Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning the Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act introduced today by my esteemed colleague, Senator Cleland. During the last session, the Joint Chiefs testified to the need for improving pay and retirement for military personnel as a means to improvement recruitment and retention of service members. This bill proposes some important steps to implement those needs, including the extension of critical bonus and special pay authorities, and deserves careful consideration by the members of the Senate. It is generally acknowledged, however, that the way to improve recruitment and retention goes beyond a bigger paycheck. Senator Cleland's bill includes an important provision directed toward other motivations to choose military service. I'm speaking of enhancements to the Montgomery GI bill for education benefits. Mr. President, this bill will provide major new educational benefits to service members and their families that will serve as an incentive to attract high quality recruits to the military. By improving the educational attainment of service personnel and their families, the nation stands to benefit in the long term with a better educated workforce. Surely, we are now able to observe the benefits of full GI bill assistance for veterans of World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam war who were able to receive sufficient resource to complete college and postgraduate degree programs in compensation for military service. The nation as a whole has prospered by the talented and trained workforce who benefitted from the GI bill. Senator Cleland's bill goes beyond even those benefits which, I believe were only extended to service members themselves. According to the legislation proposed, the military services can choose to permit service members to transfer those educational benefits to immediate family members should they choose not to use them for themselves. Again, I believe the nation's labor force will benefit greatly from such flexibility, not to mention the families of our men and women in uniform. Educational benefits provided by the Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act would be increased to reflect the rising cost of education. Monthly benefits would increase from $528 to $600 per month for member who serve at least three years, and from $429 to $498 per month for those who serve less than three years. Lump sum tuition assistance could also be provided under certain circumstances. Mr. President, these matters are really matters requiring bipartisan cooperation in the Congress that will benefit our service personnel and the Nation. I understand that Senator Warner, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has introduced similar legislation to that offered by Senator Cleland, myself, and others. I am hopeful that we will review these bills in detail in the Armed Services Committee to determine the best way to proceed to improve recruitment and retention that lies at the heart of both bills. As I indicated, recruitment and retention are affected by a wide variety of causes, only some of which may be financial. Senator Cleland's bill calls for an annual report on the impact of the provisions of the bill on recruitment and retention. I believe such an assessment is required. I believe as well, that before the Senate approves legislation, however, it needs to have a more informed view of factors affecting recruitment and retention and of the potential impact of increasing assistance to military personnel on pay and benefits provided to defense and government civilian employees. A report is due soon from the Department of Defense addressing some of those issues. I urge my colleague to pay close attention to its findings and seek answers to the additional questions I have posed in determining how to proceed with legislation that meets national security and budgetary requirements.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of this important legislation being introduced today by my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch. The bill authorizes the construction of a much needed interpretive visitor center at the Four Corners Monument. An identical bill passed the Senate unanimously last September. As I am sure all Senators know, the Four Corners is the only place in America where the boundaries of four states meet in one spot. The monument is located on the Navajo and Ute Mountain Ute Reservations and currently operated as a Tribal Park. Nearly a quarter of a million people visit this unique site every year. However, currently there are no facilities for tourists at the park and nothing that explains the very special features of the Four Corners region. This bill authorizes the Department of the Interior to contribute $2 million toward the construction of an interpretive center and basic facilities for visitors. Mr. President, the Four Corners Monument is more than a geographic curiosity. It also serves as a focal point for some of the most beautiful landscape and significant cultural attractions in our country. An interpretive center will help visitors appreciate the many special features of the region. For example, within a short distance of the monument are the cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde, Colorado; the Red Rock and Natural Bridges areas of Utah; and in Arizona, Monument Valley and Canyon de Chelly. The beautiful San Juan River, one of the top trout streams in the Southwest, flows through Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. In my state of New Mexico, both the legendary mountain known as Shiprock and the Chaco Canyon Culture National Historical Park are a short distance from the Four Corners. Mr. President, Shiprock is one of the best known and most beautiful landmarks in New Mexico. The giant volcanic monolith rises nearly 2000 feet straight up from the surrounding plain. Ancient legend tells us the mountain was created when a giant bird settled to earth and turned to stone. In the Navajo language, the mountain is named Tse' bi t' ai or the Winged Rock. Early Anglo settlers saw the mountain's soaring spires and thought they resembled the sails of a huge ship, so they named it Shiprock. The Four Corners is also the site of Chaco Canyon. Chaco was an important Anasazi cultural center from about 900 through 1130 A.D. Pre- Columbian civilization in the Southwest reached its greatest development there. The massive stone ruins, containing hundreds of rooms, attest to Chaco's cultural importance. As many as 7,000 people may have lived at Chaco at one time. Some of the structures are thought to house ancient astronomical observatories to mark the passage of the seasons. The discovery of jewelry from Mexico and California and a vast network of roads is evidence of the advanced trading carried on at Chaco. Perhaps, the most spectacular accomplishment at Chaco was in architecture. Pueblo Bonito, the largest structure, contains more than 800 rooms and 32 kivas. Some parts are more than five stories high. The masonry work is truly exquisite. Stones were so finely worked and fitted together that no mortar was needed. Remarkably, all this was accomplished without metal tools or the wheel. Mr. President, 1999 marks the centennial year of the first monument at the Four Corners. An interpretive center is urgently needed today to showcase the history, culture, and scenery of this very special place. New facilities at the monument will attract visitors and help stimulate economic development throughout the region. The legislation the Senate passed last year had wide-spread support from state, tribal, and local interests. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will again take prompt action on this bill. I also urge the House to move forward this year to pass this important legislation. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill with Senator Hatch, and I thank him for his efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a May 7, 1998, editorial from the Albuquerque Tribune be 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 Utah, Senator Hatch. The bill authorizes the construction of a much needed interpretive visitor center at the Four Corners Monument. An identical bill passed the Senate unanimously last September. As I am sure all Senators know, the Four Corners is the only place in America where the boundaries of four states meet in one spot. The monument is located on the Navajo and Ute Mountain Ute Reservations and currently operated as a Tribal Park. Nearly a quarter of a million people visit this unique site every year. However, currently there are no facilities for tourists at the park and nothing that explains the very special features of the Four Corners region. This bill authorizes the Department of the Interior to contribute $2 million toward the construction of an interpretive center and basic facilities for visitors. Mr. President, the Four Corners Monument is more than a geographic curiosity. It also serves as a focal point for some of the most beautiful landscape and significant cultural attractions in our country. An interpretive center will help visitors appreciate the many special features of the region. For example, within a short distance of the monument are the cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde, Colorado; the Red Rock and Natural Bridges areas of Utah; and in Arizona, Monument Valley and Canyon de Chelly. The beautiful San Juan River, one of the top trout streams in the Southwest, flows through Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. In my state of New Mexico, both the legendary mountain known as Shiprock and the Chaco Canyon Culture National Historical Park are a short distance from the Four Corners. Mr. President, Shiprock is one of the best known and most beautiful landmarks in New Mexico. The giant volcanic monolith rises nearly 2000 feet straight up from the surrounding plain. Ancient legend tells us the mountain was created when a giant bird settled to earth and turned to stone. In the Navajo language, the mountain is named Tse' bi t' ai or the Winged Rock. Early Anglo settlers saw the mountain's soaring spires and thought they resembled the sails of a huge ship, so they named it Shiprock. The Four Corners is also the site of Chaco Canyon. Chaco was an important Anasazi cultural center from about 900 through 1130 A.D. Pre- Columbian civilization in the Southwest reached its greatest development there. The massive stone ruins, containing hundreds of rooms, attest to Chaco's cultural importance. As many as 7,000 people may have lived at Chaco at one time. Some of the structures are thought to house ancient astronomical observatories to mark the passage of the seasons. The discovery of jewelry from Mexico and California and a vast network of roads is evidence of the advanced trading carried on at Chaco. Perhaps, the most spectacular accomplishment at Chaco was in architecture. Pueblo Bonito, the largest structure, contains more than 800 rooms and 32 kivas. Some parts are more than five stories high. The masonry work is truly exquisite. Stones were so finely worked and fitted together that no mortar was needed. Remarkably, all this was accomplished without metal tools or the wheel. Mr. President, 1999 marks the centennial year of the first monument at the Four Corners. An interpretive center is urgently needed today to showcase the history, culture, and scenery of this very special place. New facilities at the monument will attract visitors and help stimulate economic development throughout the region. The legislation the Senate passed last year had wide-spread support from state, tribal, and local interests. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will again take prompt action on this bill. I also urge the House to move forward this year to pass this important legislation. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill with Senator Hatch, and I thank him for his efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a May 7, 1998, editorial from the Albuquerque Tribune be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chairman and ranking member. degradation of service at williston office national weather service

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Finance for their continuing work on the research and experimentation tax credit, which is extended through June of 1999 by this legislation. In my capacity as ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee, I have taken a strong personal interest in the research credit and how it can be made into an effective permanent incentive. It is potentially the most important incentive in our tax code for stimulating long-term economic growth, and I believe that we need to make every effort in the upcoming session of Congress to establish a permanent credit for research and development. In the course of these efforts, we need to keep in mind the substantive issues that are intrinsic to the goal, shared by many of my colleagues, of a permanent effective R&D tax policy. Can we make the credit more equitable, to give all R&D-performing firms incentives to increase their R&D? Can it be made more effective for the industries that have historically invested heavily in research and development? Can it be made more accessible by small businesses, which are a growing sector of our nation's R&D and promise to be a leading source of high- wage job growth? And can it further encourage research partnerships-- crossing the institutional boundaries of industry, universities, and public-benefit consortia--that lay the groundwork for our future technology and medicine through long-term R&D investments? In the negotiations of the past few weeks, Congress came alarmingly close to not extending the credit at all. I am concerned that until we address the substantive issues outlined above, the R&D credit is likely to continue to teeter along in its current state of uncertainty, and that under its current structure it will perform less and less effectively, as an incentive and as an economic stimulus. I am joined in these concerns by economists who have studied the credit and by senior leaders of R&D-intensive corporations. As the distinguished chairman and ranking member know, I and other Senators have introduced legislation to address these issues in this Congress. Obviously, time does not permit us to address these issues at this point, but I would ask them whether they would be willing to have the Committee on Finance consider these issues in the next Congress, in preparation for further legislative action on the credit?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation to the managers of the Interior title of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for including section 139, which ratifies payments made by small refiners under preexisting onshore and offshore royalty-in-kind programs. I was pleased to work with Senators Enzi, Domenici, Thomas, Johnson, and Landrieu on this issue. My office served as the point of contact between the Minerals Management Service and the small refiners in negotiating the final text of this section, which was then included by the managers in the bill, so I would like to make two observations in relation to it. The purpose of this section is to relieve small refiners of potential additional financial obligations that they are not in a position to bear, and to avoid the likelihood that a number of small refiners who participated in a federal program to increase their access to crude oil for refining would be forced into bankruptcy over a question as to whether the amount invoiced by government for that crude oil was correct or not. I do not believe that anything in this section should be construed as expressing congressional intent on any question other than the one of whether small refiners should be relieved of this potential problem. In my opinion, this section does not constitute a congressional view for or against the use of posted prices for the valuation of crude oil produced from federal leases. cwc implementation act of 1998

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of one of the finest public servants ever to have served the citizens of New Mexico, Mr. Frank Horan. Mr. Horan, who served a quarter of a century as the city attorney of Albuquerque, passed away last Saturday, October 3, 1998. His loss will be deeply felt by countless friends and family-- -two sons, a daughter, and seven grandchildren---who will always remember his dedication to public service, his deep affection for his community, his abiding love for his family, and his legendary sense of humor. Frank Horan was in a sense one of the founding fathers of modern Albuquerque, moving to the city during the early 1940s, and serving as city attorney during the first years of the city's mayor-council form of government. He played a key role in designing the city's governmental structure and establishing its relationship to other jurisdictions within the state. His early professional investment in city government serves as a foundation of today's Albuquerque, a model of good government under the current leadership of Mayor Jim Baca, a longtime schoolmate of Mr. Horan's son, Tom. Tom Horan, following in his father's footsteps, currently practices law in Albuquerque and works with the state legislature. Following his years in service to the citizens of Albuquerque, Frank Horan served in the House of Representatives in the State of New Mexico from which he retired in 1982. His dedication to public service, however, did not stop when he retired. In recent years, he devoted his life to volunteer causes, including Meals on Wheels and Encino House, a retirement center located in Albuquerque. Tom Horan reports that his father pursued those activities because, in Frank Horan's words, he was ``building his resume.'' I am certain that Frank's ``resume'' will abide favorably in the hereafter. I also know that his spirit and contributions will live on among the citizens of Albuquerque and New Mexico. The people of New Mexico will miss him very much. And so will I. Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'd like to join my colleagues in saluting the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the distinguished Senator Strom Thurmond, whose leadership, together with the ranking member, Senator Levin, has produced the fiscal year 1999 Defense authorization bill which is named in the chairman's honor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your untiring efforts, both for putting together this bill and for your long and distinguished service to our nation. We are a grateful Senate and a grateful nation. Achieving this year's defense bill has been no easy task. Every defense budget represents the outcome of an annual debate concerning competing national security priorities. Everyone is familiar with the litany of our defense needs: procurement and modernization, quality of life for defense personnel, operations and maintenance, research and development, training, medical care, and so forth. This year is no different. Much has been said about the lack of funding for procurement and modernization of military equipment. Certainly, by historical standards we are far below cold war levels. But our defense needs have changed and will continue to do so. We need to look carefully at the capabilities and quantities of weapons that we will need in the future--particularly in areas where technology could provide lower cost alternatives of getting the job done. Nevertheless, in this year's conference report the Congress is taking a step towards meeting those procurement needs. Funding for procurement is up from $49.1 billion requested by the President to $49.9 billion authorized by the conference. The conference also took steps to increase funding for quality of life priorities. Funding for military construction and family housing was increased from $7.8 billion to about $8.5 billion. But those increases come at a cost. In balancing priorities while remaining within the budget agreement cap, this budget pays the bill by reducing funding in other categories. Funding for research and development, operations and maintenance, and Department of Energy defense activities, for example, were funded at lower levels than requested by the Administration. Are those tradeoffs the correct ones from the point of view of our national security? Or are they the outcome of partisan negotiations to meet parochial needs? I remain concerned that the teamwork that's needed between the Department of Defense, the Administration, and the Congress to produce a defense budget that meets our real military priorities is flawed. While the Congress took steps to increase procurement funding, many of those purchases do not reflect the priorities stated by the military services themselves. The cost of those purchases were bought by cuts to readiness accounts that must now be repaired through an emergency supplemental agreed to by the President. Similarly, we risk mortgaging our long term security future by cutting funding for research and development, particularly for basic research. I am pleased, however, that this bill includes a provision that sets successively higher goals for research and development funding during the next decade. I am hopeful that implementation of that provision can enable us to avoid having research and development remain the billpayer for future defense spending increases. I applaud this bill for its many specific provisions that serve the simultaneous interests of my New Mexico constituents and the nation's security. The bill contains $4.3 billion for weapons activities at the Department of Energy National Labs, approximately half of which will support work being done at Los Alamos and Sandia. That work will support the stockpile stewardship program that will enable us to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile without building new ones and without testing old ones. I am hopeful that continued funding for the stockpile stewardship program will enable us to move forward in the Senate with ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty next year. The bill also includes essential funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction and the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention programs intended to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials through cooperative efforts with Russian nuclear laboratories and scientists. Our laboratories in New Mexico are working closely with their Russian colleagues to benefit the security of both nations against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists or rogue governments. The bill also provides essential funding to remedy the disrepair of the nation's finest weapons testing facility, White Sands Missile Range, in southern New Mexico. Without those funds, we won't be able to assure the technologies and military capabilities to have the effective fighting forces we will need for the nation's future defense. The bill also includes key quality of life improvements for our military personnel at Cannon, Kirtland, and Holloman Air Force bases. Units from those bases have served honorably and effectively in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf. The personnel and their families assigned to those bases appreciate the support they are given in this year's defense bill. Mr. President, I support this conference report and urge my collegues to vote in favor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Dr. Ken Whang, of the staff of the Joint Economic Committee, during morning business today.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, both the House and the Senate are working on what is likely to be a final tax bill for this Congress. As we go about considering tax bills, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will be thinking about the long-term economic effects of the legislation. Let me start, of course, by making a distinction that should be obvious to all of us who work around here. That is the distinction between tax bills that are paid for and tax bills that are not paid for and that instead obtain the revenue for the tax cuts from the surplus that we anticipate. I agree with the President that if we do a tax bill this year--and I hope we are able to do a tax bill--that we will pay for the tax bill, that we take whatever revenue is required to make those cuts in taxes, and that we will find revenue in the current budget with which to do that. I do not think the American people want us to go ahead and begin to spend an anticipated surplus which we have not even realized as yet. Unfortunately, some of the tax proposals--particularly the one passed by the House on Saturday--have that very major defect. But let me get back to the primary subject of my comments, which is that if we pass tax legislation we need to be thinking about the long- term economic effects of such legislation. Will such bills enhance our economy by promoting sound investments and sustained future economic growth? Or, instead, will they threaten our projected budget surplus and Social Security without really doing anything for the future economic well-being of the country? I raise these questions because there is one crucial element of our Tax Code, more than any other provision in the code, that is directed at our future economic growth. In all the discussions of taxes that have occurred over the past few months, that provision appears to have been given very short shrift. I am referring to the research and experimentation tax credit, commonly called the R&D tax credit, which is slated for yet another minimal, temporary extension, the way tax bills seem to be evolving here today. As I am sure most of my colleagues are well aware, investment in research and development is the single largest contributing factor to our past, present and future economic growth. In an economy that is increasingly knowledge-based and increasingly globalized, it is also an important factor in the competitiveness of American industry. Research leads to improved productivity, economic growth, better jobs and new technologies--technologies that have spawned entire new industries and revolutionized the way people do business around the world. But our research tax policy has not been keeping pace with today's economic realities. Research investment is of greater and greater importance to American industry. But the on-again-off-again research credit is becoming less and less certain. It was allowed to expire for the ninth time this past June, and is slated for a renewal for less than 2 years. Research is being done by large and small businesses in a growing variety of different industries. The way that the credit is currently structured, some companies derive incentive value from it, but others, even though they may be making identical research investments, do not get value. Research is also being done increasingly in partnerships. Without partnerships between industry and Federal laboratories, we would never have created the Internet. Without collaborations between independent industry and universities, we would never have biotech. Without alliances among large and small firms, and in broad-based research consortia, we would not be seeing the efficiency gains in our manufacturing base that have been bridging the benefits of technological advances to every corner of our economy. But the research credit, as it is currently structured, does little, if anything, to encourage these partnerships. Research is changing. It is important to American business. Its importance to American business is growing. Yet, our policy is stuck in an outdated status quo. We have an R&D tax credit that is complicated and difficult for many companies--especially small companies--to use. We have an R&D tax credit that offers almost no incentive--less than three cents per additional dollar of research investment--for many of our, historically, most innovative research-intensive companies. We have an R&D tax credit that does nothing to encourage the interchange of ideas between industry and our great universities, Federal laboratories and other companies. We have an R&D tax credit that cannot even be relied upon as an incentive that will last for more than 1 or 2 years at a time. So the obvious question is: What kind of a commitment is this to America's economic future? The U.S. Senate has an opportunity, as we consider tax legislation in the remaining days of this Congress, to move beyond this sorry status quo. Improvements to our research tax policy could not come at a more critical time--while our economy and our Federal finances are in good order but as we look with some anxiety toward prospects for continued prosperity. I introduced legislation this summer--Senate bill 2268--to improve the research credit. As the ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee, I then organized a workshop in conjunction with the Senate Science and Technology Caucus on the topic of R&D tax credits. That workshop received the views of a broad range of experts from government, industry and universities who have studied the problems of the current R&D tax credit, and have proposed changes to make it more effective. Invitations to attend the workshop on the tax issues were sent to legislative assistants from every Member in the Senate. As a result of that workshop, and the input that I have received from other experts in research groups and small businesses, I have developed an improved research and development tax credit proposal that adds to Senate bill 2268 provisions that will make the bill even more effective in stimulating partnerships through public-benefit research consortia, and that will provide small, high-tech businesses with tax credits for patent filing so that small businesses can more effectively defend their inventions, both here and abroad. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this new proposal be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Some of my colleagues will undoubtedly be concerned about the cost of improving and making permanent the R&D tax credit, even though improvements like those in S. 2268 are long overdue. But I think there is an even more important cost to consider. What will it cost us if we don't improve the R&D tax credit? Limiting an extension of the R&D tax credit to 20 months, as has been proposed in some of the legislation working its way through Congress, just because of the budgetary scoring consequences, and with full knowledge that we will be back in 20 months with another temporary extension that will also be limited by scoring considerations, is a false economy. The long-term revenue cost to the Treasury of ten one- year extensions of the credit, or five two-year extensions, or one ten- year extension are all the same. We are kidding ourselves if we think we were really saving any money by continuing with these piecemeal, temporary extensions. In fact, this scoring-driven strategy of repeated short-term extensions is worse than a fiscal parlor-trick. It is irresponsible public policy. Why? Because the unpredictable, on-off nature of the short-term extensions keeps America from fully realizing the long-term investments that a R&D tax credit should produce. Thus, we are failing to maximize the public benefits of the tax credit, we are reducing the degree to which it can stimulate research and invigorate our economy, and we are losing future tax revenues that would come from R&D-driven economic growth. Our current policy, of piecemeal extension of an archaic, decreasingly effective tax structure, has gone on for 17 years now--a little longer than I have served in the Senate--and I am not the first to propose that we take a better approach. My colleague, the senior Senator from New Mexico, has proposed similar improvements to the R&D tax credit. Improving and making permanent the R&D tax credit should be a bipartisan cause. When the Senate considers tax legislation, I look forward to working on this issue with all of my colleagues who care about our economic future, and I urge the members of this body to treat research and development as an urgent priority in our upcoming deliberations. Exhibit 1

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today marks the two-year anniversary of the opening for signature of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. On September 24, 1996, President Clinton was the first to the sign the CTBT at the United Nations in New York. A total of 150 nations have not signed the treaty, including all five declared nuclear weapons states, and 21 nations have ratified the CTBT. This week also marks one year since the President transmitted the CTBT to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. Unfortunately, one year later the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has yet to hold its first hearing on this historic treaty. Mr. President, this delay in considering the Treaty not only hinders the Senate from carrying out its constitutional duties; in light of the events in India and Pakistan, it is irresponsible for the Senate to continue to do nothing. It is irresponsible for the security of this nation and the world. The Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests in May served as a wake up call for the world. We are confronted with the very risk of a nuclear arms race beginning in South Asia. India and Pakistan, as well as their neighbors, have emerged less secure as a result of these tests. I believe that these tests demonstrate the tragic significance of the Senate's failure to take action on the CTBT. We can no longer afford to ignore our responsibility to debate and vote on the treaty. Today's press reports that both India and Pakistan have stated their intention to sign the CTBT by September 1999. I want to welcome these announcements by India and Pakistan. The steps are in part the result of an intensive U.S. diplomatic effort, and I congratulate the Administration on this success. India's and Pakistan's commitment to halt nuclear testing is critical to reducing tensions and preventing a nuclear arms race in South Asia. The adherence of India and Pakistan to the CTBT will also enhance prospects for the treaty to enter into force sooner. According to its provisions the CTBT will enter into force when 44 countries have nuclear technology have ratified it. With India's and Pakistan's signatures, all 44 of these countries except one, North Korea, will have signed the CTBT. The addition of India and Pakistan as Treaty signatories marks a significant step toward making the CTBT a reality. Now more than ever, it is imperative that the Senate begin its consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Senate action on the CTBT would send a clear signal to India and Pakistan that nuclear testing must stop. It would strengthen U.S. diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions between these two countries and persuade them to give up their nuclear ambitions. But signature of the CTBT by India and Pakistan is only the first step in the process of bringing stability to South Asia. Senate action on the CTBT can help build momentum as additional measures are sought for defusing the violative situation. Ratification of the CTBT is also critical to U.S. leadership in strengthening the international nonproliferation regime. The risk of nuclear proliferation remains a clear and immediate security threat to the international community as a whole. Our efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation have produced significant successes this decade. Several countries, including South Africa, Brazil, and Argentina have abandoned nuclear weapons programs. Under the START Treaty nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. The United States must continue to lead international efforts to halt and reverse the spread of nuclear weapons. For the United States to be effective in strengthening international nonproliferation measures, we need to demonstrate our own commitment to a universal legal norm against nuclear testing. U.S. ratification of the CTBT is in our national security interest. The United States has observed a testing moratorium since 1992. The other declared nuclear weapons states, Britain, France, Russia, and China, have joined us in halting their nuclear testing programs. It is in our interest for these countries to continue to refrain from such testing, which might otherwise contribute to their designing more advanced weapons that are smaller and more threatening. The treaty would not prevent the United States from doing anything we otherwise would plan to do, There is no need for renewed U.S. nuclear testing. Nuclear weapons experts from my home State of New Mexico tell me that they have a high level of confidence in the reliability and safety of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. We are committed through the Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensuring the future safety and reliability of our stockpile in the absence of nuclear testing. Our strong support for this program in the years ahead is critical for U.S. national security under a comprehensive test-ban regime. Mr. President, the American people recognize the grave danger that a new nuclear arms race in South Asia would pose, not only to U.S. national security but also to the security of the international community. They understand that further nuclear testing threatens to undermine international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That's why a recent nationwide poll conducted by the Mellman Group found that 73 percent of the American public believe that the Senate should approve the CTBT, while only 16 percent believe we should disapprove the treaty (11 percent responded ``don't know''). This finding of overwhelming support for the treaty occurred after India conducted is nuclear tests. Therefore, I urge the Senate to begin debate on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I have sent a letter to the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee requesting that the Committee begin holding hearings on this historic treaty. We need to bring in the experts from the military, intelligence, and scientific communities so we can hear what they have to say. I believe that through such hearings Senators' concerns will be resolved in favor of a CTBT. For the sake of our security and that of future generations, we must not let this historic opportunity to achieve a global end to nuclear testing slipaway.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 2 p.m. time be extended until 2:10.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as I make this statement today, it is doubtful that many in the press or the public are paying attention to the proceedings of the Senate. While many are watching every nuance and listening to every syllable of the President's videotaped testimony before the still-sitting grand jury, I want to talk about what I believe is a more important issue--the basic fairness of the process of which the videotape is a part. Since we Senators may be called on to consider various allegations in judging articles of impeachment, I will not speak here about the substance of what is alleged, or about whether the allegations constitute adequate grounds for impeachment. But I believe each of us has an immediate obligation to concern ourselves with the process that is being followed. My purpose today is to call for fairness in that process; fairness in the procedures Congress follows as it prepares to consider these allegations; fairness in the treatment afforded the President. Regardless of what disposition is finally made of the allegations leveled against the President by the Independent Counsel, it is in the interests of everyone--especially future Presidents--that basic fairness be maintained. And to my mind it is impossible to conclude that the process to date has been fair. What ``unfairness'' am I talking about? Frankly, the lack of basic fairness in these proceedings has been so pervasive that it is hard to know where to begin. But here are three significant ways in which the process has lacked basic fairness. The first is that the accused has been denied the secrecy of grand jury testimony. Second, the Independent Counsel's report was issued as a sensational narrative, not as a legal document. And third is the rush by both the Independent Counsel and the House to publish and publicize all the material unfavorable to the President before the House has reviewed it and before any determination that impeachment proceedings are warranted. First, the actions of the independent counsel have had the effect, and possibly the purpose, of denying this accused, the President, the basic right to secrecy concerning testimony given to a grand jury. While the grand jury was considering the matter, the pattern of leaking information about testimony was clear for all to see. Once the testimony was concluded, the Independent Counsel sought and gained authority to deliver to the House of Representatives his report and all materials he chose, regardless of their relevance to particular charges. I firmly believe the Independent Counsel did this with the expectation that the Republican leadership of the Congress would quickly make public any and all material in its possession that portrayed the President unfavorably. Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires prosecutors to keep secret the testimony given before grand juries. And with this grand jury, the Independent Counsel assured the President and all witnesses that the testimony they gave was subject to the secrecy requirements under the rule. The secrecy requirement recognizes the fact that grand jury proceedings are anything but fair and balanced legal proceedings. Witnesses before a grand jury are not entitled to legal counsel who can object when the rights of the witness are being violated. There is no opportunity for a person who is the target of a grand jury proceeding to cross-examine witnesses against him or to present testimony he considers favorable to his position. In the case of this prosecutor and this grand jury, there was no secrecy, at least as to evidence damaging to the President. The substance of every witness's testimony was eagerly made known to the press and, in turn, eagerly reported. As if to ensure that the full impact of the accumulated damaging testimony would be felt by the American public before any chance for rebuttal testimony could arise, the Independent Counsel then rushed to obtain court approval and to deliver to the House of Representatives the report and the accompanying documentation which he alone chose to include. The speedy delivery to the House of the report and materials the Independent Counsel selected, freed the grand jury testimony from the limitations of Rule 6(e), and gave the public the full brunt of the prosecution's case without any opportunity for the accused to question the testimony on which it was based. Basis for Claiming Unfairness Second, the Independent Counsel presented his report, not as a legal document which should have set out the asserted grounds for impeachment and then summarized the evidence supporting each ground as well as the evidence arguing against it. Instead, he chose to present his report in the format of a narrative where facts are presented in a manner designed to arouse the greatest public revulsion. The narrative is one- sided in that it summarizes the evidence damaging to the President and omits all other. It contains damaging and salacious testimony concerning the President and others even when that testimony is not relevant to any asserted ground for impeachment. The third basis for claimed unfairness is that the House, as of today, has made public the Independent Counsel's report, the President's videotaped testimony, and 2,800 pages of other grand jury testimony. This comes before the House has even made a determination to begin an impeachment inquiry. The effect of this action, and possibly its purpose, is to undermine any fair and objective assessment of the evidence and the allegations. The result is to try and convict the President in the court of public opinion long before there is any opportunity for the President's counsel to counter the accumulated weight of this evidence. The rush by the House to disclose all, has pressured the media, us politicians, and the public to come to judgment before the defense can present its case. Our system of justice requires that an accused person, first will be charged, second will be tried, and then if convicted, will be sentenced for the crime. In this case, this procedure--this due process--is being trampled upon. The Independent Counsel has charged the President and every effort is being made to have the public convict and pronounce sentence on him before any trial occurs. One final plea: we must constantly remember that the procedures followed in this case are not just procedures which will affect this President and this impeachment inquiry. What actions we take here will set a precedent for future Presidents and high government officials, and for future impeachment proceedings. If this President is not entitled to be treated fairly, then why should future Presidents expect fairness? Mr. President, there is a certain mob mentality that has taken hold of some here in our Nation's capital. And in that atmosphere it may be foolhardy to think that a call for ``fairness,'' for ``due process,'' for the ``rights of the accused,'' will be given much heed. But just as this President justifiably is going to be judged by the American People and by history for his actions, we in Congress are going to be judged as well. If we deny the President basic fairness, that judgment on this Congress will be harsh, regardless of the final verdict on this President. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998 introduced by my colleague, Senator Leahy. I urge all my Senate colleagues to support it as well. Mr. President, there no doubt are many issues that are on the minds of Americans. Certainly, crime, particularly juvenile crime, delinquency and drug and alcohol abuse, are issues that I hear most about when I am in my home state of New Mexico. Although recent crime statistics shows a clear downward trend in crime on our nation's streets, crime reduction must remain a priority at the federal level. This bill comprehensively addresses the problem of juvenile crime, and it strikes a balance between the need to deal with serious juvenile offenders in a swift and meaningful way and the clear, practical necessity to prevent our youth from getting in trouble in the first place. I am delighted that the managers of this bill have included two separate bills which I previously introduced, and I thank Senator Leahy for his accommodation. The first, my Truancy Prevention and Juvenile Crime Reduction Act, deals with the problem of truancy, which long has been neglected as a root cause of juvenile crime. The second, my Safe Schools Security Act of 1998, addresses the problem of school violence and provides resources, such as technical expertise and security technology, to schools that are experiencing the most serious problems in their schools. I first want to discuss truancy, which not many people realize is the top-ranking characteristic of criminals. High rates of truancy directly are linked to high daytime crime rates, including violence, burglary and vandalism. As much as 44 percent of violent juvenile crime takes place during school hours, and as much as 75 percent of children ages 13 to 16 who are arrested and prosecuted for crimes are truants. It is startling to know that some cities report as many as 70 percent of daily student absences are unexcused, and the number of absences in single city can reach 4,000 Moreover, society pays a very heavy social and economic price due to truancy. Only 34 percent of inmates have completed high school education, and we all are well aware of the staggering costs associated with incarcerating an individual. Sadly, as many as 17 percent of youth under the age of 18 that enter adult prisons have not completed eighth grade, 75 percent have not completed 10th grade. Most studies indicate that when parents, schools, law enforcement and community leaders all work together to prevent truancy, to intervene at its early stages, and to create meaningful accountability, we can increase school attendance and reduce daytime crime rates. One such program is the Daytime Curfew Program in Roswell, New Mexico, and the Truancy Intervention Project in Fulton County, Georgia, administered by Judge Glenda Hatchett. Another successful program included in this Act is the Grade Court, which is Farmington, New Mexico, administered by Judge Paul Onuska. All of these programs integrate parental involvement with schools, law enforcement, judiciary, and other community stakeholders in a collaborative effort to reduce truancy and juvenile crime. These are the kinds of programs I believe we should be encouraging, but unfortunately we in the Congress have not yet met the challenge. This Act authorizes $25 million per year targeted at building upon integral partnerships between local government, schools, law enforcement, and the courts. Without a doubt, $25 million is a very small price to pay when you consider the dividends we expect when young people stay in school and out of trouble. The Youth Law Center, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Network for Youth, which has more than 500 community youth-serving organizations and personnel nationwide all agree with the importance of combating truancy and enthusiastically have voiced their support for this initiative. The second provision of this bill I would like to discuss deals with the safety of our public schools. We spend a great deal of time here talking about improving academic achievement of our nation's school children, and I believe we are making great progress. I also believe, however, that we cannot expect a child to perform up to his or her potential in an environment in which they cannot feel safe and secure. Obviously, a learning environment has to be a safe environment. However, recent tragedies in Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Oregon, for example, strongly suggest that we can and should do much more to keep our school safe. Recently, the Department of Education released the results of a comprehensive study called Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97. The study shows that 10 percent of schools surveyed had at least one serious violent crime during the 1996-97 school year. Also, during the 1996-97 school year, approximately 4,000 incidents of rape or other types of sexual battery were reported in public schools across the country. Additionally, there were approximately 11,000 incidents of physical attacks or fights in which weapons were used and approximately 7,000 robberies in schools that year. As grim as the statistics are, we also must recognize the emotional effect that school crime has on our children. According to a separate study, 29 percent of elementary, 34 percent of junior high, and 20 percent of high school students say they are worried about becoming victims of crime at school. Seventy-one percent of children ages 7 to 10 say they worry they might get shot or stabbed at school. I cannot imagine how a child can be expected to achieve up to his or her potential if they are worried about their physical safety. Clearly, we must respond, and I believe this is an area in which we can make a significant difference, and we should take advantage of the resources we presently have to address this problem. Many people are familiar with the fine work of our National Laboratories, which for decades have been leaders in energy and defense research and development. These Labs have many years of experience supporting and helping to protect high-risk facilities and assets for the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and many other federal agencies in some capacity, through the use of security technology. The result of this capability is that our nation's government facilities enjoy some of the finest security and safety programs in the world. This expertise should be fully utilized to improve the safety of our schools. Alreacy Sandia Laboratories has taken the initiative. Two years ago Sandia began a pilot project at Belen High School in New Mexico, whereby Sandia security experts implemented a security regimen and installed a variety of security technology. Sandia is the first to admit that they do not know the first thing about running a public school, and Belen readily will admit to a lack of expertise in security. Nevertheless, the match was perfect. Working together, Sandia and Belen high school officials changed the school by utilizing a comprehensive security design and technology, including cameras, metal detectors, and sensors. The results are very impressive. Since the pilot project was implemented at the school, on-campus violence is down 75 percent, truancy is down 30 percent, theft from vehicles parked in the school parking lot is down 80 percent, vandalism is down 75 percent. These statistics are compelling, and with this level of success already demonstrated, the effort should be expanded to allow more schools to access the expertise and technology. This technology is not cheap, and schools already are challenged to purchase basic educational materials and equipment. However, I believe that with the right technical assistance and technology, not only will this help schools become safe for the children, but schools will save money. Incredibly, the Belen school principal, Ron Marquez, reported to me that before the pilot went into effect, Belen high school had approximately $50,000 per year in losses due to stolen school property. One year after the pilot, Belen has had only $5,000 in insurance claims. The savings translates into, for example, less cost to repair vandalized property, or property that has been defaced by graffiti. We must take advantage of this success and put this expertise to use where it certainly will have very positive results. One other provision in this bill that I believe will make a tremendous difference to communities that are struggling to reduce juvenile crime is the provision that allows communities to replicate proven juvenile crime reduction strategies. Specifically, this bill provides resources to communities that collaborate with local, state, and federal agencies to address the juvenile crime problem. In my state of New Mexico, we are helping bring together community leaders, schools, judges, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and grass-roots community organizations in order to develop and implement the Boston Strategy to Reduce Juvenile Violence. As anyone would agree, when community leaders work and communicate with one another on a common problem, usually good things. The City of Boston has had great success in reducing its violent crime rate. For example, after being at or near the top of the list among cities in terms of homicide, Boston's juvenile homicide rate dropped to zero, and its overall homicide rate dropped by sixty percent between 1995 and 1997. There is clear value to helping communities do the same kinds of things, and this bill helps in a substantial way. I thank Senator Leahy for his hard work to craft this important legislation and Senator Daschle for his leadership, and I am very pleased to support it.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak on the issue of campaign finance reform, and that I be allowed to complete my statement even if it runs into the period designated for the campaign finance reform discussion.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this debate about the campaign finance bill is really about a single question, and that is what should determine the outcome of our Federal elections? Should money determine the outcome of our Federal elections or should instead we have those elections determined by a balanced discussion, a complete and a balanced discussion about the differences between the candidates and the different positions they are taking? Should it be money or should it be helpful information for voters? Should it be money or should it be a robust debate on issues? The question that I just posed has been obscured because opponents of campaign finance reform are hiding behind what I believe are mistaken Supreme Court decisions, and in doing so they have tried to equate money and speech. They argue that money is speech, and therefore to limit money is to limit speech. They say that money means more robust debate. They say that more money means more helpful information for voters. They say that even more money means more complete and balanced discussion about the differences between the candidates. In my view, this argument does not pass the laugh test. Any reasoned observer of our Federal campaigns knows that the argument is without merit. Ask any challenger to an incumbent Senator the following question: Have not the millions more in dollars that the incumbent has been spending on his or her reelection meant more robust debate? Have not the millions of dollars that the incumbent has been spending meant more helpful information to the voters and more complete and balanced discussion about the differences between the candidates? The challenger, I am sure, would laugh out loud at that notion. Ask any voter who has been deluged with negative television advertisements funded by very large campaign war chests whether those TV ads have produced more robust debate and more helpful information for the voters and more complete and balanced discussion of the differences between the candidates. Again, those voters will think that you are crazy to even suggest that idea. The vast increase in money spent on political campaigns has not produced more robust debate. It has not produced more helpful information for voters and more complete and balanced discussion about the differences between candidates. More money has produced just exactly the opposite. Voters themselves will tell you that money does not equal speech. In fact, they will tell you that money is not speech and that money too often results in an undermining of our ability to meaningfully discuss issues in a campaign. They are very specific about this. Voters were surveyed by Princeton Survey Associates recently and those voters said that campaign money leads elected officials to spend too much time fundraising--63 percent of the public believes that; that money not speech determines the outcome of elections under the current system--52 percent of voters believe that. Even more importantly, voters believe that campaign money gives one group more influence by keeping other groups from having their say in policy outcomes. They believe that campaign money keeps important legislation from being passed. They think campaign money leads elected officials to support policies that even those elected officials do not think are in the best interests of the country. And finally, the public believes that campaign money leads elected officials to vote against the interests of their own constituents, the people who have sent them to Congress to represent them. Let me add parenthetically that in this very Senate session the killing of the tobacco bill in June, Congress' refusal now to even consider serious HMO reform in the Senate, these are recent vindications of the people's beliefs about the effects of money on our policymaking efforts. So the argument by opponents of campaign finance reform that money is speech and that it should in no way be limited simply does not pass the laugh test with the American people. People are right that we desperately need to reform our campaign finance system. We need to reduce the amount of money raised and spent in our campaigns. We need to increase the amount of robust debate and helpful information that we provide to voters. We need to increase the discussion, the complete discussion about differences between candidates on issues of importance to the people. The modified McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill offered to the Senate today is a big step in that direction. It does at least two very important things. First, it will reduce the amount of big, unregulated donations from corporations and unions and wealthy individuals in our campaigns. Second, it will regulate the huge amounts of money spent by so-called ``independent'' special interest groups on advertising, which is disguised as ``issue ads'' but in fact is designed to advocate the defeat of a particular candidate. The original McCain-Feingold bill did even more, but the bill had to be scaled back to reduce the objections from some of the opponents to campaign finance reform. I stand ready to support the motion to allow a vote on the modified version of McCain-Feingold. I hope today that minority of Senators who have repeatedly denied the people an up-or- down vote on this bill will change their minds. I hope that with the historic passage of the bill by the House--representing a majority of the voters of the United States--this minority of Senators will see that they should not again thwart the clearly expressed will of the people. I hope this minority of Senators will not want to be the single force responsible for continuing the undermining of our national political system that is accomplished each day by the millions and millions of dollars of unregulated campaign money when today they have a unique and historic opportunity to change all of that. So, I hope those who have, in recent months, opposed the will of the people on this vote, on this issue, will vote for cloture, will give the people the up-or-down vote they very much want and very much deserve.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as most of know, Angela Raish retired at the end of July from her position as Personal Secretary to our colleague, Senator Pete Domenici. This is an event viewed with mixed emotions by all of us New Mexicans who have had the pleasure of working with Angela over the years. On the one hand, we are glad that she and her husband Bob are taking some much-deserved time for themselves. On the other hand, and there's always another hand, all of us who have come to know and admire her will miss our day to day dealings with her. Twenty-one years of service to one Senator, one Senate office and one state--our own New Mexico--represent a remarkable career of attention and devotion. Ever gracious and thoughtful, she has been a wonderful friend to my staff and me. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of Senate Resolution 272 which Senator Domenici introduced on Tuesday of this week. It expresses what we all feel for this lovely person and the work she has done for the Senate. We are fortunate to know her.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for yielding me time. I want to join my colleagues in resisting S. 1873, this proposal. In my view, what this proposal would do is to put our Defense Department in an untenable position. It essentially says that, in this case, in the case of national missile defense, as distinguished from all other cases, they should ignore the criteria that they use for deciding which programs to go ahead and deploy. Those criteria are that they maintain a sensible balance among cost, schedule, and performance considerations, given affordability constraints. Now, that is the criteria the Department of Defense has set up. This proposal by my colleague from Mississippi would have them ignore those provisions and rush ahead to develop this as soon as it is technologically feasible. We have some experience with efforts by Congress to turn up the political pressure on the Department of Defense and to urge them to rush ahead with development of programs before they can be safely deployed. The most recent example is one that many of us are familiar with; it is the THAAD Program, Theater High Altitude Area Defense Program. In that case, again, we were anxious to get this program fielded. The Congress put increased pressure on the Department of Defense to move ahead. Accordingly, we have had disaster. In that case, the program is 4 years behind schedule. There have been five consecutive flight test failures of the THAAD interceptor. The cost of the program has risen from $10 billion to $14 billion today. General Larry Welch, who reviewed this missile defense program and other programs indicated that one reason is that there was a very high level of risk, that we were, in fact, engaged in what he called a ``rush to failure'' in the THAAD Program. We do not need a rush to failure in the national missile defense program to follow onto the rush to failure in the THAAD Program. We need a program that the Department of Defense can develop on an urgent basis, but on a reasonable basis. I believe they are on that course. I believe when General Shelton asks us to refrain from this kind of a legislative proposal, I think we should take his advice. I hope we will defeat the proposal by the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Treasury appropriations subcommittee for accepting the amendment which includes $1,500,000 additional funding for the Southwest Border High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area to combat the methamphetamine problem. I know the Senators are aware of the growing national problem of methamphetamines. New Mexico is no exception and has been experiencing a growing problem with methamphetamine production, transshipment, and cleanup of seized methamphetamine labs. It is fast becoming the drug of choice because it is easy to manufacture, it is highly addictive, and it is cheap to buy on the street. The costs associated with combating the methamphetamine problem is straining New Mexico's ability to combat other illegal drugs. New Mexico's proximity to the US/Mexico border exasperates the problem because of increased international travel.