lands in Glacier Bay were resolved, either by a final determination by the judiciary or by a settlement between the parties. The amendment, as I understand it, would undo a compromise that Senator Stevens entered into last year with Secretary Babbitt. Certainly it was understood by the Secretary of Interior as a compromise on last year's appropriation bill. In addition, Senator Stevens has already included an amendment earlier this week in the supplemental appropriation bill which provides additional money to buy out commercial crabbing operations in Glacier Bay. The issue of regulating commercial fishing in Glacier Bay is an extremely contentious issue. There were attempts in the last Congress to include an appropriations amendment that would have prohibited the Park Service from enforcing restrictions on commercial fishing in Glacier Bay National Park. The amendment was strongly opposed by the administration. The Secretary of Interior indicated that he would recommend the President veto the bill if the amendment was included. I have been informed that the Secretary of Interior will, if this amendment is included in the final version of this bill going to him, again recommend a veto. The provision that was finally agreed upon last year between Secretary Babbitt and the Senator from Alaska, I understood, resolved the issue and provided the Park Service and commercial fishing operators with certainty as to future fishing operations in the park. If this current amendment is adopted, that certainty, of course, will be disrupted. The amendment that is being offered this year would make major policy changes in the management of Glacier Bay. These changes should not be considered as part of this emergency spending bill. As I am sure we all know, Senator Murkowski is chairman of the appropriate committee to consider this legislation. I serve as the ranking member of that committee. What we should do is consider this matter in a hearing before that committee before bringing it to the Senate floor. The amendment states that no funds may be expended by the Secretary to implement closures or other restrictions of subsistence or commercial fishing or subsistence gathering in Glacier Bay National Park. This would mean that the Park Service would be completely unable to regulate commercial fishing operations within the park. The amendment would appear to override wildlife and resource protections required by other laws, including the Endangered Species Act. For example, fishing is currently prohibited for four fish species which provide critical food resources for the endangered humpback whale. No other park in the country is prohibited from protecting its resources as this amendment would prohibit this park from protecting its resources. The amendment states that the funding and enforcement prohibition is to remain in effect until the claim of jurisdiction of the State of Alaska claim ``has been resolved either by a final determination of the judiciary or by settlement.'' Last week, the State of Alaska filed a notice of intent to file a lawsuit, but it should be clear to all here, everyone should understand that there has not been a suit filed yet. The amendment that has been offered would prohibit the Park Service from taking any actions to protect any of its resources from commercial or subsistence fishing or from subsistence gathering for the entire time period that this future lawsuit might be litigated. Senator Murkowski is claiming that the amendment simply allows local Native communities to gather seagull eggs from the park. However, unlike some other parks in Alaska, subsistence is not an authorized use in this park. If these types of fundamental changes to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act are required, then it should be considered in the normal legislative process. This is not simply a Native issue. The amendment would allow all Alaskans to collect plant and wildlife resources in the park and with the Park Service unable to regulate any of these activities. In short, Mr. President, this amendment makes far-reaching policy changes in the law that applies to this particular national park. It is contrary to the policy that applies in all other national parks. It is contrary to the action we took last year, and it is one which I am constrained to oppose. I hope the Senate will not adopt this amendment as part of the bill. If it is adopted, I am advised that the Secretary of the Interior will urge the President to veto the bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 1999 on behalf of myself, my friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, and a bipartisan group of additional Senators. This bipartisan measure provides for coverage under Part B of the Medicare program for medical nutrition therapy services by a registered dietician. Medical nutrition therapy is generally defined as the assessment of patient nutritional status followed by therapy, ranging from diet modification to administration of specialized nutrition therapies such as intravenous or tube feedings. It has proven to be a medically necessary and cost-effective way of treating and controlling many disease entities such as diabetes, renal disease, cardiovascular disease and severe burns. Currently there is no consistent Part B coverage policy for medical nutrition and this legislation will bring needed uniformity to the delivery of this important care, as well as save taxpayer money. Coverage for medical nutrition therapy can save money by reducing hospital admissions, shortening hospital stays, decreasing the number of complications, and reducing the need for physician follow-up visits. The treatment of patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease accounts for a full 60% of Medicare expenditures. I want to use diabetes as an example for the need for this legislation. There are very few families who are not touched by diabetes. The burden of diabetes is disproportionately high among ethnic minorities in the United States. According to the American Journal of Epidemiology, mortality due to diabetes is higher nationwide among blacks than whites. It is higher among American Indians than among any other ethnic group. In my state of New Mexico, Native Americans are experiencing an epidemic of Type II diabetes. Medical nutrition therapy is integral to their diabetes care. In fact, information from the Indian Health Service shows that medical nutrition therapy provided by professional dieticians results in significant improvements in medical outcomes in people with Type II diabetes. For example, complications of diabetes such as end stage renal failure that leads to dialysis can be prevented with adequate intervention. Currently, the number of dialysis patients in the Navajo population is doubling every five years. Mr, President, we must place our dollars in the effective, preventive treatment of medical nutrition therapy rather than face the grim reality of having to continue to build new dialysis units. Ensuring the solvency of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund is one of our most difficult challenges and one that calls for creative, effective solutions. Coverage for medical nutrition therapy is one important way to help address that challenge. It is exactly the type of cost effective care we should encourage. It will satisfy two of our most important priorities in Medicare: providing program savings while maintaining a high level of quality care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 1999 on behalf of myself, my friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, and a bipartisan group of additional Senators. This bipartisan measure provides for coverage under Part B of the Medicare program for medical nutrition therapy services by a registered dietician. Medical nutrition therapy is generally defined as the assessment of patient nutritional status followed by therapy, ranging from diet modification to administration of specialized nutrition therapies such as intravenous or tube feedings. It has proven to be a medically necessary and cost-effective way of treating and controlling many disease entities such as diabetes, renal disease, cardiovascular disease and severe burns. Currently there is no consistent Part B coverage policy for medical nutrition and this legislation will bring needed uniformity to the delivery of this important care, as well as save taxpayer money. Coverage for medical nutrition therapy can save money by reducing hospital admissions, shortening hospital stays, decreasing the number of complications, and reducing the need for physician follow-up visits. The treatment of patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease accounts for a full 60% of Medicare expenditures. I want to use diabetes as an example for the need for this legislation. There are very few families who are not touched by diabetes. The burden of diabetes is disproportionately high among ethnic minorities in the United States. According to the American Journal of Epidemiology, mortality due to diabetes is higher nationwide among blacks than whites. It is higher among American Indians than among any other ethnic group. In my state of New Mexico, Native Americans are experiencing an epidemic of Type II diabetes. Medical nutrition therapy is integral to their diabetes care. In fact, information from the Indian Health Service shows that medical nutrition therapy provided by professional dieticians results in significant improvements in medical outcomes in people with Type II diabetes. For example, complications of diabetes such as end stage renal failure that leads to dialysis can be prevented with adequate intervention. Currently, the number of dialysis patients in the Navajo population is doubling every five years. Mr, President, we must place our dollars in the effective, preventive treatment of medical nutrition therapy rather than face the grim reality of having to continue to build new dialysis units. Ensuring the solvency of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund is one of our most difficult challenges and one that calls for creative, effective solutions. Coverage for medical nutrition therapy is one important way to help address that challenge. It is exactly the type of cost effective care we should encourage. It will satisfy two of our most important priorities in Medicare: providing program savings while maintaining a high level of quality care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three measures that are linked together by a common theme--the desire to create a safer environment for young people to grow up in. Two of these bills are designed to help communities better combat juvenile crime and the related problem of truancy. The third proposal will help better protect students from violence in the school building through the use of technology. It's clear that in order to create a safer environment for young people, we must not only reduce the number of children who commit crimes, but also the number of children who are victims of crime. Before I outline these specific bills, I'd like to put them in a larger context. Mr. President, I'd like to spend just a minute discussing the broader question of what children need--in addition to safe surroundings--in order to grow into healthy, productive adults. Let me start by describing my own childhood. I grew up in a small mining town in southwestern New Mexico called Silver City. Both my parents were teachers, so naturally a top concern was that I got a solid education. Fortunately, the local schools were good, and when I graduated with my classmates from what is now Silver High, we felt we could compete with just about any other student in the country. Silver City was also relatively safe. People tended to know their neighbors and while no town is completely crime-free, we felt secure in our homes, around town, and in school. Finally, Silver City was by no means a wealthy town. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who grew up optimistic that a person could work hard, achieve a decent standard of living, and support their family without fear that one turn of bad luck would put them out on the streets. In short, Mr. President, Silver City was a pretty good place to grow up. In fact, we used to feel sorry for people in neighboring states where the quality of life was not so good. Even today, New Mexico is blessed with rich cultural diversity, tremendous natural beauty, strong families and a sense of tradition. All of these things make New Mexico a wonderful place to live. Each time I go home I'm astonished at the number of new people who are moving there, no doubt for some of these very reasons. And yet, Mr. President, some things seem to have changed since I was a kid in New Mexico. I seem to hear more and more frequently from parents who tell me how hard it is to raise a child in a state where crime and unemployment rates are high, yet family income and school graduation rates are low. Where alcohol and drug abuse are widespread, but health insurance and treatment options are scarce. Those of us from New Mexico know that a Washington-based study ranking our state as the worst place to raise children can not be taken at face-value. And yet, there is a troubling reality we must face. In many ways, our state is failing to provide what is needed to ensure all of our young people have the necessary foundation to grow into healthy, productive adults. In several key respects, New Mexico has fallen behind the other states we used to feel sorry for. So, Mr. President, as we stand on the brink of a new century, I rise today to urge that we recommit ourselves--as elected officials, as community leaders, as parents, and as citizens-- to better meeting the needs of people growing up in our state and to setting higher goals for New Mexico's future. I began by saying that a child needs to grow up safe from harm. That means safe from family violence, safe from gang warfare, and safe in school. But a child has other needs that must be met as well. I'd like to mention three other areas that I believe are cornerstones to strong foundation for any child. The first of these is economic security. If a child is living in poverty, or on the edge of poverty, it is very difficult for anything else to fall into place. A child should grow up in a family whose economic circumstances are stable. This stability comes first and foremost from parents with decent job opportunities. It also comes from a family's ability to successfully juggle numerous economic demands--and to adapt to change, the only certainty in today's global economy. Our efforts in this area should center on creating more high-wage jobs and on giving families the tools to manage the unpredictable forces that can throw them into financial turmoil. The second cornerstone is education. In America, a quality public education has long been the great leveler between the haves and the have-nots. Children need access to a quality education that will give them the skills to achieve a good standard of living. A quality education system is one characterized by accountability and flexibility. Accountability means that clear goals are set for things like student achievement and teacher quality, information is readily available on student progress toward these goals, and schools are held accountable for this progress. Flexibility means that schools have the resources and the ability to adapt to meet the needs of students-- particularly students at risk of dropping out. Third, children must have access to affordable, quality health care. A child who is sick cannot go to school--cannot be expected to learn. And yet according to the Children's Defense Fund, no state has a greater percentage of uninsured children than New Mexico. We have to ensure that this health care is not only promised, but delivered--and that it is just as available to rural areas as it is to urban ones. In the coming weeks, I intend to introduce legislation and pursue strategies in each of these remaining three areas--that I hope will begin to help parents provide a strong foundation for their children. All of us who grew up in New Mexico have fond memories of those days, and we want to assure that feeling for future generations of New Mexicans so that they can grow up, raise their families, and build a future in our state. Mr. President, I'd now like to describe the three bills I am introducing today. While adult crime rates are declining in many areas, the juvenile crime rate continues to rise--especially drug-related crime. But there is some hope, and there are good solutions out there. Not too long ago, I heard about the success the City of Boston had in getting control of their serious juvenile crime problem. In 1992, Boston had 152 homicides--a horrendous statistic. Realizing the community had to come together to work on a common solution, the City of Boston developed and implemented a collaborative strategy to address their crime problem. Boston's strategy was very successful, and between 1995 and 1997, their homicide rate dropped significantly. Most notably, they went two years without a single juvenile homicide. Boston got law enforcement, community organizations, health providers, prosecutors, and even religious leaders working together to tackle different aspects of juvenile crime. The Boston strategy worked because it got people from different organizations working together on a specific set of goals--like taking guns away from felons, using probation officers to help identify and apprehend probation violators, and providing alternatives to children to keep them from getting into trouble in the first place. Boston recognized that juvenile crime affects the entire community, and a community that pulls together to address it will have a better chance of success. The legislation I am introducing today, called the Safer Communities Partnership Act, is patterned after a bill authored by Senator Kennedy. It provides funding for communities that want to implement this ``Boston'' strategy. And because there is no one-size-fits-all approach that works for every community, this bill provides the flexibility to integrate this strategy into the crime-fighting efforts already occurring at the local level. The next two proposals have two goals: (1) to keep kids in school, and (2) to keep kids in school safe. Although truancy is often the first sign of trouble in the life of a young person, this problem has long been overlooked. Truancy not only indicates a young person's disinterest in school, it often indicates that a young person is headed for a life of crime, drugs and other serious problems. It is clear that truancy and crime go hand-in-hand--44 percent of violent juvenile crime takes place during school hours and 57 percent of violent crimes committed by juveniles occur on school days. Most of these crimes take place at a time when we expect young people to be in school. In most cases, parents are not aware that their children are truant. We all have to do a better job of notifying parents when kids skip school. In fact, most studies indicate that when parents, educators, law enforcement and community leaders all work together to prevent truancy at an early stage, school attendance increases and daytime crime decreases. The Truancy Prevention and Juvenile Crime Reduction Act I am introducing today authorizes $25 million per year for local partnerships to address truancy. The funds can be used for a variety of purposes. They can be used to create penalties for truants and parents when truancy becomes a chronic problem. They can be used by schools to acquire the technology needed to automatically notify parents when their children are absent without an excuse. Not only do we need to keep our young people in school, we need to keep our students in school safe! Most of us understand the importance of protecting our assets, yet we have neglected to protect our biggest investment of all: our school children. The third and final bill I am introducing today is intended to do just that. We all remember the horrible tragedies that struck Jonesboro, Arkansas, Paducah, Kentucky, and other communities within the last year. At a time when violent crime in the nation is decreasing, one in ten public schools reported at least one serious violent crime during the 1996-97 school year. The school yard fist fight is no longer a child's worst fear: 71 percent of children ages 7 to 10 say they worry about being shot or stabbed. A violent environment is not a good learning environment. Educators and law enforcement know that one way to prevent crime in our schools is through the use of technology. The Safe School Security Act would establish the School Security Technology Center at Sandia National Laboratories and provide grant money for local school districts to access the technology. Because Sandia is one of our nation's premier labs when it comes to providing physical security for our nation's most important assets, it is fitting that they would be chosen to provide security to school districts throughout our nation. The latest technology was recently tested in a pilot project involving Sandia Labs and Belen High School in Belen, New Mexico and the results were astounding. After two years, Belen High School reported a 75 percent reduction in school violence, a 30 percent reduction in truancy, an 80 percent reduction in vehicle break-ins and a 75 percent reduction in vandalism. Moreover, insurance claims due to theft or vandalism at Belen High School dropped from $50,000 to $5,000 after the pilot project went into effect. Clearly, the cost of making our schools safer and more secure is a good investment for our nation. Mr. President, these three bills represent only a small fraction of what should be done to ensure that children grow up safe. There is much more I hope we can do this year. For instance, no discussion of the safety of children would be complete without acknowledging the problem of drug and alcohol abuse, which is not only a problem for many young people, but is often a source of family violence committed by addicted parents. In recent weeks, we have seen the community of Espanola in northern New Mexico begin to come to terms with a very serious heroin problem. In other parts of the state, federal, state and local officials are combating an increase in production and trafficking of methamphetamines, or meth. And of course, the problem of alcohol abuse continues to plague communities big and small, urban and rural. All of these problems must be approached on two fronts--from the law enforcement side, and from the treatment side. Last year we obtained an increase of over one million dollars for New Mexico-based efforts to stop the drug trade along the Mexican border, and I recently joined in introducing a measure that will help local law enforcement crack down on the production and distribution of methamphetamines. On the treatment side, Congress this year will update the budget for all federally-funded drug and alcohol treatment programs through the reauthorization of SAMHSA. I have already secured a commitment from the head of this agency to travel to northern New Mexico, and I plan to play a leading role in ensuring adequate funding for treatment facilities in underserved areas like our state. Mr. President, in closing I'd like to say that I am not the only person interested in working to make New Mexico a better place to grow up. There are valiant efforts underway all across the state, and I commend those who are striving to make a difference. But this is not something that can occur overnight. This is a long term effort that requires cooperation between all levels of government, community leaders, average citizens, and of course, parents. As we prepare to close the book on the 20th century, I'd like to suggest a new horizon for our state that will give us the time to make the progress we all want to make. We are a little more than 12 years away from New Mexico's 100th anniversary as a state of these United States. This anniversary will occur on January 6, 2012. I say we set our sights beyond the turn of the century and focus on that year--2012. Then we can set high goals for New Mexico and the future of our children, knowing we have 12 more years to do all we can to meet them. New Mexico can still be a great place to grow up, if we all work together toward that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three measures that are linked together by a common theme--the desire to create a safer environment for young people to grow up in. Two of these bills are designed to help communities better combat juvenile crime and the related problem of truancy. The third proposal will help better protect students from violence in the school building through the use of technology. It's clear that in order to create a safer environment for young people, we must not only reduce the number of children who commit crimes, but also the number of children who are victims of crime. Before I outline these specific bills, I'd like to put them in a larger context. Mr. President, I'd like to spend just a minute discussing the broader question of what children need--in addition to safe surroundings--in order to grow into healthy, productive adults. Let me start by describing my own childhood. I grew up in a small mining town in southwestern New Mexico called Silver City. Both my parents were teachers, so naturally a top concern was that I got a solid education. Fortunately, the local schools were good, and when I graduated with my classmates from what is now Silver High, we felt we could compete with just about any other student in the country. Silver City was also relatively safe. People tended to know their neighbors and while no town is completely crime-free, we felt secure in our homes, around town, and in school. Finally, Silver City was by no means a wealthy town. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who grew up optimistic that a person could work hard, achieve a decent standard of living, and support their family without fear that one turn of bad luck would put them out on the streets. In short, Mr. President, Silver City was a pretty good place to grow up. In fact, we used to feel sorry for people in neighboring states where the quality of life was not so good. Even today, New Mexico is blessed with rich cultural diversity, tremendous natural beauty, strong families and a sense of tradition. All of these things make New Mexico a wonderful place to live. Each time I go home I'm astonished at the number of new people who are moving there, no doubt for some of these very reasons. And yet, Mr. President, some things seem to have changed since I was a kid in New Mexico. I seem to hear more and more frequently from parents who tell me how hard it is to raise a child in a state where crime and unemployment rates are high, yet family income and school graduation rates are low. Where alcohol and drug abuse are widespread, but health insurance and treatment options are scarce. Those of us from New Mexico know that a Washington-based study ranking our state as the worst place to raise children can not be taken at face-value. And yet, there is a troubling reality we must face. In many ways, our state is failing to provide what is needed to ensure all of our young people have the necessary foundation to grow into healthy, productive adults. In several key respects, New Mexico has fallen behind the other states we used to feel sorry for. So, Mr. President, as we stand on the brink of a new century, I rise today to urge that we recommit ourselves--as elected officials, as community leaders, as parents, and as citizens-- to better meeting the needs of people growing up in our state and to setting higher goals for New Mexico's future. I began by saying that a child needs to grow up safe from harm. That means safe from family violence, safe from gang warfare, and safe in school. But a child has other needs that must be met as well. I'd like to mention three other areas that I believe are cornerstones to strong foundation for any child. The first of these is economic security. If a child is living in poverty, or on the edge of poverty, it is very difficult for anything else to fall into place. A child should grow up in a family whose economic circumstances are stable. This stability comes first and foremost from parents with decent job opportunities. It also comes from a family's ability to successfully juggle numerous economic demands--and to adapt to change, the only certainty in today's global economy. Our efforts in this area should center on creating more high-wage jobs and on giving families the tools to manage the unpredictable forces that can throw them into financial turmoil. The second cornerstone is education. In America, a quality public education has long been the great leveler between the haves and the have-nots. Children need access to a quality education that will give them the skills to achieve a good standard of living. A quality education system is one characterized by accountability and flexibility. Accountability means that clear goals are set for things like student achievement and teacher quality, information is readily available on student progress toward these goals, and schools are held accountable for this progress. Flexibility means that schools have the resources and the ability to adapt to meet the needs of students-- particularly students at risk of dropping out. Third, children must have access to affordable, quality health care. A child who is sick cannot go to school--cannot be expected to learn. And yet according to the Children's Defense Fund, no state has a greater percentage of uninsured children than New Mexico. We have to ensure that this health care is not only promised, but delivered--and that it is just as available to rural areas as it is to urban ones. In the coming weeks, I intend to introduce legislation and pursue strategies in each of these remaining three areas--that I hope will begin to help parents provide a strong foundation for their children. All of us who grew up in New Mexico have fond memories of those days, and we want to assure that feeling for future generations of New Mexicans so that they can grow up, raise their families, and build a future in our state. Mr. President, I'd now like to describe the three bills I am introducing today. While adult crime rates are declining in many areas, the juvenile crime rate continues to rise--especially drug-related crime. But there is some hope, and there are good solutions out there. Not too long ago, I heard about the success the City of Boston had in getting control of their serious juvenile crime problem. In 1992, Boston had 152 homicides--a horrendous statistic. Realizing the community had to come together to work on a common solution, the City of Boston developed and implemented a collaborative strategy to address their crime problem. Boston's strategy was very successful, and between 1995 and 1997, their homicide rate dropped significantly. Most notably, they went two years without a single juvenile homicide. Boston got law enforcement, community organizations, health providers, prosecutors, and even religious leaders working together to tackle different aspects of juvenile crime. The Boston strategy worked because it got people from different organizations working together on a specific set of goals--like taking guns away from felons, using probation officers to help identify and apprehend probation violators, and providing alternatives to children to keep them from getting into trouble in the first place. Boston recognized that juvenile crime affects the entire community, and a community that pulls together to address it will have a better chance of success. The legislation I am introducing today, called the Safer Communities Partnership Act, is patterned after a bill authored by Senator Kennedy. It provides funding for communities that want to implement this ``Boston'' strategy. And because there is no one-size-fits-all approach that works for every community, this bill provides the flexibility to integrate this strategy into the crime-fighting efforts already occurring at the local level. The next two proposals have two goals: (1) to keep kids in school, and (2) to keep kids in school safe. Although truancy is often the first sign of trouble in the life of a young person, this problem has long been overlooked. Truancy not only indicates a young person's disinterest in school, it often indicates that a young person is headed for a life of crime, drugs and other serious problems. It is clear that truancy and crime go hand-in-hand--44 percent of violent juvenile crime takes place during school hours and 57 percent of violent crimes committed by juveniles occur on school days. Most of these crimes take place at a time when we expect young people to be in school. In most cases, parents are not aware that their children are truant. We all have to do a better job of notifying parents when kids skip school. In fact, most studies indicate that when parents, educators, law enforcement and community leaders all work together to prevent truancy at an early stage, school attendance increases and daytime crime decreases. The Truancy Prevention and Juvenile Crime Reduction Act I am introducing today authorizes $25 million per year for local partnerships to address truancy. The funds can be used for a variety of purposes. They can be used to create penalties for truants and parents when truancy becomes a chronic problem. They can be used by schools to acquire the technology needed to automatically notify parents when their children are absent without an excuse. Not only do we need to keep our young people in school, we need to keep our students in school safe! Most of us understand the importance of protecting our assets, yet we have neglected to protect our biggest investment of all: our school children. The third and final bill I am introducing today is intended to do just that. We all remember the horrible tragedies that struck Jonesboro, Arkansas, Paducah, Kentucky, and other communities within the last year. At a time when violent crime in the nation is decreasing, one in ten public schools reported at least one serious violent crime during the 1996-97 school year. The school yard fist fight is no longer a child's worst fear: 71 percent of children ages 7 to 10 say they worry about being shot or stabbed. A violent environment is not a good learning environment. Educators and law enforcement know that one way to prevent crime in our schools is through the use of technology. The Safe School Security Act would establish the School Security Technology Center at Sandia National Laboratories and provide grant money for local school districts to access the technology. Because Sandia is one of our nation's premier labs when it comes to providing physical security for our nation's most important assets, it is fitting that they would be chosen to provide security to school districts throughout our nation. The latest technology was recently tested in a pilot project involving Sandia Labs and Belen High School in Belen, New Mexico and the results were astounding. After two years, Belen High School reported a 75 percent reduction in school violence, a 30 percent reduction in truancy, an 80 percent reduction in vehicle break-ins and a 75 percent reduction in vandalism. Moreover, insurance claims due to theft or vandalism at Belen High School dropped from $50,000 to $5,000 after the pilot project went into effect. Clearly, the cost of making our schools safer and more secure is a good investment for our nation. Mr. President, these three bills represent only a small fraction of what should be done to ensure that children grow up safe. There is much more I hope we can do this year. For instance, no discussion of the safety of children would be complete without acknowledging the problem of drug and alcohol abuse, which is not only a problem for many young people, but is often a source of family violence committed by addicted parents. In recent weeks, we have seen the community of Espanola in northern New Mexico begin to come to terms with a very serious heroin problem. In other parts of the state, federal, state and local officials are combating an increase in production and trafficking of methamphetamines, or meth. And of course, the problem of alcohol abuse continues to plague communities big and small, urban and rural. All of these problems must be approached on two fronts--from the law enforcement side, and from the treatment side. Last year we obtained an increase of over one million dollars for New Mexico-based efforts to stop the drug trade along the Mexican border, and I recently joined in introducing a measure that will help local law enforcement crack down on the production and distribution of methamphetamines. On the treatment side, Congress this year will update the budget for all federally-funded drug and alcohol treatment programs through the reauthorization of SAMHSA. I have already secured a commitment from the head of this agency to travel to northern New Mexico, and I plan to play a leading role in ensuring adequate funding for treatment facilities in underserved areas like our state. Mr. President, in closing I'd like to say that I am not the only person interested in working to make New Mexico a better place to grow up. There are valiant efforts underway all across the state, and I commend those who are striving to make a difference. But this is not something that can occur overnight. This is a long term effort that requires cooperation between all levels of government, community leaders, average citizens, and of course, parents. As we prepare to close the book on the 20th century, I'd like to suggest a new horizon for our state that will give us the time to make the progress we all want to make. We are a little more than 12 years away from New Mexico's 100th anniversary as a state of these United States. This anniversary will occur on January 6, 2012. I say we set our sights beyond the turn of the century and focus on that year--2012. Then we can set high goals for New Mexico and the future of our children, knowing we have 12 more years to do all we can to meet them. New Mexico can still be a great place to grow up, if we all work together toward that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will at this point withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for that additional explanation. Mr. President, in order that I not delay or further confuse the Record, let me take those assurances that I have heard from the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Michigan and state that I do believe with those assurances the bill does provide for this requirement that operational effectiveness be demonstrated. That has been my primary concern as we considered this bill in the previous Congress, and I am glad to have that resolved. Amendment No. 74 Withdrawn

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate that explanation as well. The Senator from Mississippi, I see, is on the floor. If he has any additional comment, I would be anxious to hear it.