Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I agree entirely with the point. I visited some of these very large schools in my State. The truth is, when they ring the bell to change classes, you almost have to get out of the way, because you are going to get knocked to the floor if you stay right out in the middle of the hallway; there is such a rush of activity. I do think there is a real problem in the size of our schools. Whenever you get a school that is so large that nobody really pays attention to whether or not a student comes to school in the morning, then the school is too large, in my opinion.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just respond by saying I think you can do an awful lot to improve the quality of education. If the students aren't there in the classroom to benefit from that, all of that effort goes for naught. I do think we need to address this problem as we try to upgrade the quality of education. Clearly, this problem has gone unaddressed for way too long.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank you very much. Amendment No. 35 (Purpose: To provide for school dropout prevention, and for other purposes)

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is exactly right. Clearly, if we can resolve this problem, reduce this problem, we will have an impact on the number of our young people who wind up in criminal activity. I think it is a priority for that reason as well.

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is true.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Visiting high schools, as I know the Senator has done a lot, you run into students on the verge of dropping out. You sit down with students who have dropped out and are back in school and talk to them about the reasons. There is a problem here that we have left unaddressed too long, in my opinion.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am proposing the National Dropout Prevention Act as an amendment to this Ed-Flex legislation. As I indicated, the cosponsors of this amendment are Senators Reid, Levin and Bryan. In my view, the amendment would create a much-needed program to target those schools in our country that have the highest dropout rates in the Nation. There is at present very little help from the Federal level going to some of these most troubled high schools, and the amendment is a valuable necessary addition to this legislation to begin moving ahead in solving this problem. Improving our schools, as we are trying to do through the Ed-Flex bill and through many other initiatives in Congress, is not going to make a whole lot of difference if half or a third--some substantial portion--of our students have already left before they graduate and they are no longer in those schools to receive the benefits of that assistance. Efforts to provide better teachers, more flexibility, computers in the classroom, higher standards--all of those efforts-- will be diluted if we continue to ignore the dropout crisis we have in this country. We do have what I refer to as a dropout drain. This chart makes the point very graphically showing that--the bucket represents our school system--we have students coming out of the school system in very large numbers and not gaining the benefit of the education we are trying to provide. At too many schools, dropout rates reach 30 percent and even 50 percent, according to a 1998 Education Week report. Most States do not publish cumulative data, but Florida recently found that its 4-year dropout rate approached 50 percent when they added the students who dropped out in the freshman, sophomore, junior and senior year. They got close to 50 percent in the State of Florida. There are roughly 3,000 students who drop out on average each day in this country, according to the Department of Education statistics. About 500,000 students drop out of high school each year. Let me indicate at this point, Mr. President, that the reason I am offering this legislation on the Ed-Flex bill early in this Congress is that if we go ahead and try to do this as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will be talking about trying to do something 18 months down the road, because it is expected that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will likely not become law until sometime late next year. If that is the case, then we are talking not about 500,000 students per year, we are talking about a very large number of students who will, in fact, have left our schools with us sitting here trying to figure out what the right timing is to begin dealing with the problem. These new dropouts will join about 4 million other young adults who are presently without high school degrees. There has been a lot of talk by the President and by many of us about ending social promotion, and we all favor ending social promotion. But if we pursue that, and pursue it with vigor, we may create an even greater risk for students dropping out of our school system. Though dropout rates have not risen yet, higher standards mean more students become discouraged and fall through the cracks, unless there is some provision made to assist those students in meeting those higher standards. While some progress has been made for African American students, the real concentrated problem we have is in the Hispanic student population. Hispanic students remain much more likely to drop out. Let me call people's attention to this chart called ``Status Dropout Rates for Persons Ages 16 to 24 by Race Ethnicity for the Period October 1972 through October 1995.'' What you can see here very clearly is that the rate of dropouts in the Hispanic community is up in the range of 30 to 35 percent. The rate for black non-Hispanic students and white non-Hispanic students is substantially lower, down in the area of 10 to 15 percent. So we have a very serious problem and one that we have not been able to address, and it most directly affects the Hispanic students in our country and in our State. One reason I became interested in this, Mr. President, which should be obvious--I am sure it is obvious to my colleagues--is that a very large percentage of our population in New Mexico is Hispanic and particularly in the school system. A great many of the young people in our State are Hispanic, and the problem affects us in a very real way. The annual dropout rate is almost 5 percent each year for all States. And States, such as Nevada, where Senator Reid, who is my cosponsor on this bill, and Senator Bryan hail from, and Georgia and New Mexico, have a much more severe dropout rate. Let me just say another word, before I go on to this chart here, about the issue of Hispanic students. The dropout rate for Hispanics has hovered near 30 percent for many years. That is more than three times the rate for white students, more than two times the rate for African Americans. The Hispanic population is the fastest growing population in our Nation, and many are being left behind in their educational opportunities while others are moving ahead. While the Hispanic students in our country make up 14 percent of all students now, they will comprise 22 percent by the year 2020. In large part due to differences in dropout rates, Hispanic workers earn only about 61 percent of what comparable non-Hispanic workers are earning. So you can see the problem is severe. Referring again to this chart, unfortunately for Nevada, it is the State with the highest dropout rate. This is the dropout rate, on an annual basis, according to the Department of Education statistics. Twenty-nine States have provided annual dropout data. The other States have not provided that information. And, of course, they are not on this chart. But unfortunately, close behind Nevada and right behind Georgia is my own State of New Mexico, and the dropout rate there is 8.5 percent according to these statistics. The National Goals Report--I serve on the National Education Goals Panel, Mr. President. And one of the discouraging things about serving on that panel has been that over the last several years--back in 1989, President Bush and the Governors met over in Charlottesville, VA, to set out national goals. And they had a very good vision of what they thought we ought to be trying to do as a Nation. The second goal is that at least 90 percent of our students should graduate from high school before they leave school. Unfortunately, the reality is that we have not made progress on that. The National Goals Report, the latest National Goals Report, found that roughly 40 States have not made any progress in increasing school completion rates during the 10 years that we have had since that national education goal was agreed to. Dropout rates affect more than just the students who leave school. Let me show another chart here which will make that point. While dropouts face a bleak future in terms of good jobs, communities that they live in are affected by higher crime, higher welfare rates, as well as very limited economic opportunity. Unemployment rates of high school dropouts are more than twice those of high school graduates. The probability of falling into poverty is three times higher for high school dropouts than for students who finished high school. The median personal income of high school graduates during the prime earning years, 25 through 54, is nearly twice that of high school dropouts. So we have a very serious problem here. At the present time, there is no Federal program dedicated toward eradicating the problem. This $150 million that we contemplate in this legislation, this amendment, would allow us to help 2,000 schools with the highest dropout rates throughout the country. With funds that they could receive from the State, these schools could restructure themselves in ways that have proven to lower dropout rates. We do know some of the ways schools can lower dropout rates. We need to get that information out better, and we need to give schools the resources to act on that information. This is necessary because most Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs, including title I, which of course is the largest program we authorize through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, do not reach significant numbers of high school students. In our most troubled communities, this creates a very real dropoff in support services when students move from an elementary or middle school with a strong title I program. They get the assistance at the elementary level, and even at the middle school level, but when they get to high school, the assistance is not there. Not even GEAR UP, which is a newly created tutoring program to help middle school students and provides real support to help schools make fundamental changes to the way they are organized and run, that program itself is not available to solve this problem. Mr. President, this is not the first time that we have had a chance to act on this legislation. I offered this legislation last year to the bill which Senator Coverdell had sponsored on education issues. It was adopted here in the Senate. We had 74 Senators who supported the exact legislation, identical legislation last year. It has been endorsed, this amendment, by the Council of Great City Schools, by the Hispanic Education Coalition, and by the Education Trust. Local schools need to decide how best to address the problem in their community. And we are not trying to dictate what any local school does to solve this problem. The legislation gives districts the power to choose from a broad array of proven, effective approaches to the dropout issue. As in the Obey-Porter program, States would receive funds on a formula basis identical to title I, and districts would compete for grants of not less than $50,000 from the State. The dropout problem can be addressed through school-based reforms. While many excuses are made for the dropout problems, in fact school- related factors are cited most often by the students themselves, the students who do drop out of school. When they are surveyed and asked why they left school, in 77 percent of the cases, they cite school-related factors as the reason. These are students who are failing--who are failing--who do not like school--they do not get along with their teachers or their peers and basically have found that there is nothing there in the school to keep them there. When you look at the top school-related reasons getting behind that other statistic, the top school-related reasons, the first or the most often cited top school-related reason is that they were failing or they could not get along with their teachers, and that is a reason for the students dropping out. They do not like school. They could not get along with students, felt they did not belong. They were suspended or expelled in 25 percent of the cases; and they did not feel safe in 10 percent of the cases. These are school-related concerns which the schools themselves can begin to address, Mr. President. This is not something where we can say it is up to the parents. ``If the kids don't want to go to school, it's the parents' problem, it's not the school's problem.'' That has been the approach we have taken for decades in this country to this issue, and it has not gotten us where we need to be. Let me also talk about the size of schools. Small schools, academy programs, challenging material, alternative high schools, all of these have proven effective ways of addressing the needs of at-risk students in large, alienating, boring high schools. Mr. President, it is clear when you begin looking at this problem-- and I see it in my State--the problem is most severe in our large high schools, in our large middle schools where students feel anonymous, where there is very little interaction between the student and the teacher. And that problem is severe. In particular, this program that we have proposed here will allow us to make large schools smaller without building new school buildings. School size does matter. Yet we are still forcing our young people to go to very, very large schools. And in some places they have taken the very innovative step of breaking large schools into smaller schools where you have schools within schools. And that is part of the solution, I believe. In New Mexico and throughout the Nation, fewer than one out of three high school students goes to a school that has 900 or fewer students. That is the ideal size for a high school, according to studies that have been done nationally. Part of the funding we are trying to obtain through this legislation would be made available to schools to restructure into smaller learning communities. More and more research is showing that large middle and high schools are alienating and anonymous places for children to learn. This contributes to their disinterest in school, their lack of contact with caring adults. This bill would help large schools revamp themselves into smaller academies, schools within schools. There is a reason why our private schools are doing well. One of those reasons is that most of them are very small. Clearly, we need to learn from that in the public school system. Schools with high dropout rates receive little, if any, Federal assistance in turning themselves around. The vast majority of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs are targeted to our elementary schools. We need to restore the ``S,'' which stands for secondary schools, in the ESEA legislation. ESEA stands for Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Unfortunately, we usually forget about the ``secondary'' education aspect of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Addressing the dropout crisis in my State has become a real priority for me. We have made some progress in the last 2 years but we still have one of the highest dropout rates in the Nation, with over 7,500 students dropping out in the years 1995 and 1996. In the most recent State-level report, New Mexico's annual dropout rate had fallen to under 8 percent, contrary to the statistic I had on the chart, but the rate is nearly 10 percent for Hispanic students and over 8 percent a year for Native American students. There are innovative programs that will help us deal with this problem. In my State, we have a truancy prevention initiative in Clovis, NM. We have a Value Youth Program in Cobre High School in Grant County, NM. In Santa Fe we have a dropout prevention task force. We have a dropout czar who has been appointed in the Albuquerque schools. Clearly, there is much more that can be done. This legislation will provide some of the resources to do that. I believe very strongly that this is something we should do now. Before my cosponsor speaks on this issue, let me reiterate why we need to do this now. We should not be sitting around Congress biding our time and assuming that this is not a problem that deserves emergency attention. This is a problem that deserves emergency attention. It is in our best interests on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation now, early in the session. I believe we can do that. I very much urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dana Krupa, a fellow in my office, be allowed floor privileges during the pendency of this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is merely a sense-of-the-Senate resolution regarding an element of pay and benefits to service members, and particularly those service men and women who have already served their country or are retired from the military service. In all of our discussions about the need to provide greater incentives for young Americans to serve and to remain in the military, we can't forget how important it is for the Nation to follow through on the promises that we have made to our veterans; to know that the benefits that are promised will be delivered is a very important tool in recruiting and retaining quality personnel in our military. I have been disturbed, as I am sure some of my colleagues have been, by the recent reports in the press that have indicated that getting claims by our Nation's veterans actually resolved and paid by the Veterans' Administration has become an increasing problem. Many veterans are having to wait an unconscionably long period of time before their cases have been resolved. I hear about this in my home State. I was there all last week and heard about it at several points. I recently read of a case that originated in 1967 that has still not been conclusively resolved. Veterans in my State of New Mexico have complained that the time taken to process individual claims has grown considerably worse over the past year. We have a billboard that has been put up in our State by a veterans group complaining about this issue. We have had picketing at congressional offices to raise awareness of this issue. According to the press, the average VA claim has been pending for 151 days nationwide, while in Albuquerque the average has increased to 161 days. I tried to look into the situation and from what I can tell, the prospects for improvement are fairly slim. We have significant staff cutbacks--at least in my State, in Albuquerque--that have made the problem worse. But there have been other factors such as limited training and lack of automation in the VA that have contributed to the situation. Mr. President, this problem is not peculiar to New Mexico. Yesterday, the Washington Post included an article that suggested the problem is being experienced in many States, if not in all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask that amendment be reported.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia and compliment him and the Senator from Michigan, my good friend, Senator Levin, for their leadership in getting this set of issues before the Senate and ensuring quick progress in dealing with the very real issue that faces our military personnel. Amendment No. 24 (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding the processing of claims for veterans' benefits)

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me read a portion of the article which I think tells a lot of the story. In the past, VA officials could deal with demands that the agency improve by redefining its work. Thompson [this is Joseph Thompson, at the VA administration] recalled with a laugh that his first VA boss told him it used to take his office six months to process new claims. ``Now we have cut that to 180 days,'' the official said. Although that is semihumorous, I do think that kind of an evasion of the problem has characterized the VA for too many years. The article pointed out that the Department of Veterans Affairs made significant progress in reducing the time it took to process veterans' claims between the years 1994 and 1997, but since then, the processing time has increased from 133 days on average to the current rate of about 160 days. The administration has called for steps to reduce that, to get it down to an average response time of 92 days, but I am concerned that the erosion of veterans' benefits, the difficulty that our veterans have in seeing those benefits delivered, will weigh against recruitment and retention of the quality personnel that we need in our Armed Forces today. This amendment states that it is the sense of the Senate the Department of Veterans Affairs should conduct a thorough review of the programs, procedures, and policies that govern this processing of veterans claims for benefits, and by June 1 of this year report to Congress on measures to be taken as a result of such a review. I hope by that time we can identify the measures that we need to include in the authorization bill and in the appropriations bill to assist in this effort. My hope is that the result of this review will be that we can reduce this processing time to bring it down to this 92-day average time. This is the administration's goal under the National Performance Review, which has come up with that estimate of the length of time that can be achieved. Obviously, even 92 days is too long. Better training and technology and staffing would allow us to shorten that even more. But, first, let's get to the 92 days. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. As far as I know, it is agreeable to all concerned. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues, I will vote to acquit the President on the two articles of impeachment. I will vote ``no'' for two reasons. First, the House has failed to allege acts by this President which in the context of this case constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. And, second, the House managers allege that the President committed crimes, but they have failed to establish the elements of those crimes. The illicit sexual affair which the President engaged in, and the President's efforts to conceal that affair, are permanent black marks on his Presidency. His actions were deplorable, indefensible, and immoral. But however reprehensible these acts were, they are not impeachable offenses. They did not endanger the Government. They were not the ``stuff'' which the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they used the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' I think we should act accordingly. Our duty, as I see it, is to look at the record, look at the arguments, judge our own authority as it has been given to us in the Constitution, and then vote either to remove the President or to acquit the President. I want to spend just a minute on this issue of our own authority. As I hear some of the discussion, it seems to me we have lost sight of our own authority. Some have argued that if a university president were to have engaged in these acts, clearly the board of regents of the university would fire that president. Some have said if a chief executive officer of a corporation were to engage in a course of conduct like this, the board of directors of the corporation would fire the chief executive officer. I was visiting the United Parcel Service facility in Albuquerque right before Christmas, and I was talking to various people there. One of the men said, ``I hope you throw the President out of office because if I did what he has done my boss would sure fire me.'' That is the way a lot of us tend to think about this issue. And the discussion here this afternoon has been consistent with that. So I think it is worth focusing on what is wrong with that argument. What is wrong with that argument is that we are not the President's boss. We did not hire the President. The American people hired the President, just like the American people hired each one of us. And we have very limited authority under the Constitution to step in and interfere with the decision of the American people in that regard. I do not believe that the Constitution intended that we would set ourselves up as the judge of the President's character, or to determine whether we believe this President is trustworthy enough to remain in office. That issue is not for us to decide. That was decided by the American people. They have not delegated that decision to us. I am reminded of a story from New Mexico politics. We had a mayor in Albuquerque many years ago named Clyde Tingley. He was very proud of the city zoo, which he had built with city funds. He was showing the zoo to a high official in the Catholic Church one day. And the official at one point said, ``Well, Mr. Mayor, this is an amazing project here. The people of Albuquerque ought to canonize you for this.'' The mayor shot back, ``A bunch of them tried during the last election. But they didn't get away with it.'' I think a bunch of people tried to throw this President out of the White House in the last election because of questions about his character, but they didn't get away with it. These are not new questions about this President. These are questions which have been raised and raised and raised about whether this President is trustworthy, whether this President has demonstrated the character necessary to serve as President. And we really did already have a vote. Every one of us has already voted on whether to remove this President from the White House. Each one of us voted on that issue in November of 1996. I would assume a majority of us in this Chamber voted to remove him from the White House. But the American people chose to keep him there. The American people judged him to be worthy of the job and chose him to be their President for another four years. And they did not authorize us to second guess that decision. So we need to look at our own job here, and say to ourselves, ``Are we here to pass judgment on the President's character, are we here to pass judgment on the President's trustworthiness, are we here to determine whether he is a proper example for young people, or instead are we here to decide whether he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors that would justify removing him from office?'' Senator Joe Biden put it very well by saying that this branch of government--the House and Senate--should be very reluctant to reach across and remove the head of another branch of government. That is an extraordinary act. It has never occurred in the history of this country. For good reason it has never occurred. It would be a major mistake for us to take that action at this time. The framers of the Constitution did not intend Congress to remove a duly elected President on the basis of facts such as these, and they were right to deny the Senate that authority. The stability of the executive branch must not be put at risk by Congress, contrary to the ``electoral will'', absent a clear showing of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' by the President. There is no such clear showing here. The proper remedy for this kind of improper conduct is in the voting booth, not here on the floor of the United States Senate. In my view, the House misused the power of impeachment when it voted these articles of impeachment against the President. It would compound the misuse of power if the Senate were to vote to convict and remove. My vote will be to acquit.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Congress has an important opportunity to provide the youth of America with knowledge and experience that will benefit their future and therefore the future of this country. The Troops-to-Teachers program in the Department of Defense brings the technical talents and experience of retiring military personnel directly to American classrooms to benefit our young people. Former military personnel who enroll in Troops-to-Teachers bring essential mathematical, scientific, and technological expertise that our schools need in order to provide the nation with the technical talent we will need to face the future. This is a ``win-win'' program that brings together age and experience with youth and energy. This program rewards those in uniform who have served the nation by providing them with valuable training assistance needed for the transition to a classroom, and it rewards our young people with service professionals' knowledge and information gained while developing and using the latest technologies. Congress established Troops-to-Teachers in 1993. Since then, over 3,000 men and women retiring from the military have received training to enable them to enter classrooms as qualified teachers. These men and women bring some very important fresh perspectives to American classrooms. About three quarters of the ``Troops'' are males, compared with about 25 percent male teachers in the nation's public school systems. Almost a third of them have science, engineering, and technology backgrounds which are sorely needed in our schools at all levels. About a third of the ``Troops'' are minorities, compared to less than 10 percent minority instructors in our public schools. Many minority retirees and half of the ``Troops'' overall elect to teach in inner city or rural schools--the schools that are often most in need of additional teaching expertise. This bipartisan bill introduced by my esteemed colleague, Senator McCain, would provide the critical financial support retiring service personnel need to gain teacher skills and would assist them in obtaining employment as teachers. I am honored to be an original cosponsor of S. 389, the Troops to Teachers Program Improvement Act of 1999. If enacted, this bill will provide a $2,000 stipend to help offset the cost of earning teacher certification. It would also provide grants to school districts for each new teacher they hire, and would set up Troops-to-Teacher Centers to manage the program in various states. Major grants up to $825,000 would be awarded to Institutions of Higher Education located near military installations to establish teacher certification programs tailored to meet the needs of retiring military personnel. Placement and referral assistance would also be available to personnel who enroll in the program. Mr. President, in 1993 Troops-to-Teachers was an important initiative to help meet the needs of military personnel leaving the military services during the drawdown of our military forces. The drawdown has been completed, but that no longer matters. During the past five years, I believe we now know how valuable this program is regardless of whether our military forces shrink or grow. Retiring military personnel who, by definition, are ``public servants'' have a valuable combination of skills and commitment to apply their public service in another venue--America's classrooms. America's youth and the nation's future will be the beneficiaries. I urge my colleagues to vote to enact the Troops-to-Teachers Improvement Act of 1999 and to extend the authority of this program for five more years. It's a great dividend from America's past and an important investment in America's future.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the ``National Materials Corridor Partnership Act of 1999.'' This bill will establish a comprehensive, multiagency program, led by the Department of Energy, to promote energy efficient, environmentally sound economic development along the US-Mexican border through the research, development, and use of new materials technology. I am also pleased to say that I developed this bill with Congressman George Brown, the ranking member of the House Science Committee, who will introduce it in the House of Representatives. As many of you are aware, NAFTA and the globalization of our economy have created a surge of economic growth all along the 2000 mile US-Mexican border. The border region has become a major center for manufacturing and assembly in many industries, such as microelectronics and automobile parts, as well as a center for many materials industries, such as metals and plastics. However, with this economic growth have come serious problems. Pollution, hazardous wastes, and the inefficient use of resources threaten people's health and the prospects for long term economic growth. For example, there are numerous ``non-attainment'' regions for carbon monoxide and ozone along the border. If you've been down to the El Paso area, where New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico come together, your eyes and nose will tell you something's not as it should be. However, solutions to some of these problems may lie close at hand-- in new materials technologies. There are many research institutions along both sides of the border which have expertise in materials technology. In my state alone, Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs, New Mexico Tech, and the University of New Mexico, among others, are all involved in materials research. The importance of materials technology is often underappreciated, perhaps because it is so ubiquitous. But in many cases it is the very wellspring of technological revolutions. We have named various epochs of our history after new materials--the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, the Iron Age--because of how powerfully they can change our lives. Even today, materials science gave us the transistors and fiber optics lines that created the information age, the age of Silicon Valley. Materials technology can be a very powerful tool for improving people's standard of living. Of course, the technologies coming out of this program are unlikely to create a new age, but they will be extremely helpful. For example, there are many family operated brick factories along the border which use very dirty fuels, like old tires, to fire their kilns. This fuel is, as you might guess, extremely polluting. In fact, brick factories are the third most significant source of air pollution along the border, after automobiles and road dust. Los Alamos has looked at redesigning the kilns, a materials processing technology, to use much less fuel and have a lower reject rate. This means less pollution and suggests the possibility of maybe even using natural gas to economically fire the kilns. The end result could be a major reduction in one pollution source. Another well known problem is the solvents the microelectronics industry uses to clean its devices during assembly, which also contribute to smog. Los Alamos has developed a way to substitute supercritical carbon dioxide for these solvents within a closed system. This substitution of materials could reduce energy consumption, processing time, and an important source of industrial pollution. The idea for a US-Mexican program to promote environmentally sound economic growth along the border via materials technology was originally suggested in 1993 by Hans Mark, then of the University of Texas, now the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. While Mexico's economic crisis of the early 90's stalled things, in 1998 the Mexican government revived the idea, proposing a ``Materials Corridor Partnership Initiative'' to the US-Mexican Binational Commission, and offering $1 million of funding for it if the United States would do the same. While an informal group with many research organizations, the ``Materials Corridor Council,'' has organized itself in response, the US government has yet to pick up on the Mexican offer. My legislation is meant to kick start the ``Materials Corridor Partnership Initiative'' inside the federal government. So, what are the features of the program? It would be an interagency program led by the Department of Energy (DOE). An interagency program is a good way to bring various talents to bear on complex problems. DOE is a good choice to lead this program because its energy efficiency and national security missions, including nuclear cleanup, have led it to develop a large array of materials technologies to improve energy efficiency, reduce pollution, or handle hazardous wastes. In fact, in 1996, DOE was the largest civilian funder of materials research. Under DOE's leadership, the State Department, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, and National Institutes of Standards and Technology will bring their complementary capabilities to the program as diplomats, environmental scientists, basic researchers, and standards experts. The program will focus on materials technology to improve energy efficiency, minimize or eliminate pollution and global climate change gases, and use recycled materials as primary materials through three types of projects. First, there will be applied research projects aimed at showing the feasibility of a materials technology in order to hasten its adoption by industry. These projects will typically be led by companies, and to ensure the firms are really interested in the technology, the federal government will pay no more than 50% of the cost of such a project. Second, there will be basic research projects to discover new knowledge useful in creating these materials technologies; these will typically be led by an academic or other research institutions. Third, there will education and training projects to train border scientists, engineers, and workers in these new technologies. To cover this, the bill authorizes $5 million per year for five years. Finally, this program will be a cooperative program with Mexico. Our border is, by definition, something we share. We share its opportunities and its problems, so it makes sense to share the solutions. Pollution needs no passport. Now, perhaps we will still be able to pick up Mexico's offer of $1 million for this program, but, in any event, the bill calls upon the Secretary of Energy to encourage Mexican organizations to contribute to it. And, to foster US-Mexican cooperation whenever possible, the bill allows US funds to be used by organizations located in Mexico provided Mexican organizations contribute significant resources to that particular project. Working closely with the Mexicans to solve our common problems will be much more effective than trying to go it alone. Mr. President, I think the ``National Materials Corridor Partnership Act of 1999'' is an idea whose time has finally arrived. I hope my colleagues, particularly from the states along the US-Mexican border, will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the ``National Materials Corridor Partnership Act of 1999.'' This bill will establish a comprehensive, multiagency program, led by the Department of Energy, to promote energy efficient, environmentally sound economic development along the US-Mexican border through the research, development, and use of new materials technology. I am also pleased to say that I developed this bill with Congressman George Brown, the ranking member of the House Science Committee, who will introduce it in the House of Representatives. As many of you are aware, NAFTA and the globalization of our economy have created a surge of economic growth all along the 2000 mile US-Mexican border. The border region has become a major center for manufacturing and assembly in many industries, such as microelectronics and automobile parts, as well as a center for many materials industries, such as metals and plastics. However, with this economic growth have come serious problems. Pollution, hazardous wastes, and the inefficient use of resources threaten people's health and the prospects for long term economic growth. For example, there are numerous ``non-attainment'' regions for carbon monoxide and ozone along the border. If you've been down to the El Paso area, where New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico come together, your eyes and nose will tell you something's not as it should be. However, solutions to some of these problems may lie close at hand-- in new materials technologies. There are many research institutions along both sides of the border which have expertise in materials technology. In my state alone, Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs, New Mexico Tech, and the University of New Mexico, among others, are all involved in materials research. The importance of materials technology is often underappreciated, perhaps because it is so ubiquitous. But in many cases it is the very wellspring of technological revolutions. We have named various epochs of our history after new materials--the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, the Iron Age--because of how powerfully they can change our lives. Even today, materials science gave us the transistors and fiber optics lines that created the information age, the age of Silicon Valley. Materials technology can be a very powerful tool for improving people's standard of living. Of course, the technologies coming out of this program are unlikely to create a new age, but they will be extremely helpful. For example, there are many family operated brick factories along the border which use very dirty fuels, like old tires, to fire their kilns. This fuel is, as you might guess, extremely polluting. In fact, brick factories are the third most significant source of air pollution along the border, after automobiles and road dust. Los Alamos has looked at redesigning the kilns, a materials processing technology, to use much less fuel and have a lower reject rate. This means less pollution and suggests the possibility of maybe even using natural gas to economically fire the kilns. The end result could be a major reduction in one pollution source. Another well known problem is the solvents the microelectronics industry uses to clean its devices during assembly, which also contribute to smog. Los Alamos has developed a way to substitute supercritical carbon dioxide for these solvents within a closed system. This substitution of materials could reduce energy consumption, processing time, and an important source of industrial pollution. The idea for a US-Mexican program to promote environmentally sound economic growth along the border via materials technology was originally suggested in 1993 by Hans Mark, then of the University of Texas, now the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. While Mexico's economic crisis of the early 90's stalled things, in 1998 the Mexican government revived the idea, proposing a ``Materials Corridor Partnership Initiative'' to the US-Mexican Binational Commission, and offering $1 million of funding for it if the United States would do the same. While an informal group with many research organizations, the ``Materials Corridor Council,'' has organized itself in response, the US government has yet to pick up on the Mexican offer. My legislation is meant to kick start the ``Materials Corridor Partnership Initiative'' inside the federal government. So, what are the features of the program? It would be an interagency program led by the Department of Energy (DOE). An interagency program is a good way to bring various talents to bear on complex problems. DOE is a good choice to lead this program because its energy efficiency and national security missions, including nuclear cleanup, have led it to develop a large array of materials technologies to improve energy efficiency, reduce pollution, or handle hazardous wastes. In fact, in 1996, DOE was the largest civilian funder of materials research. Under DOE's leadership, the State Department, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, and National Institutes of Standards and Technology will bring their complementary capabilities to the program as diplomats, environmental scientists, basic researchers, and standards experts. The program will focus on materials technology to improve energy efficiency, minimize or eliminate pollution and global climate change gases, and use recycled materials as primary materials through three types of projects. First, there will be applied research projects aimed at showing the feasibility of a materials technology in order to hasten its adoption by industry. These projects will typically be led by companies, and to ensure the firms are really interested in the technology, the federal government will pay no more than 50% of the cost of such a project. Second, there will be basic research projects to discover new knowledge useful in creating these materials technologies; these will typically be led by an academic or other research institutions. Third, there will education and training projects to train border scientists, engineers, and workers in these new technologies. To cover this, the bill authorizes $5 million per year for five years. Finally, this program will be a cooperative program with Mexico. Our border is, by definition, something we share. We share its opportunities and its problems, so it makes sense to share the solutions. Pollution needs no passport. Now, perhaps we will still be able to pick up Mexico's offer of $1 million for this program, but, in any event, the bill calls upon the Secretary of Energy to encourage Mexican organizations to contribute to it. And, to foster US-Mexican cooperation whenever possible, the bill allows US funds to be used by organizations located in Mexico provided Mexican organizations contribute significant resources to that particular project. Working closely with the Mexicans to solve our common problems will be much more effective than trying to go it alone. Mr. President, I think the ``National Materials Corridor Partnership Act of 1999'' is an idea whose time has finally arrived. I hope my colleagues, particularly from the states along the US-Mexican border, will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Daschle, to introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation Improvement Act of 1999. Mr. President, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, was originally enacted in 1990 as a means of compensating the individuals who suffered from exposure to radiation as a result of the U.S. government's nuclear testing program and federal uranium mining activities. While the government can never fully compensate for the loss of a life or a reduction in the quality of life, RECA serves as a cornerstone for the national apology Congress extended to those adversely affected by the various radiation tragedies. In keeping with the spirit of that apology, the legislation I introduce today will further correct existing injustices and provide compassionate compensation for those whose lives and health were sacrificed as part of our nation's effort to win the cold war. During the period of 1947 to 1961, the Federal Government controlled all aspects of the production of nuclear fuel. One such aspect was the mining of uranium in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah. Even though the Federal Government had adequate knowledge of the hazards involved in uranium mining, these miners, many of whom were Native Americans, were sent into inadequately ventilated mines with virtually no instruction regarding the dangers of ionizing radiation. These miners had no idea of those dangers. Consequently, they inhaled radon particles that eventually yielded high doses of ionizing radiation. As a result, these miners have a substantially elevated cancer rate and incidence of incapacitating respiratory disease. The health effects of uranium mining in the fifties and sixties remain the single greatest concern of many former uranium miners and millers and their families and friends. In 1990, I was pleased to co-sponsor the original RECA legislation here in the Senate to provide compassionate compensation to uranium miners. I was very optimistic that after years of waiting, some degree of redress would be given to the thousands of miners in my state of New Mexico. Subsequently, I chaired the Senate oversight hearing on this issue in Shiprock, N.M. for the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee in 1993 and began to learn that while our efforts in 1990 were well intentioned they were not proving to be as effective as hoped. I additionally heard from many of my constituents that the program was not working as intended and that changes were necessary. To that end, I worked to facilitate changes in the regulatory and administrative areas. Unfortunately, I have continued to hear from many of my constituents that the program still does not work as intended. I have received compelling letters of need from constituents telling of the many barriers in the current statute that lead to denial of compensation. Letters come from widows unable to access the current compensation. Miners tied to oxygen tanks, in respiratory distress or dying from cancer write to tell me how they have been denied compensation under the current act. Additionally, family members write of the pain of fathers who worked in uranium processing mills. They recount how their fathers came home covered in the ``yellow cake'' or uranium oxide that was floating in the air of the mills. The story of their fathers' cancers and painful breathing are vivid in these letters but the current act does not address their needs. Their points are backed by others as well. In fact, my legislation incorporates findings by the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) which has, since 1990, enlarged scientific evidence about radiogenic cancers and the health effects of radiation exposure. In other words, because of their good work, we know more now than we did in 1990 and we need to make sure the compensation we provide keeps pace with our medical knowledge. The government has the responsibility to compensate all those adversely affected and who have suffered health problems because they were not adequately informed of the risks they faced while mining, milling, and transporting uranium ore. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is a starting point for amending the current Act designed with specific elements to better serve the individuals who apply for compensation under the Act. The legislation is designed to simplify RECA and broaden the scope of individuals who are eligible for compensation. Mr. President, I would like to cite several of the key provisions in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Improvement Act of 1999. Currently RECA covers those exposed to radiation released in underground uranium mines that were providing uranium for the primary use and benefit of the nuclear weapons program of the U.S. government. The legislation would make all uranium workers eligible for compensation including above ground miners, millers, and transport workers. I am very concerned about the need to expand compensation to the categories of workers not covered by the current law, specifically those in above ground, open pit mines, mill workers, and those employed to transport uranium ore. There is overwhelming evidence that these workers have developed cancer and other diseases as a result of their exposure to uranium. While attempts have been made to get the scientific data necessary to substantiate the link between their work situation and their health problems, barriers have been encountered and I am told that data will not be readily available. I believe that it is necessary to move forward in this area and not deny further compensation awaiting study results that in the end may not be deemed to be statistically valid because of the difficulty in obtaining access to records and the millers themselves. RECA currently covers individuals termed ``downwinders'' who were in the areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona affected by atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950's. This bill expands the geographical area eligible for compensation to include the Navajo Reservation because, based on a recent report of the National Cancer Institute, Navajo children during the 1950's received extremely high Iodine-131 thyroid doses during the period of heaviest fallout from the Nevada Test site. In addition, the bill expands the compensable diseases for the downwind population by adding salivary gland, urinary bladder, brain, colon, and ovarian cancers. Currently, the law has disproportionately high levels of radiation exposure requirements for miners to qualify for compensation as compared to the ``downwinders.'' My legislation would set a standard of proof for uranium workers that is more realistic given the availability of mining and mill data. The bill also removes the provision that only permits a claim for respiratory disease if the uranium mining occurred on a reservation. Thus, the bill will allow for further filing of a claim by those miners, millers, and transport workers who did not have a work history on a reservation. In addition, the bill would change the current law so that requirements for written medical documentation is updated to allow for use of high resolution CAT scans and allow for written diagnoses by physicians in either the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Indian Health Service to be considered conclusive. In 1990, we joined together in a bipartisan, bicameral effort and assured passage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). Now we put forward this comprehensive amendment to RECA to correct omission, make RECA consistent with current medical knowledge, and to address what have become administrative borrow stories for the claimants. I look forward to the debate in the Senate on this issue and hope that we can move to amend the current statute to ensure our original intent--fair and rapid compensation to those who served their country so well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the Radiation Improvement Compensation Act printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail. Senator Domenici is once again a cosponsor of this legislation which enjoyed bipartisan support in both the Senate and in the House in the last Congress. I want to thank Senator Domenici for his continued support of this bill. While we passed this bill last year in the Senate, it appeared that there just wasn t enough time for the House to go through its process on the bill at the end of the 105th Congress. My hope is that we will be able to move this bill through the Senate quickly this year and that the House will pass it as well. While this legislation is important to my home state of New Mexico, it also contributes to the national dialogue on the history of this country and who we are as a people. In history classes across the country, children learn about the establishment of European settlements on the East Coast, and the east to west migration which occurred under the banner of Manifest Destiny. However, the story of the northward exploration and settlement of this country by the Spanish is often overlooked. This legislation recognizes this important chapter in American history. In the 16th century, building upon a network of trade routes used by the indigenous Pueblos along the Rio Grande, Spanish explorers established a migration route into the interior of the continent which they called ``El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro'', the Royal Road of the Interior. In 1598, almost a decade before the first English colonists landed at Jamestown, Virginia, Don Juan de Onate led a Spanish expedition which established the northern portion of El Camino Real which became the main route for communication and trade between the colonial Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros, San Gabriel and then Santa Fe, New Mexico. For the next 223 years, until 1821, El Camino Real facilitated the exploration, conquest, colonization, settlement, religious conversion, and military occupation of the Spanish colonial borderlands. In the 17th century, caravans of wagons and livestock struggled for months to cross the desert and bring supplies up El Camino Real to missions, mining towns and settlements in New Mexico. As with later Anglo settlers who travelled from St. Louis to California during the 1800s, the Spanish settlers faced very harsh conditions moving into what would become the American Southwest. On one section known as the Jornada del Muerto, or Journey of Death, they traveled for 90 miles without water, shelter, or firewood. The Spanish influence from those persevering colonists can still be seen today in the ethnic and cultural traditions of the southwestern United States. As we enter the 21st century, it's essential that we embrace the diversity of people and cultures that make up our country. It is the source of our dynamism and strength. The inclusion of this trail into the National Historic Trail system is an important step towards advancing our understanding of our rich cultural history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail. Senator Domenici is once again a cosponsor of this legislation which enjoyed bipartisan support in both the Senate and in the House in the last Congress. I want to thank Senator Domenici for his continued support of this bill. While we passed this bill last year in the Senate, it appeared that there just wasn t enough time for the House to go through its process on the bill at the end of the 105th Congress. My hope is that we will be able to move this bill through the Senate quickly this year and that the House will pass it as well. While this legislation is important to my home state of New Mexico, it also contributes to the national dialogue on the history of this country and who we are as a people. In history classes across the country, children learn about the establishment of European settlements on the East Coast, and the east to west migration which occurred under the banner of Manifest Destiny. However, the story of the northward exploration and settlement of this country by the Spanish is often overlooked. This legislation recognizes this important chapter in American history. In the 16th century, building upon a network of trade routes used by the indigenous Pueblos along the Rio Grande, Spanish explorers established a migration route into the interior of the continent which they called ``El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro'', the Royal Road of the Interior. In 1598, almost a decade before the first English colonists landed at Jamestown, Virginia, Don Juan de Onate led a Spanish expedition which established the northern portion of El Camino Real which became the main route for communication and trade between the colonial Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros, San Gabriel and then Santa Fe, New Mexico. For the next 223 years, until 1821, El Camino Real facilitated the exploration, conquest, colonization, settlement, religious conversion, and military occupation of the Spanish colonial borderlands. In the 17th century, caravans of wagons and livestock struggled for months to cross the desert and bring supplies up El Camino Real to missions, mining towns and settlements in New Mexico. As with later Anglo settlers who travelled from St. Louis to California during the 1800s, the Spanish settlers faced very harsh conditions moving into what would become the American Southwest. On one section known as the Jornada del Muerto, or Journey of Death, they traveled for 90 miles without water, shelter, or firewood. The Spanish influence from those persevering colonists can still be seen today in the ethnic and cultural traditions of the southwestern United States. As we enter the 21st century, it's essential that we embrace the diversity of people and cultures that make up our country. It is the source of our dynamism and strength. The inclusion of this trail into the National Historic Trail system is an important step towards advancing our understanding of our rich cultural history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Daschle, to introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation Improvement Act of 1999. Mr. President, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, was originally enacted in 1990 as a means of compensating the individuals who suffered from exposure to radiation as a result of the U.S. government's nuclear testing program and federal uranium mining activities. While the government can never fully compensate for the loss of a life or a reduction in the quality of life, RECA serves as a cornerstone for the national apology Congress extended to those adversely affected by the various radiation tragedies. In keeping with the spirit of that apology, the legislation I introduce today will further correct existing injustices and provide compassionate compensation for those whose lives and health were sacrificed as part of our nation's effort to win the cold war. During the period of 1947 to 1961, the Federal Government controlled all aspects of the production of nuclear fuel. One such aspect was the mining of uranium in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah. Even though the Federal Government had adequate knowledge of the hazards involved in uranium mining, these miners, many of whom were Native Americans, were sent into inadequately ventilated mines with virtually no instruction regarding the dangers of ionizing radiation. These miners had no idea of those dangers. Consequently, they inhaled radon particles that eventually yielded high doses of ionizing radiation. As a result, these miners have a substantially elevated cancer rate and incidence of incapacitating respiratory disease. The health effects of uranium mining in the fifties and sixties remain the single greatest concern of many former uranium miners and millers and their families and friends. In 1990, I was pleased to co-sponsor the original RECA legislation here in the Senate to provide compassionate compensation to uranium miners. I was very optimistic that after years of waiting, some degree of redress would be given to the thousands of miners in my state of New Mexico. Subsequently, I chaired the Senate oversight hearing on this issue in Shiprock, N.M. for the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee in 1993 and began to learn that while our efforts in 1990 were well intentioned they were not proving to be as effective as hoped. I additionally heard from many of my constituents that the program was not working as intended and that changes were necessary. To that end, I worked to facilitate changes in the regulatory and administrative areas. Unfortunately, I have continued to hear from many of my constituents that the program still does not work as intended. I have received compelling letters of need from constituents telling of the many barriers in the current statute that lead to denial of compensation. Letters come from widows unable to access the current compensation. Miners tied to oxygen tanks, in respiratory distress or dying from cancer write to tell me how they have been denied compensation under the current act. Additionally, family members write of the pain of fathers who worked in uranium processing mills. They recount how their fathers came home covered in the ``yellow cake'' or uranium oxide that was floating in the air of the mills. The story of their fathers' cancers and painful breathing are vivid in these letters but the current act does not address their needs. Their points are backed by others as well. In fact, my legislation incorporates findings by the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) which has, since 1990, enlarged scientific evidence about radiogenic cancers and the health effects of radiation exposure. In other words, because of their good work, we know more now than we did in 1990 and we need to make sure the compensation we provide keeps pace with our medical knowledge. The government has the responsibility to compensate all those adversely affected and who have suffered health problems because they were not adequately informed of the risks they faced while mining, milling, and transporting uranium ore. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is a starting point for amending the current Act designed with specific elements to better serve the individuals who apply for compensation under the Act. The legislation is designed to simplify RECA and broaden the scope of individuals who are eligible for compensation. Mr. President, I would like to cite several of the key provisions in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Improvement Act of 1999. Currently RECA covers those exposed to radiation released in underground uranium mines that were providing uranium for the primary use and benefit of the nuclear weapons program of the U.S. government. The legislation would make all uranium workers eligible for compensation including above ground miners, millers, and transport workers. I am very concerned about the need to expand compensation to the categories of workers not covered by the current law, specifically those in above ground, open pit mines, mill workers, and those employed to transport uranium ore. There is overwhelming evidence that these workers have developed cancer and other diseases as a result of their exposure to uranium. While attempts have been made to get the scientific data necessary to substantiate the link between their work situation and their health problems, barriers have been encountered and I am told that data will not be readily available. I believe that it is necessary to move forward in this area and not deny further compensation awaiting study results that in the end may not be deemed to be statistically valid because of the difficulty in obtaining access to records and the millers themselves. RECA currently covers individuals termed ``downwinders'' who were in the areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona affected by atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950's. This bill expands the geographical area eligible for compensation to include the Navajo Reservation because, based on a recent report of the National Cancer Institute, Navajo children during the 1950's received extremely high Iodine-131 thyroid doses during the period of heaviest fallout from the Nevada Test site. In addition, the bill expands the compensable diseases for the downwind population by adding salivary gland, urinary bladder, brain, colon, and ovarian cancers. Currently, the law has disproportionately high levels of radiation exposure requirements for miners to qualify for compensation as compared to the ``downwinders.'' My legislation would set a standard of proof for uranium workers that is more realistic given the availability of mining and mill data. The bill also removes the provision that only permits a claim for respiratory disease if the uranium mining occurred on a reservation. Thus, the bill will allow for further filing of a claim by those miners, millers, and transport workers who did not have a work history on a reservation. In addition, the bill would change the current law so that requirements for written medical documentation is updated to allow for use of high resolution CAT scans and allow for written diagnoses by physicians in either the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Indian Health Service to be considered conclusive. In 1990, we joined together in a bipartisan, bicameral effort and assured passage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). Now we put forward this comprehensive amendment to RECA to correct omission, make RECA consistent with current medical knowledge, and to address what have become administrative borrow stories for the claimants. I look forward to the debate in the Senate on this issue and hope that we can move to amend the current statute to ensure our original intent--fair and rapid compensation to those who served their country so well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the Radiation Improvement Compensation Act printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of this important legislation being introduced today by my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan. This bill turns into law what we all recognize is the only practical way to count our citizens in the decennial census. There is no question--the science is unequivocal--sampling is the only way to assure an accurate census. Not only does sampling provide a better census, it costs less than all other alternative methods--as much as $3 billion less. What could be clearer? Sampling gives a better answer at a lower cost. This bill ought to pass the Senate unanimously. Mr. President, the Constitution says the census shall be conducted in a manner that Congress shall by law direct. The recent Supreme Court case found that under the current law sampling may be used for all aspects of the census except for the decision on how many representatives each state will have. In fact, current law says sampling shall be used for every other purpose of the census. My state now has three House members and that number isn't going to change after this census one way or the other. However, we now know New Mexico had the second highest undercount rate in the 1990 census--3.1 percent, or nearly 50,000 New Mexicans were simply left out, including 20,000 children. Among New Mexico's native American community, the undercount rate was an astounding 9 percent. This undercount is literally costing New Mexico millions of dollars every year. In Albuquerque, our largest city, 12,000 men, women, and children were left out. Nationwide, 4 million Americans were not accounted for. Mr. President, this massive undercount is unacceptable to New Mexico and should be unacceptable to every Senator, especially when the Census Bureau has a solution that is tried, tested, and reliable. I believe every citizen counts, and every citizen should be counted. Federal funding for education, transportation, crime prevention and other priorities is allocated to states based on population. The majority of people overlooked in the past census are poor, the very citizens we must assure are not being left out. If the existing undercount is repeated in future censuses, New Mexico will again be denied its fair share of critical federal funds. Under current law we can have a two-number census, one without sampling for apportionment and one with sampling for all other purposes. I can appreciate why some people don't want a two-number census. The country would be better served with only a single-number census as long as it's the best number the Census Bureau can come up with. However, some in Congress would use the appropriations process to stymie the census. Mr. President, the census is done only once per decade, it is too important to decide this issue as part of the annual appropriation process. This bill will assure that the Census Bureau has available the very best tools for this important task. Science-based sampling is the only way to give America the quality we demand in our census. It is inconceivable to me that anyone would support a second-rate census. I am pleased to support this bill, and I hope the Senate will take prompt action on it. I also urge the House to move forward quickly to pass this important legislation. I thank Mr. Moynihan for his efforts.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of this important legislation being introduced today by my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan. This bill turns into law what we all recognize is the only practical way to count our citizens in the decennial census. There is no question--the science is unequivocal--sampling is the only way to assure an accurate census. Not only does sampling provide a better census, it costs less than all other alternative methods--as much as $3 billion less. What could be clearer? Sampling gives a better answer at a lower cost. This bill ought to pass the Senate unanimously. Mr. President, the Constitution says the census shall be conducted in a manner that Congress shall by law direct. The recent Supreme Court case found that under the current law sampling may be used for all aspects of the census except for the decision on how many representatives each state will have. In fact, current law says sampling shall be used for every other purpose of the census. My state now has three House members and that number isn't going to change after this census one way or the other. However, we now know New Mexico had the second highest undercount rate in the 1990 census--3.1 percent, or nearly 50,000 New Mexicans were simply left out, including 20,000 children. Among New Mexico's native American community, the undercount rate was an astounding 9 percent. This undercount is literally costing New Mexico millions of dollars every year. In Albuquerque, our largest city, 12,000 men, women, and children were left out. Nationwide, 4 million Americans were not accounted for. Mr. President, this massive undercount is unacceptable to New Mexico and should be unacceptable to every Senator, especially when the Census Bureau has a solution that is tried, tested, and reliable. I believe every citizen counts, and every citizen should be counted. Federal funding for education, transportation, crime prevention and other priorities is allocated to states based on population. The majority of people overlooked in the past census are poor, the very citizens we must assure are not being left out. If the existing undercount is repeated in future censuses, New Mexico will again be denied its fair share of critical federal funds. Under current law we can have a two-number census, one without sampling for apportionment and one with sampling for all other purposes. I can appreciate why some people don't want a two-number census. The country would be better served with only a single-number census as long as it's the best number the Census Bureau can come up with. However, some in Congress would use the appropriations process to stymie the census. Mr. President, the census is done only once per decade, it is too important to decide this issue as part of the annual appropriation process. This bill will assure that the Census Bureau has available the very best tools for this important task. Science-based sampling is the only way to give America the quality we demand in our census. It is inconceivable to me that anyone would support a second-rate census. I am pleased to support this bill, and I hope the Senate will take prompt action on it. I also urge the House to move forward quickly to pass this important legislation. I thank Mr. Moynihan for his efforts.