Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Domenici, in expressing our grief at the loss of Steve Schiff. He is someone I became friends with when we--he and I--were both young lawyers in New Mexico, beginning our legal careers. Of course, when he became district attorney for Bernalillo County, I had the good fortune to be attorney general and worked with him very closely on many issues in those jobs. Steve did have the respect of the people he represented because of the good, hard, nonpolitical work that he did for them, first as district attorney and later as U.S. Representative. He was not partisan in his approach to his job. He was quick to reach across party lines. I can remember many phone calls from Steve where he would call and say, ``I have a bill that we have been able to pass in the House, and I need your help in the Senate.'' And I can remember many phone calls I made to him, asking for his help with legislation that I was pursuing as well. Steve was a person who kept clearly in mind the commitment and the job that he was sent here to do for the people of our State. He had great respect in our State and here in the Congress as well. His family deserves our condolences. We certainly send those to his wife and children. The State of New Mexico has lost a tremendous public servant. Senator Domenici put it well by pointing out he was, first and foremost, a public servant in the very best sense of that term. He did not see himself as a politician who was trying to put a good face on the job he was doing. Instead, he saw himself as a mechanic, working in the machine and in the engine of Government to do the right thing for the people of New Mexico and for the country. Steve was a good friend to many of us and a great contributor to our State and to the Nation. I join Senator Domenici in expressing our grief and our condolences to his family. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, an American hero in both wartime and peacetime passed away on March 19, 1998 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I'd like to take a moment to honor the memory of Mr. Sidney Graybeal, one of the nation's finest patriots. Mr. Graybeal's contributions to the nation spanned six decades, from his decorated service as a B-29 pilot during World War II through his distinguished career as a public servant to more recent years when he served as a distinguished member of the Secretary of Defense's high level Defense Policy Board. His many accomplishments in the nation's service have been recognized and applauded by both sides of the political aisle. Presidents Nixon and Ford commended Mr. Graybeal during their tenures in the White House, and in 1980, President Carter awarded Mr. Graybeal the nation's highest civilian honor, the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Service. Mr. Graybeal will be remembered and revered for his pioneering work in arms control during the coldest years of the Cold War. His extensive experience in intelligence matters and strategic nuclear policy issues served him well during his tenure on the negotiating team that crafted the historic SALT I agreements limiting offensive and defensive strategic weapons for the first time. As a result of his trailblazing work on those agreements, Mr. Graybeal was appointed as the first commissioner on the Standing Consultative Commission (SCC)--the first official U.S.-Soviet organization established to resolve arms control compliance disputes between the two superpowers. SALT I and the SCC stand as enduring legacies of Mr. Graybeal's dedicated efforts to bring the Cold War to a successful conclusion. Sidney Graybeal was admired by his colleagues for his energy and dedication to the nation. He was widely known as a tough negotiator, but widely loved for his warm sense of humor and diplomatic skills. New Mexico will miss one of our finest citizens. The nation will miss his wisdom and experience as we navigate these uncharted waters of the post-Cold War era. I urge my colleagues in the Congress to join me in saluting this great American. Mr. President, I ask that a March 20 article in the Santa Fe New Mexican on Mr. Graybeal be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Santa Fe New Mexican, Mar. 20, 1998] Sidney Graybeal, Intelligence Adviser, Dies at 73 Sidney N. Graybeal, a Central Intelligence Agency senior intelligence adviser during the Cuban missile crisis, died Thursday of a heart attack at his Santa Fe home. He was 73. A memorial service will be held at St. Francis Auditorium on March 27 at 6 p.m. Graybeal, who had more than 40 years of experience in arms control, intelligence, and national security, in 1994 was appointed to the Defense Policy Board by Secretary of Defense William Perry. At the time of his death, he was a chief scientist for Science Applications International Corp. Born in Butler, Tenn., Graybeal was a B-29 pilot during World War II and flew 32 missions over Japan. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross and other decorations for his military service. After the war, he joined the CIA and was responsible for analysis of all foreign missile and space programs. During the 1962 missile crisis, Graybeal was the first person to inform President John F. Kennedy of the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Graybeal was recently filmed by the BBC for a documentary on the Cold War. He also served in the State Department in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and was a member of the negotiating team for the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT)-I agreements. He helped negotiate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and was appointed as the first U.S. commissioner of the Standing Consultative Commission, the body that administered the ABM treaty. In 1980, Graybeal received the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service from President Carter. In Santa Fe, Graybeal was on the board of the Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival. He is survived by his wife, Patricia McFate; his son Douglas of Aspen, Colo.; his daughter, Joan Graybeal Menard of Annandale, Va.; and two grandchildren, Katrina and Steven Menard.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am glad to be here today to introduce the Higher Education for the 21st Century Act, which is also cosponsored by Senators Inouye and Murray. the importance of improving post-secondary education for hispanic and native americans Improving the quality and availability of postsecondary opportunities for Hispanics and Native Americans is one of my top priorities during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original Hispanic Serving Institutions proposal that was enacted in 1992. I also authored the Educational Equity for Land Grant Status Act of 1994, and the Tribally Controlled, Post--Secondary Vocational Institutions Program that helps institutions such as Crownpoint. examples from new mexico Like others, I have many of these institutions in my state: Hispanic serving institutions such as Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute and Santa Fe Community College, and Tribal colleges such as Crownpoint Institute of Technology, the Southwest Indian Technical institute, and the Institute for American Indian Arts. As I will describe, these institutions are essential lifelines for so many Hispanic and Native American students who aspire to post-secondary education. strong bipartisan support for hispanic serving institutions and tribal colleges and universities I am also glad to report to that the proposals contained in this legislation has the support of a broad, bipartisan group of members in both the House and Senate, as well as the Administration: In the last two weeks, 19 Senators from both sides of the aisle joined in sending letters to the Labor Committee expressing their strong support for these goals. Over 30 Members of the House have joined to cosponsor companion legislation, HR 2495. The Administration has proposed parallel provisions in its recommendations for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. how the current title iii works Under current law, there are only limited provisions for HSIs, and no provisions at all for Tribal Colleges. Title III, called ``Strengthening Institutions'' is intended to provide grants to colleges that serve large populations of low-income and minority students, enabling them to improve the quality of their programs: There are several special provisions to support Historically Black Colleges; There is a small provision that allows some HSIs that meet highly restrictive eligibility requirements to receive funds; and There is no special provision for the particular needs of Tribal Colleges. streamlining and expanding hispanic serving institutions While they make up only about 3 percent of all colleges and universities, HSIs educate over half of all Hispanic Americans nationwide. In fact, HSIs account for over 45 percent of the Associate's degrees earned by Hispanics nationwide, and almost 50 percent of Bachelor's degrees. Though the current HSI program is very successful, there are several aspects that I believe should be improved. This bill would: Increase the HSI authorization from $45 to $100 million; Create a new Part C within Title III specifically for HSIs; and, Eliminate cumbersome and inequitable data collection requirements about parents' educational attainment. creating new opportunities for tribal colleges and universities This bill also helps tribal colleges and universities (or ``TCUs''), by creating a funding stream that would enable them to compete for similar grants under the Higher Education Act. At present, there are 30 tribal colleges in 12 states serving over 25,000 students from 200 tribes, which continue to be among the most under-funded institutions of higher education in the nation. However, Tribal Colleges or Universities have been hampered by a legacy of inadequate and unstable funding, because they do not have large resource bases to draw on and generally do not receive State funding. This bill: Creates a new Part D within Title III specifically for TCUs; Establishes an FY99 authorization level of $50 million; and Includes ALL tribal colleges--including those land grant institutions such as Crownpoint Institute of Technology that are currently excluded from the Tribal Community Colleges Act. why hsis and tcus need these programs One of the main reasons these changes are needed has to do with the limited educational opportunities and disproportionately low educational achievement of both Hispanics and Native Americans in most parts of the country. Over 40 percent of Hispanic students do not complete a bachelor's degree, and 30 percent of young Hispanics have not graduated from high school. Only 8.9 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native Youth earn 4 year bachelor's degrees or higher academic degrees compared to 20.3% of the Nation as a whole. This is not to say that there aren't needy students at all types of institutions around the country but simply to point out that American Indian and Hispanic students--and the colleges that educate them--are among the most needy. Unclear progress on these issues in the Labor Committee Despite the strong support for these changes, it is unclear at present if the House Education Committee or the working group in the Labor Committee will agree to make significant changes. In the House Education Committee there has been some notable progress, including a new $10 million section for Tribal Colleges and an increased authorization level for HSIs. However, in recent Labor Committee drafts there have been only minor changes for HSIs, and no action at all to support tribal colleges. Conclusion This Act contains changes that have tremendous importance both symbolically and substantively that will provide opportunities Congress to lead the way in helping the most needy institutions helping the most disadvantaged students. Knowing that Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy and other members of the Labor Committee are long-standing supporters of tribal colleges and HSIs, I am hoping that the Committee will be persuaded of the need to make these changes. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this Act, and call on my friends in the Labor Committee to include these provisions in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am glad to be here today to introduce the Higher Education for the 21st Century Act, which is also cosponsored by Senators Inouye and Murray. the importance of improving post-secondary education for hispanic and native americans Improving the quality and availability of postsecondary opportunities for Hispanics and Native Americans is one of my top priorities during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original Hispanic Serving Institutions proposal that was enacted in 1992. I also authored the Educational Equity for Land Grant Status Act of 1994, and the Tribally Controlled, Post--Secondary Vocational Institutions Program that helps institutions such as Crownpoint. examples from new mexico Like others, I have many of these institutions in my state: Hispanic serving institutions such as Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute and Santa Fe Community College, and Tribal colleges such as Crownpoint Institute of Technology, the Southwest Indian Technical institute, and the Institute for American Indian Arts. As I will describe, these institutions are essential lifelines for so many Hispanic and Native American students who aspire to post-secondary education. strong bipartisan support for hispanic serving institutions and tribal colleges and universities I am also glad to report to that the proposals contained in this legislation has the support of a broad, bipartisan group of members in both the House and Senate, as well as the Administration: In the last two weeks, 19 Senators from both sides of the aisle joined in sending letters to the Labor Committee expressing their strong support for these goals. Over 30 Members of the House have joined to cosponsor companion legislation, HR 2495. The Administration has proposed parallel provisions in its recommendations for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. how the current title iii works Under current law, there are only limited provisions for HSIs, and no provisions at all for Tribal Colleges. Title III, called ``Strengthening Institutions'' is intended to provide grants to colleges that serve large populations of low-income and minority students, enabling them to improve the quality of their programs: There are several special provisions to support Historically Black Colleges; There is a small provision that allows some HSIs that meet highly restrictive eligibility requirements to receive funds; and There is no special provision for the particular needs of Tribal Colleges. streamlining and expanding hispanic serving institutions While they make up only about 3 percent of all colleges and universities, HSIs educate over half of all Hispanic Americans nationwide. In fact, HSIs account for over 45 percent of the Associate's degrees earned by Hispanics nationwide, and almost 50 percent of Bachelor's degrees. Though the current HSI program is very successful, there are several aspects that I believe should be improved. This bill would: Increase the HSI authorization from $45 to $100 million; Create a new Part C within Title III specifically for HSIs; and, Eliminate cumbersome and inequitable data collection requirements about parents' educational attainment. creating new opportunities for tribal colleges and universities This bill also helps tribal colleges and universities (or ``TCUs''), by creating a funding stream that would enable them to compete for similar grants under the Higher Education Act. At present, there are 30 tribal colleges in 12 states serving over 25,000 students from 200 tribes, which continue to be among the most under-funded institutions of higher education in the nation. However, Tribal Colleges or Universities have been hampered by a legacy of inadequate and unstable funding, because they do not have large resource bases to draw on and generally do not receive State funding. This bill: Creates a new Part D within Title III specifically for TCUs; Establishes an FY99 authorization level of $50 million; and Includes ALL tribal colleges--including those land grant institutions such as Crownpoint Institute of Technology that are currently excluded from the Tribal Community Colleges Act. why hsis and tcus need these programs One of the main reasons these changes are needed has to do with the limited educational opportunities and disproportionately low educational achievement of both Hispanics and Native Americans in most parts of the country. Over 40 percent of Hispanic students do not complete a bachelor's degree, and 30 percent of young Hispanics have not graduated from high school. Only 8.9 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native Youth earn 4 year bachelor's degrees or higher academic degrees compared to 20.3% of the Nation as a whole. This is not to say that there aren't needy students at all types of institutions around the country but simply to point out that American Indian and Hispanic students--and the colleges that educate them--are among the most needy. Unclear progress on these issues in the Labor Committee Despite the strong support for these changes, it is unclear at present if the House Education Committee or the working group in the Labor Committee will agree to make significant changes. In the House Education Committee there has been some notable progress, including a new $10 million section for Tribal Colleges and an increased authorization level for HSIs. However, in recent Labor Committee drafts there have been only minor changes for HSIs, and no action at all to support tribal colleges. Conclusion This Act contains changes that have tremendous importance both symbolically and substantively that will provide opportunities Congress to lead the way in helping the most needy institutions helping the most disadvantaged students. Knowing that Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy and other members of the Labor Committee are long-standing supporters of tribal colleges and HSIs, I am hoping that the Committee will be persuaded of the need to make these changes. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this Act, and call on my friends in the Labor Committee to include these provisions in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. 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 join Senators Frist and Kennedy and Jeffords in the introduction of legislation to reauthorize Titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act. I am pleased to be part of this bipartisan effort to reauthorize the programs that help shape the pool of qualified health care professionals for the United States. Titles VII and VIII were originally enacted to address a critical health manpower shortage and successfully served to increase the overall supply of providers. The mission of Title VII and VIII has evolved as the delivery system and needs of the population have shifted. Today, the focus of the various programs rests within three main areas. The programs are aimed to solve the shortages in rural and inner city communities. They strive to address the shortage of primary care providers and finally must correct the disparity in minority representation in the health professions. Indeed, the various programs in this legislation serve to provide a base for strengthening the health resources for this country. In my home state of New Mexico, 28 out of 33 counties are designated as health professional shortage areas by the federal government. I am acutely aware of how a maldistribution of health care providers can impact our citizens. Geographic access to the appropriate health care provider is an important factor in our debates on the health care system. Titles VII and VIII are noteworthy avenues to address the needs in this area. Studies have shown that if we recruit individuals from the shortage area, the likelihood is much greater that they will return to practice in the area. Additionally, if clinical training is community based in rural and underserved areas, the likelihood is also increased that upon graduation, the provider will serve in the locality in which they trained. Equally important for a state such as mine is the commitment to address the persistent and unmet health care need along the border between the United States and Mexico. The health education and training centers in the legislation address the community health needs and the training and educational needs of health professionals serving in these areas. The legislation also has the capacity to expand and improve the public health workforce which is a major component of addressing border health concerns. Mr. President, this legislation restructures the act to address the health workforce needs of our nation in a flexible, but more accountable manner. We have provided for data collection and analysis of the health workforce so that decision making for the future can be well founded and be an accurate reflection of societal needs. Additionally, this legislation affords us the opportunity to provide education and training that reflect changes in an evolving health care system. As managed care and other forces shift the delivery system from inpatient hospital care to outpatient facilities, it is necessary to respond to the shifts that this causes in the workforce. To this end, the legislation addresses the curriculum development in the areas of health promotion and disease prevention as well as long term care, home health and hospice. As the demographics of our population shift to an older population, we must ensure we have qualified individuals to treat the specific nature of chronic diseases associated with geriatrics. As we deal with an aging population, establishing interdisciplinary training programs that promote the role of nutritionists, physical therapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists in geriatrics are critical. The legislation provides an avenue to address these necessary components. Finally, the reauthorization provides a framework to better monitor the outcomes of our efforts. It continues to afford us the opportunity to assure an appropriate number and mix of health professionals for the health needs of the country. It strengthens our commitment to address the supply, distribution, and minority representation of health professionals through both Native American and Hispanic centers of excellence. I have been committed to seeing the needs of these two populations addressed. I commend Senators Frist and Kennedy for their hard work and the work of their staff to address the various concerns raised during our hearings on this important issue. I appreciate the work done by the Hispanic caucus in the House and by the minority health profession schools as well. Mr. President, in closing I want to thank Senators Frist and Kennedy and Jeffords for their determination to address the need to reauthorize Title VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act. I appreciate that they have worked closely with our colleagues in the House to develop companion legislation. I am committed to working with my colleagues toward expeditious consideration and passage of this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Frist and Kennedy and Jeffords in the introduction of legislation to reauthorize Titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act. I am pleased to be part of this bipartisan effort to reauthorize the programs that help shape the pool of qualified health care professionals for the United States. Titles VII and VIII were originally enacted to address a critical health manpower shortage and successfully served to increase the overall supply of providers. The mission of Title VII and VIII has evolved as the delivery system and needs of the population have shifted. Today, the focus of the various programs rests within three main areas. The programs are aimed to solve the shortages in rural and inner city communities. They strive to address the shortage of primary care providers and finally must correct the disparity in minority representation in the health professions. Indeed, the various programs in this legislation serve to provide a base for strengthening the health resources for this country. In my home state of New Mexico, 28 out of 33 counties are designated as health professional shortage areas by the federal government. I am acutely aware of how a maldistribution of health care providers can impact our citizens. Geographic access to the appropriate health care provider is an important factor in our debates on the health care system. Titles VII and VIII are noteworthy avenues to address the needs in this area. Studies have shown that if we recruit individuals from the shortage area, the likelihood is much greater that they will return to practice in the area. Additionally, if clinical training is community based in rural and underserved areas, the likelihood is also increased that upon graduation, the provider will serve in the locality in which they trained. Equally important for a state such as mine is the commitment to address the persistent and unmet health care need along the border between the United States and Mexico. The health education and training centers in the legislation address the community health needs and the training and educational needs of health professionals serving in these areas. The legislation also has the capacity to expand and improve the public health workforce which is a major component of addressing border health concerns. Mr. President, this legislation restructures the act to address the health workforce needs of our nation in a flexible, but more accountable manner. We have provided for data collection and analysis of the health workforce so that decision making for the future can be well founded and be an accurate reflection of societal needs. Additionally, this legislation affords us the opportunity to provide education and training that reflect changes in an evolving health care system. As managed care and other forces shift the delivery system from inpatient hospital care to outpatient facilities, it is necessary to respond to the shifts that this causes in the workforce. To this end, the legislation addresses the curriculum development in the areas of health promotion and disease prevention as well as long term care, home health and hospice. As the demographics of our population shift to an older population, we must ensure we have qualified individuals to treat the specific nature of chronic diseases associated with geriatrics. As we deal with an aging population, establishing interdisciplinary training programs that promote the role of nutritionists, physical therapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists in geriatrics are critical. The legislation provides an avenue to address these necessary components. Finally, the reauthorization provides a framework to better monitor the outcomes of our efforts. It continues to afford us the opportunity to assure an appropriate number and mix of health professionals for the health needs of the country. It strengthens our commitment to address the supply, distribution, and minority representation of health professionals through both Native American and Hispanic centers of excellence. I have been committed to seeing the needs of these two populations addressed. I commend Senators Frist and Kennedy for their hard work and the work of their staff to address the various concerns raised during our hearings on this important issue. I appreciate the work done by the Hispanic caucus in the House and by the minority health profession schools as well. Mr. President, in closing I want to thank Senators Frist and Kennedy and Jeffords for their determination to address the need to reauthorize Title VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act. I appreciate that they have worked closely with our colleagues in the House to develop companion legislation. I am committed to working with my colleagues toward expeditious consideration and passage of this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to join my Senate colleagues in opposition to Senator McConnell's amendment to eliminate the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Businesses Enterprise program. This program, known as the DBE program, for years has been very successful in bringing equity and fairness into construction contracting, and I believe it should be maintained as it is. Most of all, I agree that this program does not violate the equal protections guaranteed by our Constitution, and I question the Senator from Kentucky's interpretation that it does. In fact, if Senator McConnell is basing his reasons for eliminating this program on our Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v. Pena, then I am confused. My reading of Adarand suggests nothing of that sort. While it is true that the underlying issue in Adarand was whether the Department of Transportation has infringed on Adarand's constitutional right to due process and equal protection, the issue the Court actually addressed and decided in this case was by what standard is an infringement in this context determined. In other words, how do we figure out what constitutes a violation of equal protection? Indeed, the Court reversed long-standing law, and raised the standard for justifying this program. Typically, the burden to justify the necessity and the implementation of a program that affects equal protection lays with the government. The Court, for the first time, determined that the standard of ``strict scrutiny'' should be applied in a case of this sort. Specifically, the standard of strict scrutiny requires that if the government determines to implement a program such as the DBE program, which ultimately effects an individual's constitutional right to equal protection, the government first must show a ``compelling interest.'' Basically, the government must have more than a very good reason for the program. Second, even if the government can show a compelling interest, the standard requires that the government show that the program is ``narrowly tailored'' to serve that interest. So the issue before the Supreme Court in Adarand was which standard to apply, and the Court held that the standard must be ``strict scrutiny.'' This is a landmark decision, because it places on the government a very tough test, a test that often is very difficult to overcome. Of critical importance here, is that the Court recognized that the standard, although very tough to meet, is not fatal in fact, it is not impossible to overcome. And I believe that is where my colleague from Kentucky has erred. What I understand Senator McConnell to be saying is that the Court, in holding that strict scrutiny is the standard to apply in this context, ultimately held that the DBE was unconstitutional. To the contrary. The Court simply expounded the standard for making this determination, nothing more, nothing less. What does this standard mean to the DBE program? It means that the Department of Transportation must show that its governmental ``interest,'' its important reason for having this program, is ``compelling.'' In this context, it requires that the government must show that there is a history of discrimination in the construction contracting industry, such that minority and women-owned businesses, although qualified for a contract, continuously are not awarded contract simply because they are minority- or woman-owned. Clearly, there long has been a history of discrimination in this country, and the effects of discrimination still linger. Department of Transportation can show that although minority-owned businesses are 9 percent of construction firms, they get only 5 percent of construction receipts. Additionally, DoT can show that women own one-third of all small businesses, but in 1994, for example, received only 3 percent of federal procurement contract dollars. Moreover, Department of Transportation can show that, in the wake of City of Richmond v. Croson, disadvantaged businesses have been squeezed out from contracting opportunities. Put simply, in those areas where there is no DBE program in place, minority-owned businesses received no contracts at all. So it's clear there is a wide gap in the availability of qualified minority- and women-owned contractors and the number of contracts they are in fact awarded. The government's compelling interest is to remedy discrimination, and I don't think anyone in this Congress can dispute the government has a compelling interest. The real issue here, however, is how the government sets out to remedy that discrimination. The Court explained that strict scrutiny requires the government must ``narrowly tailor'' whatever is crafted to address this problem. In other words, the program cannot be too broad, but must be designed specifically enough to remedy the discrimination without infringing on anyone else's Constitutional rights. That is exactly what the Department of Transportation has in the DBE program. The DBE is designed only to provide a ``goal'' that ten percent of contracts be awarded to disadvantaged businesses. You may ask, what is the difference between a ``goal'' and a ``quota'' or a ``set-aside''? I see a clear distinction. A quota requires that a minimum number of construction contracts be awarded to disadvantaged business, regardless of the amount or history of discrimination that has taken place. Right or wrong, it allows no flexibility. Same is true with a set-aside. The Department's ``goal'' program, on the other hand, provides broad flexibility. I read the program to encourage contracting with disadvantaged businesses up to 10 percent of contracts. That is a very significant difference, particularly when you consider the strict considerations that DoT has built into the program. For instance, the program requires that the goal correspond to the availability of qualified DBE's in a given market area; it requires the goal be ``race neutral''; the program cannot be for an unlimited period of time but only for as long as it takes to address any measured inequities in contracting; the goal of 10 percent is not required; and it also provides the flexibility to tailor a program to the circumstances of the locality. Mr. President, I am confident that the DoT's DBE program is not unconstitutional and in full accord with Adarand. But nobody has to take my word for it. I suggest they examine Adarand for its real effect. That precisely is what many very esteemed constitutional law professors did, and they conclude that this program is within constitutional parameters. Any other conclusion we should leave to our Supreme Court. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator McConnell's concern for all the emerging small businesses in our country, and I agree there should be fairness, equality for all. I am certain he has only the most genuine interests in mind for everyone. I have to disagree, however, that fairness and equality will prevail if the DBE program is eliminated. Given our history as a nation and the lingering effects of discrimination, I believe the DBE program is necessary. Moreover, I believe it is constitutional and should remain intact. Therefore, I will oppose the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Frist and my other colleagues in introducing the Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998. This legislation allows us to reauthorize key women's health research and prevention programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These programs represent a cross section of the current research projects at the federal level that have a direct impact on women's lives here in the United States. While in the last decade, interest and commitment to women's health has been heightened in the Congress, much work remains. We have taken steps to ensure that women will be included in health care research in the U.S. Prior to 1993, research in women's health was inadequate. Most of the health care studies were conducted only on Anglo men. Quite simply, research studies on men cannot be generalized to women. We know that there are gender and ethnic differences when it comes to health and illness. The time has come to further address the major causes of morbidity and mortality among women: heart disease, osteoporosis, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer. This bill will provide the basis for looking at the research needs in the spectrum of women's health and as we go to hearings on the bill I am hopeful that additional women's health issues can be addressed. There is another facet to women's health research that must be considered. It is imperative that we ensure that studies are representative of all women in the United States, including African American, Hispanic, Native American and Asian women. We need research that is culturally sensitive. We must support efforts of community based outreach that allows for recruitment and retention of minority women into research and this should be a factor when projects are planned and conducted. Mr. President, this legislation has provisions relating to women's health research at the NIH in the disease specific issues of diethylstilbestrol (DES), osteoporosis, breast and ovarian cancer. It expands and allows for increased coordination of research activities with respect to heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. This program is critical since cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for women in the United States. Finally, Mr. President, I wanted to take the opportunity to specifically highlight one particular CDC program in the bill. This legislation addresses the Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Centers Program at the CDC and will extend authorization for grants to our academic health institutions for research in the areas of health promotion and disease prevention. The CDC's Prevention Research Center Program is an innovative, extramural link of federal, academic, state, and community based agencies. For my home state of New Mexico, this CDC project has been particularly useful. In New Mexico a prevention center has been able to focus on health risks and promoting health through applied research at the community level. The project and grant have provided the opportunity to address areas often overlooked such as rural population needs and Native American and Hispanic health needs. In New Mexico about one of every three American Indian adults has diabetes. The demonstration project has allowed for the promotion of health lifestyles to combat the epidemic of adult onset diabetes. The project has facilitated the formation of a true partnership between the Navajo nation, nineteen pueblos in New Mexico, the New Mexico Department of Health, the University of New Mexico, and the New Mexico State Department of Education. There has been training of community health workers on disease prevention strategies most applicable to American Indian communities. This program is a model for increasing collaboration among established agencies and nontraditional community partners. It is a culturally sensitive approach that is having a direct, positive impact on the health of New Mexicans. The creative approach at CDC of a community based demonstration and application project coupled with evaluation of strategies through research is unique, successful, and should be reauthorized. Mr. President, in closing, I look upon this bill as the important first step to reauthorize programs at both the CDC and NIH. I look forward to working with Senator Frist on these and other issues of import to women's health.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Frist and my other colleagues in introducing the Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998. This legislation allows us to reauthorize key women's health research and prevention programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These programs represent a cross section of the current research projects at the federal level that have a direct impact on women's lives here in the United States. While in the last decade, interest and commitment to women's health has been heightened in the Congress, much work remains. We have taken steps to ensure that women will be included in health care research in the U.S. Prior to 1993, research in women's health was inadequate. Most of the health care studies were conducted only on Anglo men. Quite simply, research studies on men cannot be generalized to women. We know that there are gender and ethnic differences when it comes to health and illness. The time has come to further address the major causes of morbidity and mortality among women: heart disease, osteoporosis, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer. This bill will provide the basis for looking at the research needs in the spectrum of women's health and as we go to hearings on the bill I am hopeful that additional women's health issues can be addressed. There is another facet to women's health research that must be considered. It is imperative that we ensure that studies are representative of all women in the United States, including African American, Hispanic, Native American and Asian women. We need research that is culturally sensitive. We must support efforts of community based outreach that allows for recruitment and retention of minority women into research and this should be a factor when projects are planned and conducted. Mr. President, this legislation has provisions relating to women's health research at the NIH in the disease specific issues of diethylstilbestrol (DES), osteoporosis, breast and ovarian cancer. It expands and allows for increased coordination of research activities with respect to heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. This program is critical since cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for women in the United States. Finally, Mr. President, I wanted to take the opportunity to specifically highlight one particular CDC program in the bill. This legislation addresses the Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Centers Program at the CDC and will extend authorization for grants to our academic health institutions for research in the areas of health promotion and disease prevention. The CDC's Prevention Research Center Program is an innovative, extramural link of federal, academic, state, and community based agencies. For my home state of New Mexico, this CDC project has been particularly useful. In New Mexico a prevention center has been able to focus on health risks and promoting health through applied research at the community level. The project and grant have provided the opportunity to address areas often overlooked such as rural population needs and Native American and Hispanic health needs. In New Mexico about one of every three American Indian adults has diabetes. The demonstration project has allowed for the promotion of health lifestyles to combat the epidemic of adult onset diabetes. The project has facilitated the formation of a true partnership between the Navajo nation, nineteen pueblos in New Mexico, the New Mexico Department of Health, the University of New Mexico, and the New Mexico State Department of Education. There has been training of community health workers on disease prevention strategies most applicable to American Indian communities. This program is a model for increasing collaboration among established agencies and nontraditional community partners. It is a culturally sensitive approach that is having a direct, positive impact on the health of New Mexicans. The creative approach at CDC of a community based demonstration and application project coupled with evaluation of strategies through research is unique, successful, and should be reauthorized. Mr. President, in closing, I look upon this bill as the important first step to reauthorize programs at both the CDC and NIH. I look forward to working with Senator Frist on these and other issues of import to women's health.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to use 7\1/2\ minutes of the proponents' time and Senator Byrd from West Virginia be allowed the remaining time allotted to the proponents.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in accordance with the changes that have been referred to by the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe Senator Byrd made the case for the amendment more eloquently than I could. I believe this is a very good opportunity for us to indicate that we do have an interstate road system in this country and that it is in the national interest to be sure that people are not driving on that interstate road system who have purchased liquor under circumstances that make it more likely for them to be drunk or under the influence of alcohol. Clearly, this is a significant way in which we can further that objective. I hope very much my colleagues will support the amendment. I yield the floor so that the Senator from North Dakota can offer the amendment that he intends to offer.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we do not at this point.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I think that is an acceptable course of action. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will just add, it is 2001, October 1, 2001, for a 5-percent reduction and October 1, 2002, for a 10-percent reduction, just as the amendment yesterday.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, thank you. I thank the chairman of the committee for his courtesy. Amendment No. 1696, As Modified

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is correct.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we are changing it to 2001, October 1, 2001. I think it will be consistent with the amendment adopted yesterday.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the problem of drunk driving has been discussed here for a day or two now. It is clear to all of us that this problem is one that wreaks a terrible toll on our communities, a terrible toll on the young people of this country. One statistic that I cited yesterday, and that I think should be of concern to all of us, is that the single largest cause, the greatest cause of death among our young people between the ages of 15 and 20 is driving-related accidents. That is something we need to all be concerned about. Most of those accidents--so-called accidents--relate to alcohol. A significant contributor to the problem, I believe, is the sale of liquor through drive-up or drive-through windows. We all hear speeches and give speeches about how we do not believe we should combine drinking and driving. That is sort of a common refrain throughout our country and has been for many years. But if you want to know the time and the place and the circumstance where that mixing most obviously occurs, it is when a person drives a car up to a liquor store that has a drive-up window and that person sitting in the car as the driver of that car buys liquor or alcoholic beverages. Allowing the sales through these drive-up windows has the practical effect of preventing effective enforcement of many of our other laws. It also sends completely the wrong message to the driver and the public about refraining from drinking and driving. Let me give three examples. Under a law which has been adopted in virtually every State, it is against the law to sell liquor to a minor. In fact, we put that on the highway bill several years ago. We put a requirement in that States prohibit the sale of liquor to minors and, in fact, prohibit the sale of liquor to anyone less than 21 years old. But any young person or any law enforcement officer will tell you that sales to minors are still common in our country. A main way in which minors are able to purchase liquor and alcoholic beverages is by presenting a false ID to someone who is selling them liquor through a drive-up window. It is virtually impossible for a clerk selling through a drive-up window to see clearly who is buying the liquor, to make a good comparison between an identification which may be false in the first place with the person who is sitting there offering them money. So, having these drive-up liquor sales makes it easy for sales to minors to occur, in violation of the law. It is also, of course, against the law in most States to sell to someone who is already intoxicated. Again, having sales of liquor through drive-up windows makes it very difficult to enforce this law. How can a clerk in a drive-up window tell whether the person sitting in that car, offering money, is in fact intoxicated or not? You contrast that with the opportunity that a clerk has when a person has to walk into a store, a well-lighted store, walk up to a counter, and pay for alcoholic beverages. A third example of a law which is difficult to enforce because of these drive-up liquor windows is that most States make it illegal for people to drink while they are driving or to have open containers in the car while it is in operation. Senator Dorgan is proposing an amendment, which I strongly support this morning, on that very issue. But, again, having drive-up windows creates a tremendous opportunity and even an invitation to people to violate this law. The absurdity of what we are permitting to occur by allowing these drive-up sales to continue is highlighted by a practice that has been documented in my State many times, and that is a practice where a driver pulls into a drive-up window and asks for a fifth of vodka, for example, a fifth of vodka and a cup of ice, and is handed both and drives away. Clearly, no law has been violated in my State when that occurs. But if you look at the time and the place and the circumstances of that purchase, it is very difficult to conclude that that driver does not intend to violate the law and to drink while driving. This is a problem that deserves our attention. The statistics that we have are clear that there is a correlation between the States that prohibit these drive-up windows and those that have gotten their DWI problem under control. There are 26 States that have not yet banned these windows. In these States, there is a 14 percent higher alcohol- related fatality rate than in other States. In the States that do have a ban, the average DWI fatality-related rate was 4.6 per 100,000 people as opposed to 5.46 in other States. If we look at the 19 Western States, the 9 States with a ban had a 31 percent lower average drunk driving fatality rate than the 10 States that permit sales. Let me just cite one terrible incident that occurred in my State. I know Senator Lautenberg talked about the Frazier family in Maryland and the pain they experienced when their young daughter was killed by a drunk driver. In New Mexico, we've had many similar occurrences. One in particular that immediately comes to my mind occurred on Christmas Eve, 1992. As part of their holiday celebration, Paul Cravens took his wife Melanie and their three daughters, Kacee, age 5; Erin, age 8; and Kandyce, age 9, to Albuquerque's West Mesa so they could get a better bird's eye view of the city's fantastic nighttime lights. They never got to see those lights. On the way to the Mesa, they were met head-on by a drunk driver traveling 90 miles an hour in the wrong direction on the interstate highway. People say, is there any kind of Federal concern about this? This was an interstate highway. Melanie and her three beautiful daughters were all killed. The driver of the other vehicle had been drinking through that day. He admitted that he had bought his beer at a drive-up liquor window before he took to the road that evening. The problem is real. We are talking about real people, real lives, real risks and dangers that we can prevent and can avoid. The argument about States' rights that we have heard here, to me, rings very hollow. I know there are many circumstances that have already come up where we have recognized the need to restrict the way States handle alcoholic beverages as part of a safe driving system, and clearly those issues can be discussed more as we get through the debate. I just want to add one other point that I believe is significant here. As I've said before, the problem of DWI and DWI-related injuries and fatalities is important in New Mexico. There is very broad public support to eliminate these windows. When I was in New Mexico two weeks ago, I held a series of seminars with high school students from throughout the state, and I listened to their concerns about the problems in the state and in the country. One young man, Simon Goldfine, who is a student at Del Norte High School in Albuquerque, agreed that the DWI rate in New Mexico is much too high, and one reason he explained is these drive-up windows. Simon explained that if a drunk person has to walk into a liquor store, it will be easier to determine if he is drunk than if he simply sat in his vehicle. And Simon asked if something could be done to eliminate these windows. Today, I would like to tell Simon that we will do something about it. I believe no one in America will disagree with Simon that this ban will make a difference. I believe we owe it to everyone, to the young people like Simon and especially the people who have been touched and pained by this problem of DWI to pass this amendment. Mr. President, I gather my time has expired. Let me yield the rest of the time to Senator Byrd and thank him for his support of this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me begin by first asking unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Dan Alpert, who is a fellow on my staff, during the pendency of S. 1173 and any votes thereon.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send three amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I offer these on behalf of myself and Senator Domenici. They are very simple, conforming amendments to make it clear that the research activities that the Department of Transportation is engaged in are ones where they can call upon all of the scientific capability in our country, our Federal laboratories as well as our educational institutions, to get that research done. I do not think there is any opposition. I appreciate the chairman's allowing me to offer them at this time, and I urge Senators to support them.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.