Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Connecticut, I would have to learn more of the detail precisely of what is done in Connecticut before I could answer the question. The source of the information that is reflected on this chart and that he has referred to as to which States already require this was Education Week magazine. They did interviews with the departments of education this last year, in September of 1997, and published this list. Our amendment does not say that you have to have a major in the subject you wind up teaching. It says you should have a major in a subject you intend to teach. Maybe there should be an exception in there for foreign language. I would be glad to entertain that modification, if the Senator thinks that is a problem. But the notion that you should go into high school teaching without ever having majored in anything, any academic subject, is the concern I have. We have schools around the country--and they are not the schools the Senator is thinking of generally, and that I generally think of when I think of teacher preparation--but there are schools around the country that are not requiring people to take academic course work before they turn them out to teach in our high schools. So you have people going through, with very good intentions, who want to become teachers, want to become high school teachers, who take a whole raft of education courses and then are turned out to teach, and they do not have the academic training that they need in order to properly prepare students.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I introduce a private relief bill on behalf of a constituent from Sante Fe, New Mexico, Mr. Richard Barlow. It appears to me that his case represents a misuse of authority within the government in response to a public servant's concern that the Congress receive accurate information about important matters of national security. In recent years, the Congress has adopted measures to protect ``whistle blowers'' who step forward to identify grievous errors or abuses that occur within the government. Mr. Barlow's case involves government reprisal against a man who never actually blew the whistle, but indicated to his superiors that he might do so if they failed to correct misinformation that they had supplied to the Congress. Let me provide you with a brief outline of the case that I believe justifies filing this bill on his behalf. In the summer of 1989 officials from the Department of Defense provided information to the Congress on the sale of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan. Mr. Barlow concluded that the information provided was incorrect and misleading and indicated to his supervisor that he intended to correct that information. What followed is a history of reprisal leading to the loss of career, family, and income. The Department of Defense (DoD) suspended Mr. Barlow's high level security clearances and transferred him to other duties, while conducting its own investigation into the matter. When that investigation led to DoD's decision to terminate his employment, Mr. Barlow resigned. Because of that experience, Mr. Barlow has had significant personal problems including the dissolution of his marriage and long periods of under- and unemployment. As a constituent, Mr. Barlow asked for our help. In 1993, I asked the Inspector General of the DoD to review this case to see if it had been handled fairly. Because of the nature of the issue, Inspectors General (IG) from DoD, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the State Department reviewed the matter. The former two concluded that DoD had handled the matter fairly; the IG from the State Department disagreed. Mr. Barlow again appealed for my assistance to enlist the support of the Senate Armed Services Committee in investigating the case. Senators Thurmond and Nunn requested the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the findings of the IG offices. Last summer, the GAO concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings of the DoD and CIA Inspectors General that Mr. Barlow's case had been handled fairly. Given those findings, I requested the Secretary of Defense to review the case to determine if Mr. Barlow should be compensated for the losses he incurred. The Secretary replied that, after a careful review, no compensation was warranted. Mr. President, I continue to believe that from the evidence I have reviewed, Mr. Barlow has been unfairly treated and is worthy of compensation for the price he has paid. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill today not only because I believe a constituent has been wronged, but because this case involves an issue that's virtually important to the effective functioning of the government. In my view, private relief bills are not undertaken lightly. They are appropriate in cases of individuals who have been wronged, who have exhausted all possible remedies for resolution, and whose case represents matters of important legal or policy matters. In Mr. Barlow's case, in order for the Congress to do its job, it must rely on timely and accurate information from all the agencies of the government, particularly when it involves matters of national security. In 1989 Mr. Barlow was very concerned about efforts in Pakistan to initiate a nuclear weapons program and that the Congress needed to know the full implications of selling nuclear capable F-16 aircraft to Pakistan. Recent history indicates how important those concerns were. Mr. President, although I believe compensation may be due to Mr. Barlow, I believe that such judgments require careful review by those experienced in such matters such as the Court of Claims. The Court will report its findings back to the Senate to guide our deliberations before determining the outcome of this bill. I hope that the Court will perform its review quickly and report their findings to the Senate in order for us to resolve this matter before the end of this session of the Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I introduce a private relief bill on behalf of a constituent from Sante Fe, New Mexico, Mr. Richard Barlow. It appears to me that his case represents a misuse of authority within the government in response to a public servant's concern that the Congress receive accurate information about important matters of national security. In recent years, the Congress has adopted measures to protect ``whistle blowers'' who step forward to identify grievous errors or abuses that occur within the government. Mr. Barlow's case involves government reprisal against a man who never actually blew the whistle, but indicated to his superiors that he might do so if they failed to correct misinformation that they had supplied to the Congress. Let me provide you with a brief outline of the case that I believe justifies filing this bill on his behalf. In the summer of 1989 officials from the Department of Defense provided information to the Congress on the sale of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan. Mr. Barlow concluded that the information provided was incorrect and misleading and indicated to his supervisor that he intended to correct that information. What followed is a history of reprisal leading to the loss of career, family, and income. The Department of Defense (DoD) suspended Mr. Barlow's high level security clearances and transferred him to other duties, while conducting its own investigation into the matter. When that investigation led to DoD's decision to terminate his employment, Mr. Barlow resigned. Because of that experience, Mr. Barlow has had significant personal problems including the dissolution of his marriage and long periods of under- and unemployment. As a constituent, Mr. Barlow asked for our help. In 1993, I asked the Inspector General of the DoD to review this case to see if it had been handled fairly. Because of the nature of the issue, Inspectors General (IG) from DoD, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the State Department reviewed the matter. The former two concluded that DoD had handled the matter fairly; the IG from the State Department disagreed. Mr. Barlow again appealed for my assistance to enlist the support of the Senate Armed Services Committee in investigating the case. Senators Thurmond and Nunn requested the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the findings of the IG offices. Last summer, the GAO concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings of the DoD and CIA Inspectors General that Mr. Barlow's case had been handled fairly. Given those findings, I requested the Secretary of Defense to review the case to determine if Mr. Barlow should be compensated for the losses he incurred. The Secretary replied that, after a careful review, no compensation was warranted. Mr. President, I continue to believe that from the evidence I have reviewed, Mr. Barlow has been unfairly treated and is worthy of compensation for the price he has paid. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill today not only because I believe a constituent has been wronged, but because this case involves an issue that's virtually important to the effective functioning of the government. In my view, private relief bills are not undertaken lightly. They are appropriate in cases of individuals who have been wronged, who have exhausted all possible remedies for resolution, and whose case represents matters of important legal or policy matters. In Mr. Barlow's case, in order for the Congress to do its job, it must rely on timely and accurate information from all the agencies of the government, particularly when it involves matters of national security. In 1989 Mr. Barlow was very concerned about efforts in Pakistan to initiate a nuclear weapons program and that the Congress needed to know the full implications of selling nuclear capable F-16 aircraft to Pakistan. Recent history indicates how important those concerns were. Mr. President, although I believe compensation may be due to Mr. Barlow, I believe that such judgments require careful review by those experienced in such matters such as the Court of Claims. The Court will report its findings back to the Senate to guide our deliberations before determining the outcome of this bill. I hope that the Court will perform its review quickly and report their findings to the Senate in order for us to resolve this matter before the end of this session of the Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last Tuesday, June 30, 1998, the research and experimentation tax credit expired, once again. Once again, U.S. industry was left in a state of uncertainty as to how to value its investments in research and development, which are really investments in the economic future of our country. Today, I am introducing a bill to extend permanently and improve the research and experimentation tax credit. It is the fruit of analysis from the staff of the Joint Economic Committee, of which I am the ranking member. It is also the product of consultations with a spectrum of groups who share my concern for our Nation's future scientific and technological strength. The bill would, briefly, make the existing R&E tax credit permanent, improve the economic efficiency and practicality of the alternative incremental credit, convert the existing basic research credit into a flat credit, and accompany the basic research credit (which is aimed mostly at research in universities) with a new credit for nonprofit research consortia. The bill also makes a number of technical and clarifying adjustments to the basic research credit, so that it will be easier to use. I am not the first Member of this body to propose to make the R&E tax credit permanent, or to propose improvements in its functioning. I plan to work with other similarly-minded Senators in the days to come to see if we can construct an even broader coalition to make these permanent improvements in the R&E tax credit a reality this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last Tuesday, June 30, 1998, the research and experimentation tax credit expired, once again. Once again, U.S. industry was left in a state of uncertainty as to how to value its investments in research and development, which are really investments in the economic future of our country. Today, I am introducing a bill to extend permanently and improve the research and experimentation tax credit. It is the fruit of analysis from the staff of the Joint Economic Committee, of which I am the ranking member. It is also the product of consultations with a spectrum of groups who share my concern for our Nation's future scientific and technological strength. The bill would, briefly, make the existing R&E tax credit permanent, improve the economic efficiency and practicality of the alternative incremental credit, convert the existing basic research credit into a flat credit, and accompany the basic research credit (which is aimed mostly at research in universities) with a new credit for nonprofit research consortia. The bill also makes a number of technical and clarifying adjustments to the basic research credit, so that it will be easier to use. I am not the first Member of this body to propose to make the R&E tax credit permanent, or to propose improvements in its functioning. I plan to work with other similarly-minded Senators in the days to come to see if we can construct an even broader coalition to make these permanent improvements in the R&E tax credit a reality this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this amendment. I cosponsored the bill on which it is based, S. 1874, with Senator Domenici and our offices have worked closely together with the Administration and with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to get this amendment cleared. I believe that the amendment accomplishes several important objectives. It clarifies the ability of the Department to engage in mutually beneficial research and development interactions with external partners. It reduces red tape associated with these interactions. It encourages DOE facilities to cooperate with small businesses. These are all steps that strengthen DOE's research capabilities at all its facilities and increase the contribution that the Department can make to our national research and innovation system. I urge the adoption of the amendment. amendment no. 3023 (Purpose: Relating to Department of Defense aviation accident investigations)

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. When the Armed Services Committee met to mark up the FY 1999 Defense Authorization bill, I introduced a measure designed to encourage the Department of Defense schools to assure the high quality of its faculty in DoD schools. Senator Coats and I have discussed ways to improve the proposal and have agreed on words that we believe would be appropriate to include in the Conference report on the Defense Authorization bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will oppose the Coverdell education IRA bill. In my view, it provides precious little help to parents and even less help to schools. The IRA provisions of the bill do not provide any real opportunity for schools to improve themselves. In the debate we had here in the Senate, it was clear that most of the efforts to improve the bill and get to what I would refer to as core educational issues were rejected. And one key provision that was accepted has, of course, now been stripped out of the bill by the conference committee; that is, a provision that tries to address the very serious dropout crisis that we have in our schools. I believe that a failure to give attention to this crisis is perhaps the best example of the limitations of this bill. Each day that there is school in this country, we have an average of 3,000 students between grades 7 and 12 who leave school and leave permanently before graduating. In many schools, the graduating class is half the size of the entering freshman class of 4 years before. Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of the students who are dropping out are Hispanic. We see that problem in real terms in my home State where our Hispanic population is large. Those students often attend the most overcrowded and least well-equipped schools in the Nation. The vast majority of our dropouts are not Hispanic, though, and they are Anglo students--students from all ethnic and racial backgrounds who are bothered with watered-down classes. They are alienated from large schools where nobody seems to care about the work they do. To address this problem, I proposed an amendment, along with Senator Reed, which was the dropout prevention provision of the bill. The Senate adopted this proposal to provide $150 million in dropout prevention funds to authorize that funding by a vote of 74-26. So, clearly, there was strong support here in the Senate for this initiative. With this $150 million, we could have provided funding to help schools that have the highest dropout rates, to reduce those dropout rates and transform their educational programs so that students would stay. With the $150 million, we could have taken the first concrete steps toward meeting the bipartisan goal that President Bush and the 50 Governors agreed to back in 1989 when they met in Charlottesville. The goal was that at least 90 percent of our students would complete high school. Despite the obvious need for this dropout prevention effort and the overwhelming support that we had here in the Senate for this amendment, the provision has been dropped from the bill that is before us today. I believe that the House and Senate need to address these core educational issues. I hope very much that there is an opportunity in the appropriations bills that we consider to have a serious debate and hopefully do better to get the Federal Government on the side of addressing core educational issues. This conference report that we are going to vote on does little, but it promises much. In that regard, I think the people of the country are being misled about the extent of the effort and extent of the accomplishment that we are talking about today. I was very proud to be with Senator Reed, Congressman Hinojosa, and well-known actress/ entertainer Rita Moreno yesterday at a press conference where we talked about the importance of the dropout problem and the importance of getting Federal support to deal with that. I am disappointed that the conference report on this Coverdell bill does not include any provision to help address the crisis. I intend to vote against the bill. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the leader's time.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just clarify what my colleague from Virginia said. My understanding is that the present parliamentary situation is that no amendments can be offered unless that is done with unanimous consent; is that correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN. We are urging people to come to the floor and try to obtain that unanimous consent. But those Senators who do have amendments that have not been agreed to are not able to offer those amendments at this time. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, since we do have a lull in the proceedings, I have filed two amendments that together would incorporate in this year's defense bill the key provisions of S. 2081, which is the National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998. Consistent with the strong bipartisan support for defense research, I am very pleased to say that we have Senator Santorum, Senator Lieberman, Senator Lott, Senator Frist, all as original cosponsors of this bill and also as sponsors of these complementary amendments. I will not, of course, try to get a vote on these at this point because it would require unanimous consent to do so, but I would like to just briefly describe what the amendments do so when the opportunity comes to have a vote, people will be informed. These amendments lay the fiscal framework for the defense research that is needed to achieve, early in the next century, what the Department of Defense calls full spectrum dominance, that is the ability of our Armed Forces to dominate potential adversaries across the entire spectrum of military operations, from humanitarian operations through the highest intensity conflicted. One of the two amendments sets goals that would result in the Defense Science and Technology Program budget reaching the equivalent of at least $9 billion in today's dollars by the year 2008; that would be an increase of 16 percent above today's level. The other amendment sets similar increased goals for the nonproliferation research at the Department of Energy. It is worth focusing on why defense research is so important. Much of the technology that gave the United States a quick victory with so very few casualties in Desert Storm came out of defense-related research in the 1960s and 1970s. Those kinds of results, plus the fact that our military remains the most technologically sophisticated in the world, have fostered a broad agreement that defense research is one of the best investments that our country makes, one providing enormous long- term returns to our military. Even with the cold war over, there are a number of reasons why now is the time to vigorously invest in defense research. First, as the Department of Defense has noted, the two keys to this full spectrum dominance, which is the cornerstone of our strategy as we move forward--the two keys will be information superiority and, second, technological innovation. The Department of Defense has been the preeminent Federal agency funding the disciplines that undergird these two key enablers, for example, supporting roughly 80 percent of the federally sponsored research in electrical engineering, 50 percent of that in computer science and mathematics. No other organizations, public or private, can substitute for the unique role and focus of the Department of Defense in these research areas. We simply will not be able to achieve this so- called full spectrum dominance without a vigorous program of defense research. A second important point is that the global spread of advanced technology and a nascent revolution in military affairs are creating new threats to the United States which will challenge our ability to achieve full spectrum dominance. Those are threats requiring new responses and requiring new technology. They include information warfare; cheap, precise cruise missiles and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Recent events in India and Pakistan, which I alluded to earlier, may have concentrated our thinking on this last problem, this threat of the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In the words of the National Defense Panel, ``We must lead the coming technological revolution or be vulnerable to it.'' That said, right now we are in a relatively secure interlude in our international relations. We are in a time where we can afford to work on transforming our military forces. While the world is still a dangerous place, it will be even more dangerous in the future. So now is the time for the defense research to be accomplished, which is needed to achieve this full spectrum dominance. When you look, though, at DOD's current science and technology budget plans, they do not reflect these realities. The out-year budgets are basically flat in real terms, out to the year 2003, at a level of around $200 million lower than the 1998 level. This is the money that pays for the research and concept experimentation needed to invent and try out new military capabilities. Worse yet, the budget of the Department of Energy for nonproliferation research is slated to decline by about 20 percent in real terms by the year 2003. These budget plans are not consistent with the vision of full spectrum dominance. They are not consistent with the threats on the horizon or with the opportunity that we have today. These two amendments that I filed would promote budget plans that are consistent with the vision, threats and opportunity. What they do is this: From fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2008, the first amendment would give the Secretary of Defense a goal--not a requirement, but a goal--to increase the defense science and technology budget request by at least 2 percent a year over inflation greater than the previous year's budget request. The other amendment gives the same 2 percent goal, 2 percent increased goal to the Secretary of Energy for nonproliferation research. The end result will be a defense science and technology budget that reaches at least $9 billion in today's dollars by 2008, an increase of $1.2 billion, or 16 percent over the 1998 level. The budget for nonproliferation research would increase it around 23 percent over today's level. These budget increases are significant for research, yet they are modest and achievable when you look at our overall defense budget. If you look at a graph of the projected Science and Technology Program budget under this agreement, you can see that the increases will be, No. 1, gradual; that is, the total increase by 2008 will be less than some year-to-year changes in the past. Also, the increase will be smooth in that they will not be a huge change from the Defense Department's current plans at the start. They will also be reasonable; the $9 billion endpoint is comparable with previous levels of science after technology funding. Achieving these increases will require some shifting the funds within the DOD budget. The total amount shifted will be only around half a percent of the total DOD budget over 10 years. I am extremely confident the Secretary of Defense will be able to make this kind of gradual shift without damaging other priorities. I am also quite sure that this is a priority need for our country. Technological supremacy has been a keystone of our security strategy since World War II. Supporting that supremacy has been this defense research. The coming decade is the time to start increasing the investment in our national security. These amendments are a modest bipartisan, sensible and achievable approach to make that investment. I am sure that these modest increases will yield substantial returns to our military. I hope that when we get an opportunity to vote on these amendments that my colleagues will join me and Senators Santorum, Lieberman, Lott and Frist in supporting both of these important amendments. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will make some comments on the defense bill that we are considering. This defense authorization bill, as reported by the Armed Services Committee, contains essential elements to ensure that our military men and women and the equipment that we have are prepared to respond when and if needed for our national security. Funds are included in the bill that continue to modernize the force and continue to improve the quality of life for our military personnel and families. The bill remains within the limits of last year's budget agreement. It cuts spending by about 1 percent in real terms from last year. The committee approved a budget of $270.6 billion in budget authority. The bill represents a number of very difficult choices--choices that we had to make when we proposed increases in funding for the programs that the committee wanted to increase. For every dollar of increase, of course, we had to find funds elsewhere and, accordingly, there are some cuts in the budget that came from the administration. There are a few significant departures from funding levels in programs that were in the budget last year. In my view, it is a more ``responsible'' budget than we have had here on the Senate floor in several years with regard to our defense spending. That said, the relative stability in the bill can be a good thing. It can also prevent us from moving swiftly in important directions that require a timely response. I want to speak to some of those in a moment. At its best, the bill takes good care of the military personnel and their families. It contains a 3.1 percent pay raise, effective January 1, and three health care demonstration projects for retired military personnel, who are over 65, and for their families. These projects are designed to meet the concerns voiced by retirees who have served their country and seek equitable and quality health care services. There is a provision to enhance cooperation between the Veterans' Administration and the Department of Defense in providing health care to dual-eligible beneficiaries. There is a continuation of pilot and nuclear personnel bonuses and increased limits on certain bonuses to enhance recruitment and retention. There is increased funding for construction and upgrades of family housing. There are provisions to make it easier for military families to move when they are required to move. For my home State of New Mexico, the bill includes significant funding for our military bases and our National Laboratories that will benefit not only my State but the Nation. It includes funds for the High Energy Laser Test Facility and the Tactical High Energy Laser Program at White Sands Missile Range. It includes funding for the high- tech research being conducted at Phillips Laboratory in Albuquerque. It includes substantial funding for the defense programs at Los Alamos and Sandia to support their work in the stockpile stewardship program, nonproliferation research and development, and nuclear security assistance programs. It includes funds for military construction projects that we have been seeking--a new support facility for National Guard in Taos, NM, refurbishment of facilities and new family housing at Kirtland Air Force Base, a new war readiness facility at Holloman Air Force Base, and a badly needed runway repair project at Cannon Air Force Base. Mr. President, for all the good things that this bill provides for our military personnel and to the facilities in my State and to the Nation, there are still some aspects of the bill that I find troubling. The bill continues to place relatively greater emphasis on programs that address potential, rather than actual, long-term threats for which there is no current deployment requirement. Increased spending in those areas has come at the expense of programs designed to meet near-term threats which are actual and for which validated requirements exist. For example, the bill contains $1.1 billion for strategic missile defense programs, including national missile defense and space-based laser programs; that is an increase of $100 million over the President's request. That $1.1 billion is compared to $675 million for programs designed to reduce the threat of proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The committee approved cuts in funding to proliferation prevention programs at a time when India's actions, and now Pakistan's actions, remind us of the immediacy of such threats. Information provided to the committee indicates that the intercontinental ballistic missile threat for which the national missile defense is intended is limited. The Intelligence people told our committee that such threats from rogue nations are not likely to occur for many years in the future. The tradeoff seems clear to me. The committee prefers to allocate the lion's share of resources to meet a poorly defined threat that lies somewhere in the distant future, rather than allocating resources to meet the near-term, real world threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Particularly, the bill does not fully fund programs intended to meet the threat of proliferation of weapons grade fissile materials, highly enriched uranium, and plutonium. A small amount of any of these materials in knowledgeable hands could wreak havoc upon our cities. It is extremely important that we continue to work cooperatively with Russia and with other former Soviet States to account for and secure former Soviet nuclear weapons and related nuclear materials. Despite the clear and present danger of that threat, the committee chose to reduce funding for the DOD's cooperative threat reduction program, also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, by $2 million after considering much deeper cuts. The committee cut similar programs managed by the Department of Energy by $20 million. Those programs are designed to improve the security of Russian nuclear weapons and materials and to provide protection against their theft, unauthorized use, or accidental misuse. The Department of Energy's materials protection control and accounting program provides those security measures to a small portion of Russia's nuclear arsenal. With more funding, that program could provide greater security against the threat of smuggling dangerous materials to terrorists or rogue nations. Instead, if the bill is passed as it stands, funding for this program--an essential program for our Nation's security now and in the future--is going to be cut. Efforts to secure hundreds of tons of nuclear materials at 53 sites will be delayed. Mr. President, I spoke of India and Pakistan a moment ago. I would like to take a few more minutes to relate that problem to this defense bill. Shocking as India and Pakistan's nuclear tests have been, they should serve as a wakeup call to this country and to the Senate. The proliferation clock ticks on, while the Senate defers debate and consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Other nonnuclear States could be reconsidering their positions on nuclear weapons in light of events in south Asia. China, who is a signatory to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, may now choose not to ratify. The U.S.--the first to sign the treaty-- should have led the effort to implement a comprehensive testing ban before now. Perhaps our leadership in that area could have forestalled the tests in south Asia. Instead, the Senate has chosen not to step forward. Now we see ourselves more as a follower than as a leader in this area. One element that could support a leadership role in ratifying a comprehensive test ban is an effective nuclear stockpile stewardship program. That program is an essential element for ensuring the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons in the absence of testing. The directors of our National Laboratories at Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia have testified about the effectiveness of that program in the absence of nuclear testing. In spite of that testimony, this bill reduces funding by $145 million in prior year balances that, according to the DOE, no longer exist. Without sufficient funding for the stockpile stewardship program, this bill threatens the likelihood of ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Failure to ratify that treaty plays into the hands of the Indian and Pakistani Governments and could encourage other nonnuclear nations to follow their lead. The result will be a far more dangerous world than the one we live in today. Mr. President, I am concerned that while many of my colleagues are focused on the long-term future security issues, they may have their focus in the wrong place. Funding for basic research and development and building, the building blocks for future technological advances, continues to receive low priority in this defense budget. It is not anticipated to increase for the foreseeable future under current Department of Defense plans. My colleagues acknowledged when considering this bill that funding for basic research and development has often been and remains a bill payer for other programs. Efforts to identify this problem and establish long-term spending goals for basic research were rejected during the deliberations in the committee on this bill. I believe that the high-tech future so many of us in the Senate consider an axiom of America's future security is unlikely to become a reality in the defense area unless we make the investment that is needed in the future today. In addition, funding for the Nation's test and evaluation facilities and their operations lags behind efforts to modernize our weapons. I have seen this with personnel cuts, neglect of infrastructure, and aging instrumentation at White Sands Missile Range in my State. These cuts reflect a low priority that has been given to the testing activities across the Department of Defense in this budget. These cuts suggest that even if our technical genius continues to provide new technological opportunities, we may not be able to adequately evaluate whether they will actually work as intended. Mr. President, I am concerned about the inertia contained in this bill. I believe that in many ways it fails to meet our most immediate high priority security concerns. It may also fail to lay a sound scientific foundation for the long-term security needs of our country. I urge my colleagues to consider these large issues as we consider the bill this week. We have an opportunity to fix some of these problems. I hope we are able to do so. I intend to have one or more amendments to offer later in the week which will help us to accomplish that. Mr. President, let me yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum at this point.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my very enthusiastic support for the micro-enterprise bill being introduced by Senator Kennedy. Programs of this type provide technical support and funding to thousands of potentially productive Americans who are struggling to make ends meet and are looking for a way out of their current precarious economic situation. I have visited microenterprise businesses in my state and know they work. These individuals possess energy, ingenuity, desire, and vision but currently lack access to three important ingredients that will allow them to be successful in their entrepreneurial efforts: business management training, knowledge of the market, and affordable capital. This bill will provide all three ingredients, and will do so in areas of the country that need economic assistance. Microenterprise is not charity and it does not foster dependence. Instead, it encourages individuals to use their specific strengths and creativity to support themselves and their community. It is a market- based approach to economic empowerment and self-reliance that has proven to be successful both here and overseas, and it deserves to be expanded. It offers an alternative to poverty and provides the means by which individuals and communities can be saved from cycles of isolation, violence, and despair. In New Mexico, I have seen the tangible results of microenterprise programs. One organization we have interacted with, ACCION, provided funds for Michael and Jamie Ford to begin a very successful business selling flies for fly-fishing in their community and over the Internet. They were recently named the Small Business Administration's Welfare- to-Work Entrepreneur of the Year in New Mexico. Another organization, the New Mexico Business Resource Center, recommended that funds be provided through New Mexico Community Development Loan Fund to Kevin Bellinger, who created a unique art and dance program for disadvantaged youths called Harambe. Here, low-income individuals are taught to interact in non-violent and constructive ways and give back to the community in which they live. Mr. Bellinger was recently selected by New Mexico Newspaper as one of the top ten people in Santa Fe making a real difference in their community. In Taos, the Taos County Economic Development Corporation providing funding for the Taos Food Center, a commercial kitchen that acts as an incubator for small-scale food producers and farmers in the region. Previously, these individuals could not afford to rent space, buy commercial and office equipment, or market their products. With the assistance of microenterprise funds, the Taos Food Center provides the space and the equipment and provides on-site technical and business assistance. This allows individuals to rent the facility by the hour, and convert their crops into marketable products. Other microenterprise organizations in New Mexico--the Rio Grande Community Development Corporation, La Jicarita Enterprise Community, WESST Corp., and so on--have had similarly stellar results. They play essential roles in their communities, and they should be commended for their efforts. In April, I organized a roundtable discussion of all the microenterprise organizations operating in New Mexico. This was the first time representatives from these organizations met in the same location to discuss their respective philosophies, objectives, and strategies concerning microenterprise, and it was very beneficial to all of us. The dialogue with the organizations that began that day has continued to the present, and has only reinforced by commitment to these programs. The simple fact is: the work, and they work well. The bill we are introducing today would accomplish several important tasks: First, it will provide training, technical assistance, and start-up funds to potential entrepreneurs who are currently disadvantaged but eager to change their economic condition; Second, it will provide training and capacity building services to microenterprise development organizations, an activity that will lead directly to the expansion of microenterprise funding and an increased number of clients being served; Third, it will identify best practices in microenterprise technical and lending services, an activity that will further enhance efforts to provide funds to individuals in an efficient and effective manner; Finally, it will ensure that microenterprise lending occurs in all areas that require assistance--meaning both rural and urban communities. Let me conclude by thanking my colleague from Massachusetts and his staff for their work on this bill. I have been pleased to work with Senator Kennedy on the development of the components contained within the bill, in particular those related to rural communities and Indian reservations. I believe that this bill will have a profound effect on the ability of low-income individuals to establish businesses, develop new products and services, and create new jobs. All of these activities can only help individuals and communities in the United States in a positive way.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my very enthusiastic support for the micro-enterprise bill being introduced by Senator Kennedy. Programs of this type provide technical support and funding to thousands of potentially productive Americans who are struggling to make ends meet and are looking for a way out of their current precarious economic situation. I have visited microenterprise businesses in my state and know they work. These individuals possess energy, ingenuity, desire, and vision but currently lack access to three important ingredients that will allow them to be successful in their entrepreneurial efforts: business management training, knowledge of the market, and affordable capital. This bill will provide all three ingredients, and will do so in areas of the country that need economic assistance. Microenterprise is not charity and it does not foster dependence. Instead, it encourages individuals to use their specific strengths and creativity to support themselves and their community. It is a market- based approach to economic empowerment and self-reliance that has proven to be successful both here and overseas, and it deserves to be expanded. It offers an alternative to poverty and provides the means by which individuals and communities can be saved from cycles of isolation, violence, and despair. In New Mexico, I have seen the tangible results of microenterprise programs. One organization we have interacted with, ACCION, provided funds for Michael and Jamie Ford to begin a very successful business selling flies for fly-fishing in their community and over the Internet. They were recently named the Small Business Administration's Welfare- to-Work Entrepreneur of the Year in New Mexico. Another organization, the New Mexico Business Resource Center, recommended that funds be provided through New Mexico Community Development Loan Fund to Kevin Bellinger, who created a unique art and dance program for disadvantaged youths called Harambe. Here, low-income individuals are taught to interact in non-violent and constructive ways and give back to the community in which they live. Mr. Bellinger was recently selected by New Mexico Newspaper as one of the top ten people in Santa Fe making a real difference in their community. In Taos, the Taos County Economic Development Corporation providing funding for the Taos Food Center, a commercial kitchen that acts as an incubator for small-scale food producers and farmers in the region. Previously, these individuals could not afford to rent space, buy commercial and office equipment, or market their products. With the assistance of microenterprise funds, the Taos Food Center provides the space and the equipment and provides on-site technical and business assistance. This allows individuals to rent the facility by the hour, and convert their crops into marketable products. Other microenterprise organizations in New Mexico--the Rio Grande Community Development Corporation, La Jicarita Enterprise Community, WESST Corp., and so on--have had similarly stellar results. They play essential roles in their communities, and they should be commended for their efforts. In April, I organized a roundtable discussion of all the microenterprise organizations operating in New Mexico. This was the first time representatives from these organizations met in the same location to discuss their respective philosophies, objectives, and strategies concerning microenterprise, and it was very beneficial to all of us. The dialogue with the organizations that began that day has continued to the present, and has only reinforced by commitment to these programs. The simple fact is: the work, and they work well. The bill we are introducing today would accomplish several important tasks: First, it will provide training, technical assistance, and start-up funds to potential entrepreneurs who are currently disadvantaged but eager to change their economic condition; Second, it will provide training and capacity building services to microenterprise development organizations, an activity that will lead directly to the expansion of microenterprise funding and an increased number of clients being served; Third, it will identify best practices in microenterprise technical and lending services, an activity that will further enhance efforts to provide funds to individuals in an efficient and effective manner; Finally, it will ensure that microenterprise lending occurs in all areas that require assistance--meaning both rural and urban communities. Let me conclude by thanking my colleague from Massachusetts and his staff for their work on this bill. I have been pleased to work with Senator Kennedy on the development of the components contained within the bill, in particular those related to rural communities and Indian reservations. I believe that this bill will have a profound effect on the ability of low-income individuals to establish businesses, develop new products and services, and create new jobs. All of these activities can only help individuals and communities in the United States in a positive way.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the energy and water development appropriations bill and to take a few moments to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee on one of the many important programs being funded in the bill. That would be the technology transfer and education programs funded under Atomic Energy Defense Activities. These programs are an important investment in the future of the country, by leveraging the facilities, expertise, and R&D results funded by the Department's defense missions to the benefit of broader national science, technology, and education objectives. We have seen some important spin-offs over the years from DOE defense-related research, and this funding will ensure that we continue to see both spin-off and the flow of technology, ideas, and trained personnel into the labs, to the benefit of the Department's important statutory missions. One example of a technology partnership area of importance, and which I hope the Department will fully fund in fiscal year 1999, is the Advanced Computational Technology Initiative, or ACTI. The ACTI program makes available to smaller oil and gas producers the computational and simulation resources of the national laboratories. One component of the ACTI program over the years, the Advanced Reservoir Management program, has funded advances in complex computational database management and electronic information systems that have been of benefit both to the oil and gas industry and DOE's defense programs. I know that my colleague from New Mexico, the chairman of the subcommittee, is a strong supporter of our oil and gas industry. I would urge him to maintain funding of the ACTI program at the level of the President's request as this bill moves forward to conference.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask, are we in morning business?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 8 minutes in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just say a few words about the tobacco bill which we have been on here for a couple, 3 weeks now in the Senate. In my opinion, this tobacco bill is a historic piece of legislation. And I have complimented personally the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, for his leadership in the Commerce Committee and here on the Senate floor in bringing this bill here and pushing for its enactment. I believe very strongly that when historians look back on the 105th Congress and ask, What did the 105th Congress accomplish? if we are able to pass tobacco legislation, significant tobacco legislation, that will be the single item they will point to as a substantial and major accomplishment by this Congress. So the time we are spending on this tobacco bill is time well spent. I firmly believe that since I have been here in the Senate--and I have been here now nearly 16 years--during that time there has been a dramatic change in public opinion on the issue of smoking and tobacco use in this country, particularly on the issue of young people beginning to smoke. What I see this legislation as is an effort to bring our public policy into line with our public opinion, because public opinion has changed dramatically. Our public policy has not changed to the same extent, and we need to get on with the business of changing public policy to mirror and reflect what the American people want to see done. That is why the legislation is so important. We have spent many hours discussing this legislation. We have had several amendments offered and debated, and several adopted. I think all of that is to the good. And I think anyone who has watched the Senate operate for any period of time would have to acknowledge that, although we have spent substantial time on the tobacco bill, so far we have not seen a concerted effort by the leadership to bring this issue to a close, to bring the debate to a close, to get a defined list of amendments that need to be concluded before we can finish the bill and move on to another item. So, clearly, that is our agenda for this week. I believe very strongly we can finish this bill this week, or certainly if not this week, we can finish it next week. We owe it to the American people to do that. I know there are others in the Senate who have different opinions on that. We have heard a lot of public statements over the recent weeks and months about how this bill is dead and how the bill is dead on arrival. And I have thought, if I had a dollar for every statement that has been uttered about how this bill is dead, I would be a rich man today. Mark Twain was famous for his statement that the news reports of his demise were exaggerated. And I think that the news reports about this bill being dead are exaggerated as well. I think there is ample support here in the Senate to pass this bill. There is ample support in this Senate to pass a strong bill, to send it to conference, and I hope that there is support in the House of Representatives to do the same thing. Time will tell whether that turns out to be the case. So I believe very strongly we need to go ahead and get a cloture motion filed again. I hope Senator McCain, the lead sponsor of the bill, will take that initiative. I think we need to get a defined list of amendments that still need consideration once that cloture motion is completed, and then we need to go ahead and conclude action on the bill. I believe the best thing we can do for the American people before the Fourth of July break--and the Fourth of July break will begin the Friday after this Friday--the most important thing we can do for the American people is, prior to that date, going ahead and passing this historic legislation and sending it to conference. I urge the majority leader to use the power of his position, which is substantial, to move the bill forward. I compliment all my colleagues who have voted for cloture in the previous efforts to bring closure to the debate and to get a limited list of amendments for further consideration. But I urge everyone, this week, to vote for cloture. I hope we can get that done. I hope we can pass a bill with a strong bipartisan vote and send it to conference. I think the American people will thank us for that action, and we owe that to them.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to yield to my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I respond to the question by just saying I believe we have this week and we have next week. There is no more important activity we can commit that time to than completing action on this bill. I think the momentum for moving ahead on the bill will be lost if we don't get it done before we break for the Fourth of July recess. Clearly, the notion of giving up on this and moving to another piece of legislation--I don't know of any other piece of legislation that is so urgent or so important that it would justify going off of this bill. I am not aware of anything on the Senate's schedule that would justify that action.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I think that is clearly the case. I think although there have been some far-reaching amendments added to the bill, the central core of the bill remains the same. It remains an effort to deal with the problem of young people beginning to smoke. And, of course, it is a public health issue. That is the reason I believe this legislation is historic, because it goes directly at dealing with the major public health issue that is before this country today and that can be dealt with. So, I think it is extremely important we move ahead. I understand there are particular provisions of the bill and particular provisions of some of the amendments that various Members don't like, but it is almost ironic because you hear people come to the floor and support amendments to the bill and then use the fact that those amendments have been adopted as a reason for claiming that the bill is now so loaded down that we can't support the bill. To my mind, the right course is for us to go ahead and pass the bill, consider remaining amendments, adopt those that have the votes there to adopt, pass the bill in that form, get it to conference, and hopefully the House will do the same. I believe that the same people who are urging me as a Senator to take action on this important public health issue are urging Congressmen from my State to take action on this important public health issue as well. I hope that if we do the right thing before the Fourth of July break, the House will come back in July and do the right thing by passing a responsible bill and then we will be able to get a conference and get something that we can send to the President before we adjourn this fall. That is what is important. We have a historic opportunity here. I hope very much we will rise to the occasion. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of this important legislation being introduced today by my friend Senator Domenici. The bill designates the old Highway 66 as ``America's Main Street'' and authorizes the National Park Service to help state, tribal and local governments in their efforts to preserve this unique piece of our national heritage. Mr. President, Route 66 is more than a 2400-mile highway from Chicago to Los Angeles. In many ways it represents the American dream, the open road, and our unending search for opportunity and adventure. This is the ``Mother Road'' of John Steinbeck's classic 1939 novel ``The Grapes of Wrath.'' This is the road immortalized by Cole Porter and Jack Kerouac. In the 1950s, this is the road that gave us the popular television series ``Route 66.'' In my state of New Mexico, Route 66 ran nearly 400 miles from Glenrio in Quay County on the east to Manuelito in McKinley County on the West. Before 1937, the road looped north through Santa Fe and Bernalillo and south through Isleta and Los Lunas. Many of us believe the state of New Mexico has some of the most compelling scenery along the highway. Mr. President, from the beginning Route 66 was intended to link America's rural and urban areas. Much of the original roadway remains along with those old classic filling stations, cafes, motels, and, of course, those unforgettable neon signs. Indeed, the old highway remains the ``main street'' in many New Mexico cities, including Albuquerque, Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Bernalillo, Gallup, and Grants. I think it is unfortunate that many drivers on our modern Interstate 40 cross New Mexico without pausing to enjoy the nostalgia of the old highway. That's why I am pleased that New Mexico is already working aggressively to preserve and memorialize the old highway. The route in New Mexico is now designated a scenic byway. Our state has worked hard to provide appropriate signage, and the familiar brown and white shield signs are now prominent along the old route. A number of New Mexico towns and pueblos have permanent exhibits on the history of Route 66 in their areas. The city of Tucumcari has a whimsical monument to Route 66 modeled after a Cadillac tail fin. Soon there will be a Route 66 interpretative center at the Pueblo of Acoma that will showcase the historic and cultural attractions of the region. A similar center is planned for the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque. Mr. President, Route 66 received its original designation in 1926 as a result of the first national highway plan. Now, over seventy years later, Congress has just passed a new highway bill that clearly recognizes through the Enhancements and Scenic Byways Programs the importance of preserving and protecting our national heritage. With the automobile firmly entrenched in our culture today, highways such as Route 66 are a genuine part of our heritage. This bill will help assure that heritage is preserved. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill with Senator Domenici, and I thank him 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 Senator Domenici. The bill designates the old Highway 66 as ``America's Main Street'' and authorizes the National Park Service to help state, tribal and local governments in their efforts to preserve this unique piece of our national heritage. Mr. President, Route 66 is more than a 2400-mile highway from Chicago to Los Angeles. In many ways it represents the American dream, the open road, and our unending search for opportunity and adventure. This is the ``Mother Road'' of John Steinbeck's classic 1939 novel ``The Grapes of Wrath.'' This is the road immortalized by Cole Porter and Jack Kerouac. In the 1950s, this is the road that gave us the popular television series ``Route 66.'' In my state of New Mexico, Route 66 ran nearly 400 miles from Glenrio in Quay County on the east to Manuelito in McKinley County on the West. Before 1937, the road looped north through Santa Fe and Bernalillo and south through Isleta and Los Lunas. Many of us believe the state of New Mexico has some of the most compelling scenery along the highway. Mr. President, from the beginning Route 66 was intended to link America's rural and urban areas. Much of the original roadway remains along with those old classic filling stations, cafes, motels, and, of course, those unforgettable neon signs. Indeed, the old highway remains the ``main street'' in many New Mexico cities, including Albuquerque, Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Bernalillo, Gallup, and Grants. I think it is unfortunate that many drivers on our modern Interstate 40 cross New Mexico without pausing to enjoy the nostalgia of the old highway. That's why I am pleased that New Mexico is already working aggressively to preserve and memorialize the old highway. The route in New Mexico is now designated a scenic byway. Our state has worked hard to provide appropriate signage, and the familiar brown and white shield signs are now prominent along the old route. A number of New Mexico towns and pueblos have permanent exhibits on the history of Route 66 in their areas. The city of Tucumcari has a whimsical monument to Route 66 modeled after a Cadillac tail fin. Soon there will be a Route 66 interpretative center at the Pueblo of Acoma that will showcase the historic and cultural attractions of the region. A similar center is planned for the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque. Mr. President, Route 66 received its original designation in 1926 as a result of the first national highway plan. Now, over seventy years later, Congress has just passed a new highway bill that clearly recognizes through the Enhancements and Scenic Byways Programs the importance of preserving and protecting our national heritage. With the automobile firmly entrenched in our culture today, highways such as Route 66 are a genuine part of our heritage. This bill will help assure that heritage is preserved. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill with Senator Domenici, and I thank him for his efforts.