Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, in introducing the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act of 1998. I want to begin by commending the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for bringing this issue before the Senate. As my colleagues know, in the short time he has been in the Senate, Senator Enzi has become one of the leading experts on the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970. I have found him to be extremely willing to listen to all sides of what are complex issues, to work in a bipartisan manner and to engage all interested parties in a constructive dialogue on OSHA related issues. I also commend him for recognizing the need which this legislation will address and for working with all interested parties over the past few weeks to draft a bill that will address that need. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today is really rather simple. It will make the Occupational Health and Safety Act applicable to the United States Postal Service as it would be to any other private sector employer. The reasons for doing this, and the need to do so, are very obvious to anyone who looks at this issue. A comparison of all of the worker's compensation costs charged to federal employing agencies from July 1, 1993 to July 30, 1994 showed the Postal Service had a significantly higher rate of employment based injury claims than any federal agency. There are numerous reports of safety and health problems that have gone unaddressed by the P.O., some of which have been laid out by Senator Enzi this morning. Unfortunately, unlike every other private sector employee in America, Postal Service workers do not have the benefit, or the protections of the OSHA Act. While the Postal Service has some internal mechanisms for addressing employee injuries most would find these to be inadequate to protect employees and to help the Postal Service provide a safer workplace. This legislation should be welcomed by all who care about worker safety and health and I believe the Postal Service does care. As my colleagues know, the Postal Service is one of the largest U.S. employers. Over the past several years it has gone through a series of reorganizations and restructuring to improve the quality of the service it provides. I commend the Postal Service for many of these initiatives and appreciate the service it provides to the people of my state. Like Senator Enzi, I do not mean to single out the Postal Service with this legislation. However, because the Postal Service operates in essence like any other private business, I think it is appropriate to expect that it complies with the same safety and health standards as other businesses. Likewise I think Postal workers deserve the same protections afforded all other private sector workers, under the Act. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will work quickly to adopt this legislation this year. I see no reason why this bill should not pass quickly and overwhelmingly. Again Mr. President, I commend Senator Enzi for bringing this important worker safety measure before the Senate and look forward to working with him to ensure its swift passage.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I have been authorized by the Senator from Michigan to use up to 8 minutes of the time that he still has reserved. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 8 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I speak about the other part of this bill. The Senator from Delaware just made the point that this bill we are intending to vote on today contains two very different pieces of legislation in it. Title I is of the Iran missile proliferation sanctions. That goes on for twelve pages. Title II is the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. That goes on for 82 pages. I will speak about the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act for just a few minutes. Much of what I want to say is good news. Implementation of the treaty is making important and significant progress. It has been just over a year since the treaty entered into force. As of May 14, 1998, 168 nations signed this historic treaty; 108 nations have ratified the treaty. This is a landmark treaty that provides us with the means to rid the planet of an entire type of lethal weapon that could threaten every one of our nations. The threat has already been effective in identifying nations with chemical weapons capabilities. Among the Chemical Weapons Convention states possessing chemical weapons capabilities are some of the countries we have been talking about extensively here in the rest of this debate: Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran. I point out that China and India were among the states that previously denied having chemical weapons. So by opening their facilities to inspections required by this convention, those states were forced to demonstrate their ability to provide chemical weapons. There is a lot of good news that I want to allude to here, but let me point out three concerns that I have that people need to be aware of as we go forward with this debate and the vote that is intended here. The first of these concerns relates to the fact that the treaty requires an initial declaration of capabilities of both government and commercial entities for all states that are party to the treaty. So far, there are 28 countries, including Iran, that have failed to submit their initial declarations. The Technical Secretariat for this convention must ensure that those declarations are forthcoming, and other states' parties should take measures to ensure their compliance. One of the unfortunate facts I want to point out is that the United States is one of the states that is not in compliance. The U.S. Government has declared government-owned facilities related to its chemical weapons program, but we have yet to declare commercial industrial facilities required for the treaty. This is an important matter to which I hope the administration is devoting priority attention. If the treaty is to be an effective vehicle as we intend it to be, our leadership in implementation efforts will be critical to its ultimate success. There are two other matters I want to mention here. The first concerns section 234(f) of this treaty, of this implementing language in H.R. 2709 regarding the analysis of chemical samples that may be taken during an inspection. The provision contained in the legislation before the Senate, though perhaps desirable for our purposes, our limited purposes, could result in a circumstance that we would not want to see happen. Let me explain. Provisions in the treaty regarding permissible equipment to be brought in by an inspector restrict their qualitative analytical capabilities. These restrictions could quite feasibly lead to ambiguities in analysis. It could require that a sample receive additional examination. Under the treaty's provisions, the analysis should be conducted at three laboratories designated by the Technical Secretariat. Only one of those laboratories is located in the United States and the other two lie outside our borders. Section 234(f) in this implementing legislation would require that no sample taken in the United States is allowed to be examined out of our borders. So clearly we are putting in law here a provision which contravenes the terms of the treaty. It is evident to me this is a problem that needs to be addressed at some stage in some way. The second matter that I want to bring to people's attention is the right to refuse challenge inspections. During the early days of negotiating the Chemical Weapons Convention, members of President Reagan's team insisted that all countries must allow challenge inspections to occur at any time in any place. They did so in order to ensure that this very difficult treaty could have some real teeth in it. Unfortunately, the legislation that we have before the Senate today would give the President the power to deny a request for a challenge inspection if he determines that the inspection could pose a threat to national security interests of the United States. The problem with this provision is that assigning ourselves the right to refuse a challenge inspection obviously raises the prospect that others may also choose to refuse a challenge inspection, and that guts a key provision of the treaty that we intended to see enforced. I hope that these are matters that can be corrected. I think it is unfortunate that this legislation has come to us on the floor with these particular two provisions in it. I hope very much that we can find some solution to this either in future legislation or in some action by the administration. The Chemical Weapons Convention is a very important treaty that we have entered into. We have every reason to want to see it be effective. These two provisions that I have pointed to undermine the effectiveness of it and also undermine our credibility in trying to urge other states to comply with the treaty. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, in introducing the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act of 1998. I want to begin by commending the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for bringing this issue before the Senate. As my colleagues know, in the short time he has been in the Senate, Senator Enzi has become one of the leading experts on the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970. I have found him to be extremely willing to listen to all sides of what are complex issues, to work in a bipartisan manner and to engage all interested parties in a constructive dialogue on OSHA related issues. I also commend him for recognizing the need which this legislation will address and for working with all interested parties over the past few weeks to draft a bill that will address that need. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today is really rather simple. It will make the Occupational Health and Safety Act applicable to the United States Postal Service as it would be to any other private sector employer. The reasons for doing this, and the need to do so, are very obvious to anyone who looks at this issue. A comparison of all of the worker's compensation costs charged to federal employing agencies from July 1, 1993 to July 30, 1994 showed the Postal Service had a significantly higher rate of employment based injury claims than any federal agency. There are numerous reports of safety and health problems that have gone unaddressed by the P.O., some of which have been laid out by Senator Enzi this morning. Unfortunately, unlike every other private sector employee in America, Postal Service workers do not have the benefit, or the protections of the OSHA Act. While the Postal Service has some internal mechanisms for addressing employee injuries most would find these to be inadequate to protect employees and to help the Postal Service provide a safer workplace. This legislation should be welcomed by all who care about worker safety and health and I believe the Postal Service does care. As my colleagues know, the Postal Service is one of the largest U.S. employers. Over the past several years it has gone through a series of reorganizations and restructuring to improve the quality of the service it provides. I commend the Postal Service for many of these initiatives and appreciate the service it provides to the people of my state. Like Senator Enzi, I do not mean to single out the Postal Service with this legislation. However, because the Postal Service operates in essence like any other private business, I think it is appropriate to expect that it complies with the same safety and health standards as other businesses. Likewise I think Postal workers deserve the same protections afforded all other private sector workers, under the Act. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will work quickly to adopt this legislation this year. I see no reason why this bill should not pass quickly and overwhelmingly. Again Mr. President, I commend Senator Enzi for bringing this important worker safety measure before the Senate and look forward to working with him to ensure its swift passage.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this weekend, Americans from all walks of life turn their thoughts to those men and women who died in the service of our nation. From the early heroes of the Revolutionary War through those who fought and died in the Persian Gulf, about 1.1 million Americans have sacrificed their lives to preserve our precious freedom and to meet our commitments to allies around the globe. We are privileged to enjoy the benefits of the ultimate sacrifice that those men and women in our Armed Forces made on our behalf. We take this day to honor their memory and offer our deepest gratitude. I remember when I was a young man, hearing those stirring words of President John Kennedy when he said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' Those words rang loud and clear in the hearts and minds of my generation. They captured our spirit and renewed our commitment to serve America. Perhaps the noblest heroes of my generation were those who, in the midst of the great debate over Vietnam, stepped forward to serve their country and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Those sacrifices were borne from the same spirit that John Kennedy urged upon all of us in 1961. Regardless of political persuasions, none could argue that those who died in Southeast Asia were not among America's finest men and women. We salute them today, and will always remember and be grateful for their patriotism and sacrifice. Those brave men and women who died in Vietnam, however, were not unique in American history. The legacy of courage, sacrifice, and patriotism has a long history in this country. During this century some 33,651 Americans lost their lives in Korea, 417,316 died during World War II, and 117,708 perished during the First World War. Almost 500,000 Americans--both North and South--lost their lives fighting for the America they believed in during the Civil War. We owe each and every one of those veterans and their families a debt of gratitude. I hope that every New Mexican and every American will take time this Memorial Day to find a quiet moment to consider the enormity of what our fallen friends and families have bequeathed us. This nation is blessed beyond all others---providing us with a political system that guarantees each of us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are free to speak our minds. We are free to practice our faiths. We are free to travel this great land and be with whomever we choose. These precious gifts of freedom have not come free. They have endured through the blood of American heroes and heroines. We pause this day to say ``thank you.'' We won't forget.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I joined the majority of my Senate colleagues in voting overwhelmingly in favor of the resolution approving the accession to NATO of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. I believe that these three countries have made remarkable progress in establishing democratic institutions and undertaking fundamental economic reforms. In addition, for the United States to refuse their admission into NATO at this stage would undermine U.S. leadership both in the Atlantic Alliance and globally. However, my support for the admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO should not be interpreted as a green light for further rounds of NATO enlargement. I believe that there is no mandate for further rounds of NATO enlargement. As the forty-one votes in support of the Warner Amendment indicate, more than enough Senators are concerned about moving too fast on NATO enlargement to block approval of the accession of any additional states to NATO in the near-term. In addition, provisions of the NATO resolution makes clear that the Senate expects to be closely consulted prior to any future negotiations on inviting other countries to join NATO. We must get answers to critical questions before we even begin to consider whether additional countries should be invited to join NATO. Before any further enlargement is contemplated, the United States needs to know the costs of the first several years of integrating Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO, and the burden sharing arrangements for meeting those costs. In addition, the Alliance must first complete revising and updating its Strategic Concept, the statement of NATO's fundamental military mission. This will allow NATO members, and countries potentially seeking membership, to judge for themselves whether further expansion strengthens--or undermines--the Alliance's ability to carry out its strategic mission. I continue to have serious doubts about the wisdom of any further enlargement of NATO. In rushing to bring the states of the former Warsaw Pact and the former Soviet Union into the NATO military fold, we risk undermining our ability to work with Russia to reduce the most immediate threats to our security. In particular, I am concerned about the adverse impact that the consideration of the Baltic states for NATO membership might have on on-going U.S.-Russian cooperative initiatives. These initiatives address some of our highest security concerns, including the containment of the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological technology and materials, and achieving mutual reductions in strategic nuclear forces. With regard to the Baltics, I draw the attention of my colleagues to a colloquy between Sen. Biden and myself recorded in the Congressional Record of April 30th, on page S3888. This colloquy clarifies that the United States has not pre- committed, either in the U.S.-Baltic Charter of Partnership or elsewhere, to support NATO membership for the Baltic states. I hope now we can put the distraction of NATO enlargement behind us. It has yet to be explained how the expansion of a military alliance, formed during the height of the Cold War to defend its members' territory from external attack, serves our needs in today's changed security environment. The threats we face today require careful consideration of a full range of options--whether NATO, the Partnership for Peace initiative between NATO and 28 countries of Europe and the former Soviet Union, or other collective security arrangements--to increase the security and stability of all democratic states. The Senate, as well, needs to turn its attention to efforts that mutually enhance the security of the United States, its NATO allies, and the states of Eastern Europe, including Russia. These include laying the groundwork for Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, supporting the elimination of Russian strategic arms under the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, and encouraging acceleration of the START process to further reduce Russian nuclear weapons. In the long-run these initiatives offer valuable alternatives to NATO enlargement for addressing the highest security concerns in today's post-Cold War security environment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998. In line with the clear bipartisan support for Defense research I am very pleased to be joined by Senator Santorum and Lieberman in introducing this important bill. The National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998 will lay the fiscal framework for the Defense research needed to achieve, early in the next century, what the Department of Defense call ``Full Spectrum Dominance''--the ability of our armed forces to dominate potential adversaries in any conceivable military operation, from humanitarian operations through the highest intensity conflict. The bill creates a plan that would achieve the equivalent of at least a $9 billion Defense Science and Technology Program budget in today's dollars within the next 10 years--an increase of 16% over today. The bill also sets similar increases for the non-proliferation research of the Department of Energy. Much of the technology that gave the United States a quick victory with so few casualties in Desert Storm came from DoD's research of the 1960s and 1970s. More Defense research is needed today to prepare for the next century for a number of reasons. First, as the DoD has noted, the two key enablers of ``Full Spectrum Dominance'' will be information superiority and technological innovation. The DoD has been the preeminent federal agency funding the disciplines undergirding these enablers, for example, supporting roughly 80% of the federally sponsored research in electrical engineering, and 50% of that in computer science and mathematics. No other organizations, public or private, can be expected to substitute for the unique role of the DoD in these research areas. Second, 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. These include: information warfare; cheap precise cruise missiles; and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Finally, we are now in a relatively secure interlude in our international relations, a time when 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 to undertake the Defense research needed to secure our future. Yet, the DoD's current Science and Technology budget plans do not reflect these realities. The outyear budgets are basically flat in real terms out to 2003, at a level $200 million lower than 1998's level. This money pays for the research and concept experimentation needed to invent and experiment with new military capabilities. Worse yet, the Department of Energy's budget for non-proliferation research will decline by around 20% in real terms by 2003. Simply put, Mr. President, these budget plans are just not consistent with the vision of Full Spectrum Dominance, the threats on the horizon, and the opportunity we have today. National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act creates budget plans that are consistent with the vision, threats, and opportunity. Starting with fiscal year 2000, the Act calls on the Secretary of Defense to increase the Defense Science and Technology budget request by at least 2% a year over inflation until fiscal year 2008. 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% over today's level. The Department of Energy's non- proliferation research would also increase the same 2% over inflation yearly. These budget increases are significant for research, yet modest and achievable; they will be an excellent investment. While they may require some shifting of funds within DoD's budget, the total amount shifted will be around half a percent of that total budget over ten years. I am extremely confident that the Secretary of Defense will be able to make this gradual shift in the budget without damaging other priorities. I am also quite sure its something we need to do. Imagine, if you will, a large company in the most ferociously competitive high tech business in the world--a company that has done very well over the years, but faces downstream a series of new, highly aggressive, innovative and unpredictable competitors. Would we, as shareholders, say that shifting half a percent of its revenue into research over ten years would be something it couldn't afford to do? No. It would be clear that is something it couldn't afford not to do. I suggest the DoD is in a similar position. Technological supremacy has been a keystone of America's security strategy since World War II. Supporting that supremacy has been Defense research, one of the highest return investments this nation makes. This coming decade is the time to start increasing this investment in our national security. The National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998 is a modest approach to making this investment, but one, I am sure, which will yield immodest returns to our military. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join Senators Santorum, Lieberman, and myself in support of this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998. In line with the clear bipartisan support for Defense research I am very pleased to be joined by Senator Santorum and Lieberman in introducing this important bill. The National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998 will lay the fiscal framework for the Defense research needed to achieve, early in the next century, what the Department of Defense call ``Full Spectrum Dominance''--the ability of our armed forces to dominate potential adversaries in any conceivable military operation, from humanitarian operations through the highest intensity conflict. The bill creates a plan that would achieve the equivalent of at least a $9 billion Defense Science and Technology Program budget in today's dollars within the next 10 years--an increase of 16% over today. The bill also sets similar increases for the non-proliferation research of the Department of Energy. Much of the technology that gave the United States a quick victory with so few casualties in Desert Storm came from DoD's research of the 1960s and 1970s. More Defense research is needed today to prepare for the next century for a number of reasons. First, as the DoD has noted, the two key enablers of ``Full Spectrum Dominance'' will be information superiority and technological innovation. The DoD has been the preeminent federal agency funding the disciplines undergirding these enablers, for example, supporting roughly 80% of the federally sponsored research in electrical engineering, and 50% of that in computer science and mathematics. No other organizations, public or private, can be expected to substitute for the unique role of the DoD in these research areas. Second, 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. These include: information warfare; cheap precise cruise missiles; and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Finally, we are now in a relatively secure interlude in our international relations, a time when 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 to undertake the Defense research needed to secure our future. Yet, the DoD's current Science and Technology budget plans do not reflect these realities. The outyear budgets are basically flat in real terms out to 2003, at a level $200 million lower than 1998's level. This money pays for the research and concept experimentation needed to invent and experiment with new military capabilities. Worse yet, the Department of Energy's budget for non-proliferation research will decline by around 20% in real terms by 2003. Simply put, Mr. President, these budget plans are just not consistent with the vision of Full Spectrum Dominance, the threats on the horizon, and the opportunity we have today. National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act creates budget plans that are consistent with the vision, threats, and opportunity. Starting with fiscal year 2000, the Act calls on the Secretary of Defense to increase the Defense Science and Technology budget request by at least 2% a year over inflation until fiscal year 2008. 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% over today's level. The Department of Energy's non- proliferation research would also increase the same 2% over inflation yearly. These budget increases are significant for research, yet modest and achievable; they will be an excellent investment. While they may require some shifting of funds within DoD's budget, the total amount shifted will be around half a percent of that total budget over ten years. I am extremely confident that the Secretary of Defense will be able to make this gradual shift in the budget without damaging other priorities. I am also quite sure its something we need to do. Imagine, if you will, a large company in the most ferociously competitive high tech business in the world--a company that has done very well over the years, but faces downstream a series of new, highly aggressive, innovative and unpredictable competitors. Would we, as shareholders, say that shifting half a percent of its revenue into research over ten years would be something it couldn't afford to do? No. It would be clear that is something it couldn't afford not to do. I suggest the DoD is in a similar position. Technological supremacy has been a keystone of America's security strategy since World War II. Supporting that supremacy has been Defense research, one of the highest return investments this nation makes. This coming decade is the time to start increasing this investment in our national security. The National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998 is a modest approach to making this investment, but one, I am sure, which will yield immodest returns to our military. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join Senators Santorum, Lieberman, and myself in support of this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent floor privileges be granted to John Jennings, a fellow in my office, during the pendency of this defense bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to join Senator Levin in expressing my opposition to Senate bill 1873, the American Missile Protection Act. The policy expressed in this bill of putting the United States in a position where we are required to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as it is technologically possible I think is a major mistake and undermines our long-term security. We are rushing prematurely--if this legislation becomes law, we will be rushing prematurely to deploy a national missile defense system where that is not necessary and where it could undermine our real security interests. Why do I say it is not necessary? I say it is not necessary to pass this legislation because we already have in place a program to develop a national missile defense for this country. The administration is committed to the development of a national missile defense over 3 years, so that by the year 2000 the United States will be positioned to deploy an initial capability within 3 years after that, if it is warranted by the threat. We need to continue to assess this threat as we move ahead. The Cochran bill, which we are considering here, seeks to commit our country to deploy the first available missile defense technology, national missile defense technology, regardless of a whole variety of issues. Let me just discuss those briefly. The first set of issues that this bill would sidestep entirely is the issues that we have required the Pentagon to take into account in all weapons systems that we develop. We have had a long history, even in the time I have been here in the Senate, of developing weapons systems when we had not adequately considered the cost and we find out they are costing substantially more than we committed to, where we had not adequately considered the performance capability of the system and we find out the system doesn't work as we earlier hoped it would. And we have put in place, and we have required the Department of Defense to put in place, procedures to assure that they keep a sensible balance in the development of their weapons programs. There is a Defense Department directive, which is No. 5000.1. It sets out the Department's basic guidance on weapons system acquisition. It spells out the regulations governing procurement and states: ``All programs need to strike a sensible balance among cost, schedule, and performance considerations given affordability constraints.'' What we would be saying in this legislation is that none of that is required with regard to this program. That would be shortsighted and would undermine our real long-term security needs. The bill threatens to exacerbate the scheduling and technical risks already present in this national missile defense program. The Armed Services Committee, about a month ago, heard testimony from General Larry Welch, who is the former Chief of Staff of the Air Force. He led a panel of experts to review U.S. missile defense programs at the request of the Pentagon. That panel found that pressures to deploy systems as quickly as possible have led to very high levels of risk in the test programs of THAAD, the theater high-altitude air defense system. It is a theater missile defense system, not a national missile defense system. They pointed out the high levels of risk and failure in that program and in other missile defense systems. This confirmed similar findings in a GAO study that Senator Levin and I requested earlier. This Senate bill we are considering today, S. 1873, would generate the same pressures to hastily field a national missile defense system that have resulted in what General Welch referred to as the ``rush to failure'' in the THAAD program. That program is now 4 years behind schedule. It is still waiting for the first intercept, as was proposed when the program was designed. They have had five unsuccessful intercept tests. The most recent was yesterday in my home State of New Mexico, at White Sands Missile Range. Despite the delay in the THAAD development program of over a year since the previous test flights, they still have not been able to have a successful test. Now, national missile defense involves even more complex and technological challenges that will risk failure if we rush to deploy that system as well. What we need to do is to take the lessons General Welch is trying to teach us, by pointing to the problems in the THAAD program, and use those lessons to do better in the development of a national missile defense program. Secretary Cohen's letter has been referred to by Senator Levin and, of course, the position of the Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is one of these cases where the Pentagon clearly is opposed to the legislation we are considering. Yet, we, in our ultimate wisdom on the Senate floor, believe that we know better what is in the national security interests of the country than do the people in charge of implementing that national security policy. I think it is shortsighted on our part. Senator Levin also pointed out that not only does this legislation put us in a position where we are mandating pursuit of this program, regardless of the various factors we believe are important in developing of any system, but we are also pursuing it without adequate consideration of the arms control implications. There is no question that in this world we need to have the cooperation of the Russians in order to effectively limit proliferation of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction. If we take action in this Congress and in this country to abrogate the ABM Treaty at this point, it is almost a certainty that the START II Treaty will not be ratified by the Duma and that our ability to continue to build down the nuclear weapons arsenals of the two countries will be substantially impeded. I believe it is clearly in our best interest to defeat this bill, to vote against cloture, and not to even proceed to full debate of this bill. The administration has indicated its strong opposition to the legislation, as have the Pentagon and various former members of our national security policy team. So, Mr. President, I hope that when the final vote comes here--I gather it will be in about 45 minutes or an hour--Senators will join in resisting the effort to move ahead with this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will consume 10 minutes. I have no objection to Senator Thompson speaking now if he would like.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent two fellows in my office, Bill Monahan and John Jennings, be given floor privileges during consideration of this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today and ask my colleagues to join me in extending condolences to the family and loved ones of one of New Mexico's most outstanding citizens, L.F. ``Tow'' Diehm, who died last week. Mr. Diehm leaves a proud and indelible legacy for his family, profession, and community. He spent his professional life dedicated to athletics in New Mexico, and while he will be missed, his reputation will live on. Tow came to the University of New Mexico in 1957 and held the job of athletic trainer for 31 years. As friends and family will attest, Tow was a man who never forgot that the young student athletes in his charge were people. Throughout his 31 years, not a day went by when Tow did not touch the lives of the people around him. As a gesture to Tow of respect and affection, the University of New Mexico named its new athletic complex after him when it was completed in 1997. Indeed, the honors that were bestowed on Tow throughout his life were numerous: he is a member of the University of New Mexico Athletic Hall of Honor, the Helms Trainers Hall of fame, and in 1980, he became the first person, who was not an athlete or a coach, ever inducted into the Albuquerque Hall of Fame. Whether generating funding for the athletic department or acting as a confidante to the many student athletes he helped every day, Mr. Diehm did everything in his life, personal and professional, with honor and integrity. His influence on athletes, his colleagues and friends, to say nothing of his family, is immeasurable. The standard of excellence that he embodied will live on in each life that he touched.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail. This legislation is important to New Mexico and contributes to the national dialogue on the history of this country and who we are as a people. In history classes across the country, children learn about the establishment of European settlements on the East Coast, and the east to west migration which occurred under the banner of Manifest Destiny. We in New Mexico, however, also know the story of the northward exploration and settlement of this country by the Spanish, a little known but important piece of America's history. My legislation recognizes a proud chapter in American history; the northward exploration and settlement of the Southwest by the Spanish. Building upon a network of trade routes used by the indigenous Pueblos along the Rio Grande, Spanish explorers established a migration route into the interior of the continent which they called ``El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro,'' the Royal Road of the Interior. My bill will amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail, and give the National Park Service a mandate to develop interpretive displays explaining the importance of the trail during the Spanish settlement of the southwest United States. This legislation is especially appropriate in this year of the Cuartocentenario, which commemorates the 400th anniversary of the establishment of the first Spanish capital at San Juan Pueblo, the first terminus of the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro. In 1598, almost a decade before the first English colonists landed at Jamestown, Virginia, Don Juan de Onate led a Spanish expedition which established the northern portion of El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro. The road was the main route for communication and trade between the colonial Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros, San Gabriel and then Santa Fe, New Mexico. From 1598 to 1821 El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro facilitated the exploration, conquest, colonization, settlement, religious conversion, and military occupation of the borderlands. The Spanish influence from that period can still be seen today in the ethnic and cultural traditions of the southwestern United States. In the 17th century, caravans of wagons and livestock struggled for months to cross the desert and bring supplies up El Camino Real to missions, mining towns and settlements in New Mexico. On one section known as the Jornada del Muerto, or Journey of Death, they traveled for 90 miles without water, shelter, or firewood. Wagons heading south carried the products of New Mexico to markets in Mexico. El Camino Real became an integral part of an international network of commerce between Europe, the United States, New Mexico and other provinces of the Mexican republic. The route is a symbol of the commercial exchange and cultural interaction between nations and diverse ethnic groups that led to the development of the southwestern United States. It is also a proud symbol of the contributions of Hispanic people to the development of this great country. As we enter the 21st century, it's essential that we embrace the diversity of people and cultures that make up our country. It is the source of our dynamism and strength. I look forward to helping to advance our understanding of our rich cultural history through this initiative. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail. This legislation is important to New Mexico and contributes to the national dialogue on the history of this country and who we are as a people. In history classes across the country, children learn about the establishment of European settlements on the East Coast, and the east to west migration which occurred under the banner of Manifest Destiny. We in New Mexico, however, also know the story of the northward exploration and settlement of this country by the Spanish, a little known but important piece of America's history. My legislation recognizes a proud chapter in American history; the northward exploration and settlement of the Southwest by the Spanish. Building upon a network of trade routes used by the indigenous Pueblos along the Rio Grande, Spanish explorers established a migration route into the interior of the continent which they called ``El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro,'' the Royal Road of the Interior. My bill will amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail, and give the National Park Service a mandate to develop interpretive displays explaining the importance of the trail during the Spanish settlement of the southwest United States. This legislation is especially appropriate in this year of the Cuartocentenario, which commemorates the 400th anniversary of the establishment of the first Spanish capital at San Juan Pueblo, the first terminus of the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro. In 1598, almost a decade before the first English colonists landed at Jamestown, Virginia, Don Juan de Onate led a Spanish expedition which established the northern portion of El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro. The road was the main route for communication and trade between the colonial Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros, San Gabriel and then Santa Fe, New Mexico. From 1598 to 1821 El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro facilitated the exploration, conquest, colonization, settlement, religious conversion, and military occupation of the borderlands. The Spanish influence from that period can still be seen today in the ethnic and cultural traditions of the southwestern United States. In the 17th century, caravans of wagons and livestock struggled for months to cross the desert and bring supplies up El Camino Real to missions, mining towns and settlements in New Mexico. On one section known as the Jornada del Muerto, or Journey of Death, they traveled for 90 miles without water, shelter, or firewood. Wagons heading south carried the products of New Mexico to markets in Mexico. El Camino Real became an integral part of an international network of commerce between Europe, the United States, New Mexico and other provinces of the Mexican republic. The route is a symbol of the commercial exchange and cultural interaction between nations and diverse ethnic groups that led to the development of the southwestern United States. It is also a proud symbol of the contributions of Hispanic people to the development of this great country. As we enter the 21st century, it's essential that we embrace the diversity of people and cultures that make up our country. It is the source of our dynamism and strength. I look forward to helping to advance our understanding of our rich cultural history through this initiative. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains of the 10 minutes that I had?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment relates to what is called the NATO strategic concept. We have had quite a bit of discussion over the last couple of days about the NATO strategic concept and the fact that NATO countries, NATO members, including ourselves, have been engaged in serious discussions over the last year or two in an effort to revise the NATO strategic concept. I think we are all aware that the current strategic concept for NATO is one that was arrived at back in 1991. It predates the disillusion of the Soviet Union, and the resulting emergence of new independent states. It does not account for the Civil War in Bosnia or NATO's peacekeeping operations there. It does not allow or contemplate the current nuclear or strategic concept, does not contemplate the denuclearization of Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and it does not contemplate the special relationships that NATO has established with Russia and separately with the Ukraine. So there is clearly a need to revise and update this strategic concept. What my amendment says very simply is that the United States will withhold consent to inviting any additional countries other than the three we are talking about here today--Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. We will not go forward with inviting any additional countries to join NATO until after NATO has approved this revised strategic concept. This is simply a matter of understanding what NATO is doing before we agree to take in more members in addition to these three. NATO members need to decide on the alliance's mission before any new candidates or states are asked to join in the future. I have great difficulty seeing why anyone would object to this. The reality is that the revised concept is expected to be completed even as soon as this summer. At the very latest it would be complete, as I understand it based on the statements by the NATO officials, before their meeting in 1999. So there is no attempt here to delay the invitation to other members in the future. It simply says let's figure out what NATO is intended to do in this new post-cold-war world before we start inviting more people to join. Now, this doesn't strike me as a radical proposal. It is not radical from our point of view. It is certainly not radical from the point of view of potential new members. If I were representing a country that was considering admission to NATO I would be interested in what NATO's mission is, its new revised strategic concept is, before I would want to sign up. I think that is a reasonable thing for new members to want to know, and it is certainly reasonable for current members to want to settle on before we begin deciding which nations are appropriate new members and which are not. I think the amendment is very straightforward. Let me make it crystal clear once more. It does not in any way relate to the enlargement of NATO to add Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. That is not part of my amendment. My amendment assumes we will go ahead with the enlargement of NATO that is presently proposed by the administration in this treaty. But it says we will not go beyond that. We will not invite others until we settle on what this revised strategic concept is. I have difficulty understanding, as I said, why this is objectionable. It seems to me imminently reasonable that this would be our position. Let me make it crystal clear what I am doing. Let me read the one paragraph of the amendment into the record so it is clear what we are saying. Prior to the date of deposit of the United States instrument of ratification, the President shall certify to the Senate that, until such time as the North Atlantic Council agrees on a revised strategic concept of NATO, it is the policy of the United States not to support the accession to the North Atlantic Treaty of, or the invitation to begin accession talks with any European state, other than Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Basically, what we would be saying is the President needs to tell us that it is our policy, the U.S. Government policy, not to invite others to join until we get the strategic concept settled. I hope very much my colleagues will support the amendment. To me, it is an imminently reasonable, common-sense approach and I hope we can add it to the treaty. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me explain this amendment and use the 10 minutes I have at this point. First, let me send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I have no concern as to how you allocate that time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the Chair advise me when 10 of those minutes have expired and that the remaining 5 minutes be reserved for me to use prior to the vote on my amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response, I would point out that there are many occasions where that has happened, and I am saying, it could happen here. This is a statement by the Senate, if it were to pass, a statement by the Senate, as I see it, that the Senate believes that the President should initiate discussions and should certify to us that he has done so. If he does not do so, he still has legal authority to go ahead and file the articles of ratification.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, would the Senator refer to the bottom of page 2. It says there, ``Sense of the Senate. It is the sense of the Senate. . . .'' There is no binding language in this amendment. This calls upon the administration to try to initiate discussion with the Russians.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?