Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise briefly to discuss a very important matter relating to the safety of our Nation's streets and highways, DWI-related injuries and fatalities. This is a problem that in spite of many prevention efforts, remains a serious concern. The statistics are compelling. For example, on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years Eve, and New Years Day 1996, there were 576 DWI-related fatalities on our Nation's highways. In that same year, nearly 1.1 million people were injured in alcohol- related crashes. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 20-year-olds. About 3 in 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives. Alcohol-related crashes cost society $45 billion annually. To make matters worse, the loss of quality of life and pain and suffering costs total over $134 billion annually. My home state of New Mexico is not exempt. In fact, the National Traffic Safety Administration reports that New Mexico leads the country in DWI-related deaths per capita, a rate of 11.79 deaths per 100,000 people. This rate is 19 percent higher than the No. 2 state, Mississippi, and is more than twice the national rate of 5.05 deaths per 100,000. Indeed, these statistics paint a very grim picture. What makes this picture even more tragic, Mr. President, is that DWI-related injuries and fatalities are preventable. It clearly is within our national interest to do everything we can to reverse this course. One obvious way to prevent further deaths on our highways is to ensure the sobriety of drivers. That is why I proudly am co-sponsoring Senator Lautenberg's and Senator DeWine's bill to establish a national blood-alcohol content standard of .08. Additionally, I am cosponsoring Senator Dorgan's bill to prohibit open containers of alcohol in automobiles. I urge my Senate colleagues to help pass these bills this year. Another contributing factor to the problem that I believe would make a significant difference if eliminated is the practice of selling alcohol beverages through drive-up sales windows. This practice only makes it more easy for a drunk driver to purchase alcohol, and it contributes heavily to the DWI-fatality rate in New Mexico. Eliminating these drive-up liquor windows is essential to reducing these injuries and fatalities. When I was in New Mexico 2 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-in liquor 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 the windows. Today I would like to tell Simon that we will do something about it. Today, at Simon's urging, I am introducing legislation, the Drunk Driving Casualty Prevention Act of 1998 to prohibit the sale of alcohol through drive-up sales windows. Mr. President, I believe no one in America will disagree with Simon that this ban will make a difference. According to one study, there are 26 states that do not permit drive-up windows. In 1996, these states had a 15 percent lower average drunk driving fatality rate than the 24 states that permit these windows. In the states with the ban, the average rate was 4.6 per 100,000 people, as opposed to 5.46 in all other states. On a percentage basis, states with a ban had a 14.5 percent lower drunk driving fatality rate than states that permit sales windows. In 1996, comparing 19 western states in particular, the nine states with a ban had a 31 percent lower average drunk driving fatality rate than the ten states that permit the windows. In 1995, there were 231 drunk driving fatalities in New Mexico. Based on the 14-percent lower drunk driving fatality rate, it is estimated that closing drive-up liquor windows could save between 32 and 35 lives annually in New Mexico. Nowhere is it more true that if we can save one life by closing these windows, we should do it. The differences can be explained because there are three main benefits to closing drive-up liquor windows: first, it is easier and more accurate to check IDs over the sales counter. Minors have testified that it is very easy to illegally purchase alcohol at a drive-up window where it is difficult to determine their age. Second, it is easier to visually observe a customer for clues that they are impaired by alcohol or other substance if they have to walk into a well-lit establishment to make their purchase. Moreover, in one municipal court in New Mexico, 33 percent of DWI offenders reported having purchased their liquor at drive up windows. Some members of Alcoholics Anonymous say they now realize they could have known each other years earlier if they had only looked in their rear view mirror while in line at a drive-up window. And third, it sends a clear message to the population that drinking and driving will not be tolerated. The Behavior Health Research Center of the Southwest conducted a study, the purpose of which was to determine the characteristics and arrest circumstances of DWI offenders who bought alcohol at a drive-up liquor window compared to those who obtained alcohol elsewhere. Nearly 70 percent of offenders studied reported having purchased the alcohol they drank prior to arrest. Of those offenders, 42 percent bought package liquor, and of those offenders, the drive-up window was the preferred place of purchase. Additionally, the study showed that drive- up window users were 68 percent more likely to have a serious alcohol problem than other offenders. Drive-up window users also are 67 percent more likely to be drinking in their vehicle prior to arrest than other offenders. This study showed that drive-up windows facilitate alcohol misuse in vulnerable populations. The persons most affected are the high-risk problem drinkers, and when liquor availability is restricted, it is among those offenders that use, and consequently alcohol-related offenses, declines the most. There are some that may contend that closing these windows is going to hurt small businesses. To the contrary. Closing these drive-up liquor windows will actually help increase profits, and it is very easy to explain. When a customer has to walk into an establishment, he or she is very likely to purchase more than the original item. The customer is likely to pick up, for example, potato chips, sodas, and magazines. This is not as likely to happen at the drive-up window simply because the customers cannot see the items from their vehicle. In McKinley County, New Mexico, which is the only county in New Mexico to ban these windows, businesses actually saw a jump in profits. Most importantly, because of its DWI prevention strategy, McKinley County's alcohol-related injury and fatality rate dropped from 272 per 100,000 in 1989 to 183 per 100,000 in 1997. Mr. President, I believe we have a great opportunity here to reduce DWI injuries and fatalities. Therefore, I plan to offer this bill as an amendment to the ISTEA legislation, and I urge my Senate colleagues to join me. I ask unanimous consent that the rest of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise briefly to discuss a very important matter relating to the safety of our Nation's streets and highways, DWI-related injuries and fatalities. This is a problem that in spite of many prevention efforts, remains a serious concern. The statistics are compelling. For example, on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years Eve, and New Years Day 1996, there were 576 DWI-related fatalities on our Nation's highways. In that same year, nearly 1.1 million people were injured in alcohol- related crashes. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 20-year-olds. About 3 in 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives. Alcohol-related crashes cost society $45 billion annually. To make matters worse, the loss of quality of life and pain and suffering costs total over $134 billion annually. My home state of New Mexico is not exempt. In fact, the National Traffic Safety Administration reports that New Mexico leads the country in DWI-related deaths per capita, a rate of 11.79 deaths per 100,000 people. This rate is 19 percent higher than the No. 2 state, Mississippi, and is more than twice the national rate of 5.05 deaths per 100,000. Indeed, these statistics paint a very grim picture. What makes this picture even more tragic, Mr. President, is that DWI-related injuries and fatalities are preventable. It clearly is within our national interest to do everything we can to reverse this course. One obvious way to prevent further deaths on our highways is to ensure the sobriety of drivers. That is why I proudly am co-sponsoring Senator Lautenberg's and Senator DeWine's bill to establish a national blood-alcohol content standard of .08. Additionally, I am cosponsoring Senator Dorgan's bill to prohibit open containers of alcohol in automobiles. I urge my Senate colleagues to help pass these bills this year. Another contributing factor to the problem that I believe would make a significant difference if eliminated is the practice of selling alcohol beverages through drive-up sales windows. This practice only makes it more easy for a drunk driver to purchase alcohol, and it contributes heavily to the DWI-fatality rate in New Mexico. Eliminating these drive-up liquor windows is essential to reducing these injuries and fatalities. When I was in New Mexico 2 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-in liquor 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 the windows. Today I would like to tell Simon that we will do something about it. Today, at Simon's urging, I am introducing legislation, the Drunk Driving Casualty Prevention Act of 1998 to prohibit the sale of alcohol through drive-up sales windows. Mr. President, I believe no one in America will disagree with Simon that this ban will make a difference. According to one study, there are 26 states that do not permit drive-up windows. In 1996, these states had a 15 percent lower average drunk driving fatality rate than the 24 states that permit these windows. In the states with the ban, the average rate was 4.6 per 100,000 people, as opposed to 5.46 in all other states. On a percentage basis, states with a ban had a 14.5 percent lower drunk driving fatality rate than states that permit sales windows. In 1996, comparing 19 western states in particular, the nine states with a ban had a 31 percent lower average drunk driving fatality rate than the ten states that permit the windows. In 1995, there were 231 drunk driving fatalities in New Mexico. Based on the 14-percent lower drunk driving fatality rate, it is estimated that closing drive-up liquor windows could save between 32 and 35 lives annually in New Mexico. Nowhere is it more true that if we can save one life by closing these windows, we should do it. The differences can be explained because there are three main benefits to closing drive-up liquor windows: first, it is easier and more accurate to check IDs over the sales counter. Minors have testified that it is very easy to illegally purchase alcohol at a drive-up window where it is difficult to determine their age. Second, it is easier to visually observe a customer for clues that they are impaired by alcohol or other substance if they have to walk into a well-lit establishment to make their purchase. Moreover, in one municipal court in New Mexico, 33 percent of DWI offenders reported having purchased their liquor at drive up windows. Some members of Alcoholics Anonymous say they now realize they could have known each other years earlier if they had only looked in their rear view mirror while in line at a drive-up window. And third, it sends a clear message to the population that drinking and driving will not be tolerated. The Behavior Health Research Center of the Southwest conducted a study, the purpose of which was to determine the characteristics and arrest circumstances of DWI offenders who bought alcohol at a drive-up liquor window compared to those who obtained alcohol elsewhere. Nearly 70 percent of offenders studied reported having purchased the alcohol they drank prior to arrest. Of those offenders, 42 percent bought package liquor, and of those offenders, the drive-up window was the preferred place of purchase. Additionally, the study showed that drive- up window users were 68 percent more likely to have a serious alcohol problem than other offenders. Drive-up window users also are 67 percent more likely to be drinking in their vehicle prior to arrest than other offenders. This study showed that drive-up windows facilitate alcohol misuse in vulnerable populations. The persons most affected are the high-risk problem drinkers, and when liquor availability is restricted, it is among those offenders that use, and consequently alcohol-related offenses, declines the most. There are some that may contend that closing these windows is going to hurt small businesses. To the contrary. Closing these drive-up liquor windows will actually help increase profits, and it is very easy to explain. When a customer has to walk into an establishment, he or she is very likely to purchase more than the original item. The customer is likely to pick up, for example, potato chips, sodas, and magazines. This is not as likely to happen at the drive-up window simply because the customers cannot see the items from their vehicle. In McKinley County, New Mexico, which is the only county in New Mexico to ban these windows, businesses actually saw a jump in profits. Most importantly, because of its DWI prevention strategy, McKinley County's alcohol-related injury and fatality rate dropped from 272 per 100,000 in 1989 to 183 per 100,000 in 1997. Mr. President, I believe we have a great opportunity here to reduce DWI injuries and fatalities. Therefore, I plan to offer this bill as an amendment to the ISTEA legislation, and I urge my Senate colleagues to join me. I ask unanimous consent that the rest of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mayor Ernest Thompson who has announced his retirement after 26 years as Mayor of Artesia, New Mexico. I am proud to honor this great New Mexican, who personifies leadership and commitment to public service and to his community. Mr. Thompson was first elected Mayor of Artesia in 1972 and has served continually for seven terms since then. A lot has changed in Artesia since Mayor Thompson was first elected. He remembers that when he first started, the city had no money for some of the most basic municipal necessities. For example, he remembers that the garbage trucks didn't even have doors. Mayor Thompson has helped to turn the city around. Under him, the city's equipment has been improved, new construction has been started, and Artesia's economy has flourished. During his tenure, Mayor Thompson has been pivotal in bringing the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to Artesia, in improving the conditions of the streets and parks and in the creation of Artesia's industrial park, police and fire stations, a retard dam, and many other projects important to the community of Artesia. Mayor Thompson has not only been an active mayor for Artesia; he has also served in many other leadership roles. He has been a member of the National League of Cities, Southeastern New Mexico Economic Development District, and the New Mexico Municipal League, for which he has served as President, and as well as First and Second Vice President He is also a tireless contributor to community organizations. He has served as president of the Artesia Rotary Club, the New Mexico Gideons, the Artesia Quarterback Club, and the Parents and Boosters Clubs. He is the Finance Chairman for the First Methodist Church of Artesia and has a 46 year association with the Boy Scouts of America, for which he has served as everything from Cub Master to District Chairman. He is also the recipient of the Boy Scouts' Silver Beaver Award. Mayor Thompson has been involved in so much as Mayor that we are thankful for, but he would probably say his greatest accomplishment is his marriage of over 55 years to his wife, Grace. Together, they have one son and two grandchildren. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank Earnest Thompson for his years of dedication. New Mexico will miss his tireless service and we all wish him and his family the best in the coming years.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to discuss a very important matter relating to the safety of our Nation's highways and streets, and that is DWI-related injuries and fatalities. To use more common parlance, drunk driving. This is a problem that, in spite of many prevention efforts, remains a very serious concern in our country. The statistics are compelling. For example, on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day 1996, those 4 days combined, there were 576 DWI-related fatalities on our Nation's highways. In that same year, 1996, nearly 1.1 million people were injured in alcohol-related crashes. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 20- year-olds. I think that statistic alone should get the attention of the U.S. Senate and the Congress of this country. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 20-year-olds throughout this country. About 3 in 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives. Alcohol-related crashes cost society $45 billion annually, and to make matters worse, the loss of quality of life and pain and suffering costs are estimated to total over $134 billion annually. My home State of New Mexico is not exempt from these problems. In fact, the National Traffic Safety Administration reports that my State of New Mexico leads the country in DWI-related deaths per capita. The rate in New Mexico is 11.79 deaths per 100,000 people. This rate is 19 percent higher than the No. 2 State, which is Mississippi, and it is more than twice the national rate, which is merely 5.05 deaths per 100,000 people. Indeed, these statistics paint a very grim picture. What makes the picture even more tragic, Mr. President, is that DWI-related injuries and fatalities are preventable. It clearly is within our national interest to do what we can to reverse this statistic. One obvious way to prevent further deaths is to ensure the sobriety of drivers. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the bill that Senators Lautenberg and DeWine have introduced to establish a national blood-alcohol content standard of .08. Additionally, I am cosponsoring Senator Dorgan's bill to prohibit open containers of alcohol in automobiles. I urge my colleagues to help pass these bills this year. Another contributing factor to the problem that I believe would make a significant difference in eliminating the problem is the practice of selling alcoholic beverages through drive-up sales windows. This practice only makes it more easy for a drunk driver to purchase alcohol and contributes heavily to the DWI fatality rate in my home State and throughout the country. Eliminating these drive-up liquor windows is essential to reducing these injuries and fatalities. Tomorrow I will introduce legislation entitled the ``Drunk Driving Casualty Prevention Act of 1998'' to prohibit the sale of alcohol through drive-up sales windows. I hope to have some cosponsors for that provision at that time. Mr. President, this ban will make a difference. According to one study, there are 26 States that do not permit drive-up windows. In 1996, these States had, as a combined effort, a 15-percent lower average drunk driving fatality rate than the 24 States that permit sales through drive-up windows. In the States with the ban, the average rate was 4.6 for 100,000 people as opposed to 5.46 in all other States. On a percentage basis, States with a ban had a 14.5 percent lower drunk driving fatality rate than States that permit sales through windows. In 1996, comparing 19 Western States in particular, the nine States that have a ban in place had a 31 percent lower average drunk driving fatality rate than the States that permit sales. In 1995, there were 231 drunk driving fatalities in my home State of New Mexico. Based on the 14 percent lower drunk driving fatality rate, it is estimated that closing drive-up liquor windows could have saved between 32 and 35 lives in that year in my State. Nowhere is it more true that if we can save one life by closing these windows, we need to do that. The difference can be explained because there are three main benefits that accrue when you close drive-up liquor windows. First, once the windows are closed, it is easier and more accurate to check the identification when the customers have to purchase their liquor over the counter. Minors have testified that it is very easy to illegally purchase alcohol at a drive-up window where it is difficult to determine their age. A second benefit is that it is easier to visually observe a customer for clues that that customer is impaired by alcohol or other substances if they have to walk into a well-lighted establishment to make their purchase. In one municipal court in New Mexico, 33 percent of the DWI offenders reported having purchased their liquor at drive-up windows. Some members of Alcoholics Anonymous say they now realize they could have known each other years earlier if they only looked in their rearview mirror while waiting in line at the drive-up window to buy their liquor. And third, it sends a clear message to the population that drinking and driving will not be allowed to mix. The Behavior Health Research Center of the Southwest conducted a study, the purpose of which was to determine the characteristics and the arrest circumstances of DWI offenders who bought alcohol at drive- up liquor windows compared to those who obtained it elsewhere. Nearly 70 percent of the offenders studied reported having purchased the alcohol that they drank prior to arrest. Of those offenders, 42 percent bought packaged liquor, and the drive-up window was the preferred place of purchase. The study showed that drive-up window users were 68 percent more likely to have a serious alcohol problem than other offenders. Drive-up window users also are 67 percent more likely to be drinking in their vehicle prior to arrest than other offenders are. Mr. President, we have had one sort of test case in New Mexico, and that is in McKinley County. It was one county in our State that had a terrible problem with DWI and petitioned our legislature for permission to close the windows in that county, the drive-up windows. They did close those windows. Businesses in that community did not see their profits cut in two--the liquor businesses. In fact, they saw their profits jump. The DWI prevention strategy that was employed in McKinley County reduced the fatality rate from 272 per 100,000 in 1989 to 183 per 100,000 in 1997. Mr. President, I believe we have a great opportunity here to reduce DWI injuries and fatalities. I plan to offer this amendment to the ISTEA legislation tomorrow or later this week. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring that legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I do withhold.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about a very special anniversary this year in New Mexico, and to share a message from President Clinton to everyone celebrating the state's Cuartocentenario. The date July 1, 1998, marks 400 years since a small group of Spanish pioneers ventured north from Mexico, up the Rio Grande Valley and settled in what is now North-Central New Mexico. The settlers, led by Don Juan de Onate, established a small mission at the confluence of the Rio Chama and the Rio Grande and next to an Indian Pueblo the inhabitants called ``Ohke''. The Spanish settlers named their mission San Gabriel de los Espanoles. This year is not just about recognizing these early Spanish settlements, but about celebrating the Hispanic people themselves and the many contributions they have made to the history of this continent and this country over the last 400 years. Indeed, we can point to all aspects of American culture, from literature to sports, and identify many Hispanic individuals who have made significant contributions. I look forward to celebrating this anniversary and the Hispanic culture throughout this year in New Mexico. I ask that a copy of President Clinton's message to all who are celebrating this historic occasion be printed in the Record. The message follows: The White House, Washington, February 24, 1998. Warm greetings to everyone celebrating New Mexico's Cuartocentenario. In 1598, when Juan de Onate led a band of soldiers and Franciscan priests to the land we now know as New Mexico, few could have foreseen the impact of their expedition. The chain of events that would ultimately lead to statehood for New Mexico in 1912 had begun and would change our country forever. This year's celebration of the 400th anniversary of New Mexico reminds us all of the long and rich history of this beautiful place. Today's New Mexicans live with that history. The state's original peoples, who are represented by 21 pueblos and tribes ranging from Apache to Zuni, would consider four centuries a blink in time, for their ancestors arrived more than 10,000 years ago. And the remains of earlier civilizations can still be seen in New Mexico. Our 47th state is a fascinating mixture of old and new, deserts and forests, mountains and valleys, small towns and urban centers, cattle ranches and microprocessor plants, scientists, artists, and farmers. While taking pride in their colorful past, New Mexicans also look to the future with vision and confidence. With a strong dedication to quality education and a clean environment, with thriving agriculture, expanding industry, and a growing, ethnically diverse population, New Mexico is approaching the 21st century with energy and enthusiasm. This milestone anniversary offers a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the extraordinary achievements of New Mexico's people, remembering their accomplishments in the past and celebrating the promise of the future. Best wishes to all for a memorable celebration. Bill Clinton.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's line-item veto of these 38 military construction projects which we approved in the 1998 budget. I think the recent district court decision that would reverse legislation granting the President the right to veto individual projects confirms my view of what the Constitution requires. I opposed extending the line-item veto authority to this President or to any President because I believe that those who wrote our Constitution had it right. The separation of powers assigned by the Constitution prevents political manipulation that does a disservice to the democratic process. Aside from the constitutional question, however, I want to say a few words about why I believe that the President's choices, at least the ones I am familiar with, for program vetoes were ill-advised, at least in the case of the projects in New Mexico that are included in this bill. These were not pork barrel projects. I understood my colleague from Arizona and his comments about opposition to pork barrel spending in the defense bill, and I commend him for that because I agree with him that there are numerous instances each year where projects are added that cannot be justified on a military basis. I do not condone that in any way. By its own admission, the administration canceled a number of the projects this year in this bill because in the administration's view they did not meet the criteria that they had set up for selection. In spite of what the administration concluded, I'm persuaded that many of these projects were important to the quality of life of military personnel and their families. In addition, many of these projects had been able to complete significant planning that would permit their construction to begin in 1998. Let me just indicate the sequence of events that occurred with regard to some of the projects in New Mexico when this list of projects that the President was going to line-item veto came out. On the list were some projects that I will refer to later, including White Sands Missile Range, to refurbish aging facilities at White Sands Missile Range. I called the director of the Office of Management and Budget and asked why they had chosen to delete these particular projects. His response was that according to the information he had been given by the Department of Defense, the necessary planning and design work for construction or refurbishing of those facilities had not been done and the money could not be spent in 1998. We went back to the Army, which is the military service that had the funding in its budget, and asked if we had false information here or inaccurate information and what their understanding was. They assured us, as they had before, that this money was needed, that these were projects where design and construction planning had occurred, and that the money could well be spent in 1998. I am persuaded that at least with regard to those projects, the Office of Management and Budget was giving the President incorrect advice or incorrect information and that incorrect information was the basis upon which the President chose to line-item veto those particular projects. I don't think this was intentional on anyone's part. Nobody was intentionally misrepresenting the situation, but in its haste to compile a list of projects to veto and in its concern for maintaining secrecy about that list, the administration did not submit candidate projects to the kind of thorough review that such important decisions normally warrant. I blame the process that was used. Obviously, as I have said before, I believe the process is unconstitutional and has fatal flaws in that regard. But clearly, in addition to that, I think this process was flawed because of this inaccurate information that was given to the President. As I stated before, part of what the President vetoed was funding to refurbish aging facilities at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Of course, I am concerned about that because many of my constituents work on that facility and believe that facility is important. But I am also concerned because, as General Reimer recently testified before the Armed Services Committee, White Sands is a critical national asset; it is our most capable test evaluation center. It is the premier facility that we have with unique capabilities to test new technologies and weapons, to ensure continued technological superiority over any potential adversary. The test range is operated by the Army, but it supports testing by all of our various military services. Also, it supports testing by many companies in the private sector. Because of that fact, that the Army does not exclusively benefit from the work at White Sands, the installation has been vulnerable to budget and personnel cuts in the Army that threaten the continued capability of that range. Accordingly, it threatens the continued long-term national security of the country. Since 1995, for example, White Sands has lost about 43 percent of its military contingent needed to ensure that the users participate in the design, test, and operation of new weapons systems. If the Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Plan is fully implemented, then White Sands would eventually lose all of its soldiers who are assigned to operate, maintain, and test systems being evaluated. Similar severe cutbacks have occurred in the civilian work force needed to support the scientific work and operations of the test range. Meanwhile, the testing workload at White Sands continues to increase as the services move toward this high-tech weaponry of tomorrow's military services. I am concerned because I did visit White Sands this last week and I had the opportunity to observe the conditions of the range firsthand. Many of the facilities on the base date back to World War II. Some of the launch facilities are lodged in makeshift trailers with jury-rigged air conditioning and outdoor toilet facilities. The risk of fire hazard is great at many of White Sands' widely dispersed facilities, and the ability of the base to combat a blaze effectively is extremely limited. Personnel risk their personal safety in some of these facilities that the President's line-item veto would prevent from being replaced. Mr. President, my concern extends beyond the refurbishment of the aging buildings at White Sands. I am concerned, also, that the instrumentation that we have in place to conduct and analyze tests at White Sands is inadequate to meet the challenges of new technologies and weapons systems of the future. Instrumentation at the range is simply not capable of meeting high optical, radar, and telemetry standards needed to observe, report, and evaluate tests of new technologies that are now being designed. Scientists and the military personnel at White Sands indicated to me that it could cost in the range of $110 million to modernize the instrumentation at White Sands sufficiently in order to meet future test requirements. While we fully intend to modernize our military weapons, we are not taking the steps necessary to ensure through testing that those weapons will work as designed and as needed. White Sands is critical to meeting these requirements. If we permit the President's line-item veto to stand, we would endanger our national security interests by continuing to allow the Nation's preeminent testing facility at White Sands to atrophy further than it already has. I call on my colleagues to reverse the President's veto and to join me in ensuring the future effectiveness of White Sands during this year's defense authorization and appropriations debates. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will mean a great deal to the future economic development of the Navajo Nation and to the people in the Four Corners Region of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado. Mr. President, we are truly fortunate today to have one of the lowest national unemployment rates in recent memory. Unfortunately, the administration's economic juggernaut has not been felt everywhere. While national unemployment rates are below five percent, in my state of New Mexico, unemployment remains stuck at 8%. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, New Mexico has the second highest unemployment rate in the country, right behind the District of Columbia. Regrettably, one of the nation's highest unemployment rates is on the Navajo Indian Reservation, where unemployment is a staggering 50%. The unemployment rate in neighboring San Juan County is 12%, which is more than twice the national average. These statistics should be deeply troubling to all senators. Clearly, there is no region in this country in greater need of targeted economic development. Creating jobs is precisely the purpose of the legislation I am introducing today. In a nutshell, this bill allows the Navajo Nation's Indian Irrigation Project to use a portion of its existing allocation of federal electric power to help spur economic development and to create good jobs in the region. Mr. President, in 1962 Congress authorized the construction and operation of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. The project has blossomed into a 60,000 acre agricultural enterprise growing potatoes, beans, alfalfa, wheat, corn and livestock with annual revenues of $36 million. Today, the ``Navajo Pride'' brand name is a hallmark of agricultural quality nationwide. The Tribe's own Navajo Agricultural Products Industry (NAPI) operates this successful all-Indian project. NAPI has a full- time staff of 300. The workforce swells to 1,200 during the summer growing season. In the 1962 legislation, Congress authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to reserve eighty-seven megawatts of electric power for use by the project. It is clear from the original authorization that the primary purpose of the project was to deliver water for the development of farming and allied industries. The reserved electric power is currently used to pump water to the project and to provide the water pressure needed for irrigation. The original plans called for the use of gravity-fed irrigation; however, the irrigation method was later changed to a more efficient electric-powered center-pivot system. Unfortunately, Congress had not foreseen these improvements and did not specifically authorize the use of federal power to run irrigation sprinklers. In a letter to me dated November 5, 1997, Commissioner Martinez of the Bureau of Reclamation stated that Congress had not provided the bureau with sufficient authority to allow NAPI to use its existing allocation of electric power for anything other than water pumping. Congress simply failed to authorize the use of federal power to run the sprinklers or for processing of the products grown there. The legislation I am introducing would allow NAPI to use its existing power allocation to run the project's irrigation sprinklers or factories on the reservation that process the agricultural products. This legislation does not increase the amount of power allocated to NAPI--nobody's allocation of electric power is reduced or affected in any way. Moreover, the change would have no cost or other impact on taxpayers. This legislation is a simple technical change. It clarifies existing congressional language. Moreover, because this is an all-Indian project established by Congress to benefit the Navajo Nation, this legislation does not create a precedent that would apply to any other irrigation project. This bill has the support of the Bureau of Reclamation. In addition, the Republican Governor of the state of New Mexico and the nearby cities, counties, and electric utility companies support this change because they recognize the economic benefits for the entire Four Corners Region. I would particularly like to acknowledge the City of Farmington and Republican Mayor Thomas C. Taylor for support of the project as reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and NAPI. In addition, the State of New Mexico has supported this effort with a grant to study water issues and by permitting the Navajo Nation to use state bonding capacity. Mr. President, Congress must not delay action to help reduce the unacceptable unemployment rates on the Navajo Reservation. This bill is an important step toward creating hundreds of year-round jobs and spurring economic development in San Juan County and the rest of the Four Corners Region. I urge the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to schedule a hearing on this worthy legislation at the earliest possible date. I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the bill included in the Record along with a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Farmington and the Navajo Agricultural Products Industry. I also ask unanimous consent to include in the Record letters supporting this legislation from the Bureau of Reclamation; Governor Johnson, the Cities of Farmington and Bloomfield, New Mexico; San Juan County, New Mexico; and the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join Senator Conrad and my other colleagues in introducing the HEALTHY Kids Act. I want to commend Senator Conrad, and his staff, for their excellent work in formulating this legislation. I firmly believe that this legislation represents the opportunity to prevent nicotine addiction in children and youth. The Congress has the truly historic opportunity this year to enact comprehensive legislation that will reduce access to and consumption of tobacco by our youth. Over the past few months, I have been part of the task force that helped consider the numerous issues involved in developing a comprehensive approach to address the public health issues that surround youth and tobacco. The HEALTHY Kids Act gives us a blueprint for reducing the terrible destruction that tobacco products have caused. The Senate has a compelling interest to address the various issues raised by the tobacco settlement. The Office on Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that cigarettes kill more Americans that AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides, drugs, and fires combined. Additionally, As the smoke screen erected by the tobacco companies begins to clear through numerous court proceedings, we now know what we have suspected all along: The targeting of our children has been a well planned, well orchestrated, and well financed conspiracy by these companies. We have all seen the statistics. The Institute of Medicine finds that despite the market decline in adult smoking and the social disapproval of smoking, an estimated 3,000 young people become regular smokers every day. In my home state of New Mexico, roughly 33% of our youth in grades 9 through 12, smoke. Indeed, Mr. President, nationally, the prevalence of smoking by youth, has remained basically unchanged since 1980. If current tobacco use patterns in this nation persist, five million children currently alive today will die prematurely from a smoking related disease. It is worth noting that lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. All cancers caused by cigarette smoking can be prevented. Instead, according to CDC and Robert Wood Johnson, 170,000 Americans will lose their lives to tobacco related cancer this year. Preventing and reducing cigarette smoking are key to reducing illness and death. We must act now. There will be myriad reasons put forth as to why we cannot or should not enact this legislation. There will be some who will say that Congress should not act at all. We have the opportunity and the obligation to enact legislation that will address the public health problems caused by tobacco products. The HEALTHY Kids Act gives us the chance to begin reversing the damage that has been done. It provides the vehicle for leadership that will be necessary to save our children. I hope that we will move, and move quickly without any more excuses, to enact this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will mean a great deal to the future economic development of the Navajo Nation and to the people in the Four Corners Region of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado. Mr. President, we are truly fortunate today to have one of the lowest national unemployment rates in recent memory. Unfortunately, the administration's economic juggernaut has not been felt everywhere. While national unemployment rates are below five percent, in my state of New Mexico, unemployment remains stuck at 8%. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, New Mexico has the second highest unemployment rate in the country, right behind the District of Columbia. Regrettably, one of the nation's highest unemployment rates is on the Navajo Indian Reservation, where unemployment is a staggering 50%. The unemployment rate in neighboring San Juan County is 12%, which is more than twice the national average. These statistics should be deeply troubling to all senators. Clearly, there is no region in this country in greater need of targeted economic development. Creating jobs is precisely the purpose of the legislation I am introducing today. In a nutshell, this bill allows the Navajo Nation's Indian Irrigation Project to use a portion of its existing allocation of federal electric power to help spur economic development and to create good jobs in the region. Mr. President, in 1962 Congress authorized the construction and operation of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. The project has blossomed into a 60,000 acre agricultural enterprise growing potatoes, beans, alfalfa, wheat, corn and livestock with annual revenues of $36 million. Today, the ``Navajo Pride'' brand name is a hallmark of agricultural quality nationwide. The Tribe's own Navajo Agricultural Products Industry (NAPI) operates this successful all-Indian project. NAPI has a full- time staff of 300. The workforce swells to 1,200 during the summer growing season. In the 1962 legislation, Congress authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to reserve eighty-seven megawatts of electric power for use by the project. It is clear from the original authorization that the primary purpose of the project was to deliver water for the development of farming and allied industries. The reserved electric power is currently used to pump water to the project and to provide the water pressure needed for irrigation. The original plans called for the use of gravity-fed irrigation; however, the irrigation method was later changed to a more efficient electric-powered center-pivot system. Unfortunately, Congress had not foreseen these improvements and did not specifically authorize the use of federal power to run irrigation sprinklers. In a letter to me dated November 5, 1997, Commissioner Martinez of the Bureau of Reclamation stated that Congress had not provided the bureau with sufficient authority to allow NAPI to use its existing allocation of electric power for anything other than water pumping. Congress simply failed to authorize the use of federal power to run the sprinklers or for processing of the products grown there. The legislation I am introducing would allow NAPI to use its existing power allocation to run the project's irrigation sprinklers or factories on the reservation that process the agricultural products. This legislation does not increase the amount of power allocated to NAPI--nobody's allocation of electric power is reduced or affected in any way. Moreover, the change would have no cost or other impact on taxpayers. This legislation is a simple technical change. It clarifies existing congressional language. Moreover, because this is an all-Indian project established by Congress to benefit the Navajo Nation, this legislation does not create a precedent that would apply to any other irrigation project. This bill has the support of the Bureau of Reclamation. In addition, the Republican Governor of the state of New Mexico and the nearby cities, counties, and electric utility companies support this change because they recognize the economic benefits for the entire Four Corners Region. I would particularly like to acknowledge the City of Farmington and Republican Mayor Thomas C. Taylor for support of the project as reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and NAPI. In addition, the State of New Mexico has supported this effort with a grant to study water issues and by permitting the Navajo Nation to use state bonding capacity. Mr. President, Congress must not delay action to help reduce the unacceptable unemployment rates on the Navajo Reservation. This bill is an important step toward creating hundreds of year-round jobs and spurring economic development in San Juan County and the rest of the Four Corners Region. I urge the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to schedule a hearing on this worthy legislation at the earliest possible date. I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the bill included in the Record along with a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Farmington and the Navajo Agricultural Products Industry. I also ask unanimous consent to include in the Record letters supporting this legislation from the Bureau of Reclamation; Governor Johnson, the Cities of Farmington and Bloomfield, New Mexico; San Juan County, New Mexico; and the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join Senator Conrad and my other colleagues in introducing the HEALTHY Kids Act. I want to commend Senator Conrad, and his staff, for their excellent work in formulating this legislation. I firmly believe that this legislation represents the opportunity to prevent nicotine addiction in children and youth. The Congress has the truly historic opportunity this year to enact comprehensive legislation that will reduce access to and consumption of tobacco by our youth. Over the past few months, I have been part of the task force that helped consider the numerous issues involved in developing a comprehensive approach to address the public health issues that surround youth and tobacco. The HEALTHY Kids Act gives us a blueprint for reducing the terrible destruction that tobacco products have caused. The Senate has a compelling interest to address the various issues raised by the tobacco settlement. The Office on Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that cigarettes kill more Americans that AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides, drugs, and fires combined. Additionally, As the smoke screen erected by the tobacco companies begins to clear through numerous court proceedings, we now know what we have suspected all along: The targeting of our children has been a well planned, well orchestrated, and well financed conspiracy by these companies. We have all seen the statistics. The Institute of Medicine finds that despite the market decline in adult smoking and the social disapproval of smoking, an estimated 3,000 young people become regular smokers every day. In my home state of New Mexico, roughly 33% of our youth in grades 9 through 12, smoke. Indeed, Mr. President, nationally, the prevalence of smoking by youth, has remained basically unchanged since 1980. If current tobacco use patterns in this nation persist, five million children currently alive today will die prematurely from a smoking related disease. It is worth noting that lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. All cancers caused by cigarette smoking can be prevented. Instead, according to CDC and Robert Wood Johnson, 170,000 Americans will lose their lives to tobacco related cancer this year. Preventing and reducing cigarette smoking are key to reducing illness and death. We must act now. There will be myriad reasons put forth as to why we cannot or should not enact this legislation. There will be some who will say that Congress should not act at all. We have the opportunity and the obligation to enact legislation that will address the public health problems caused by tobacco products. The HEALTHY Kids Act gives us the chance to begin reversing the damage that has been done. It provides the vehicle for leadership that will be necessary to save our children. I hope that we will move, and move quickly without any more excuses, to enact this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before we engage in a significant military confrontation in the Persian Gulf, the Senate should thoroughly examine the reasons for, and the likely outcomes of, such action. Many of our colleagues have begun to do so in speeches on this floor over the past several days. I look forward to a continuation of this vigorous debate when the Majority Leader brings forward his resolution on this topic. I believe that we must also take concrete action today, by amending and passing the bill that is now before us, to ensure that our nation and our economy are fully prepared to deal with any adverse effect that military action in the Gulf might have on the world's supply of oil from that region. About 65 percent of the world's known oil reserves lie in the Persian Gulf region. That region supplies one-quarter of the oil that the world now consumes. Although Persian Gulf oil is responsible for a smaller fraction of U.S. oil consumption, world oil markets are highly interconnected. Any threat to the continued supply of Persian Gulf oil at current rates of production will quickly translate into volatile, higher prices here in the United States. One can see this in the historical record. After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, world oil prices rose sharply, and American consumers paid accordingly. Between August 1, 1990 and December 1, 1990, U.S. consumers spent $21 billion more for crude oil and petroleum products than would have been spent absent that Middle East crisis. Events in Iraq continue to drive world oil markets. On November 13, 1997, the day that Saddam Hussein intensified the current crisis by ejecting U.S. inspectors from Iraq, the world price of oil rose by 20 cents per barrel. The last time we waged war on Saddam Hussein, our strategy included not only amassing multilateral military might in the Persian Gulf, but also minimizing the conflict's economic impact at home. We appear headed for another major military confrontation in the Gulf, but thanks to inaction by the other body, the second part of our 1991 strategy is currently not even an option. President Bush had two tools at his disposal to reduce the economic effects of a military conflict in the Persian Gulf. The first was an economic alliance among the world's major oil-consuming countries, the independent International Energy Agency (or IEA). The United States formed the IEA after the Arab oil embargo of 1973, so that we would never again experience the market chaos, including gas station lines, that occurred back then. The initial IEA approach for dealing with oil supply disruptions was through mandatory allocations--having an international committee decide which nation would get how much oil. The world has changed since then. 1970s-style command-and-control supply allocations won't work today. Instead, the United States has taken the lead in designing a flexible, market-friendly response to oil supply disruptions. The new approach relies on a coordinated drawdown of worldwide oil supplies. President Bush pioneered such a system during the 1991 Gulf War, although the oil companies that cooperated at that time placed themselves in legal jeopardy for having done so. The United States, with the full backing of our domestic oil industry, has refined this concept and convinced all of the other countries in the IEA to adopt it. But without passage of a law to facilitate the sharing of information about oil supplies in an emergency, the mechanism cannot be used. If the world encounters oil market instability, the IEA will need to know about the location and movement of oil supplies in order to coordinate a response. Most of these oil supplies are privately held, so only oil companies have the needed information. Sharing such information is normally forbidden under U.S. antitrust laws, which apply to the world's major oil companies by virtue of their operation in this country. But in a genuine emergency, the national interest in the free flow of oil is far greater than the interest in keeping oil companies from sharing inventory information. Accordingly, there is already an emergency antitrust exemption in law that allows oil companies to share information with the IEA, but only to implement the outdated command-and-control response to an oil crisis, and only if the oil supply disruption is of mammoth proportions. Both the Bush and Clinton Administrations have sought to make this antitrust exemption apply to the types of oil crises we are actually likely to see, and to coordinated emergency responses other than mandatory worldwide oil supply allocations. This revised antitrust exemption would apply only when information sharing was expressly requested by the U.S. government. This is what we need to enact into law, now. Without these changes, the United States could find itself in the absurd position of being unable to use the international oil emergency response system that we ourselves designed. The second tool that President Bush had at his disposal in 1991 was the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)--586 million barrels of crude oil, stored in underground salt caverns at five sites along the coast of Texas and Louisiana. At the beginning of Operation Desert Storm, President Bush ordered the drawdown and sale of oil from the SPR. This had a powerful calming influence on world oil markets. Incredible as it may seem, such a use of the SPR by President Clinton would be illegal today. The United States still owns 563 million barrels of crude oil in underground salt caverns, but the President's authority to sell it in response to an emergency has lapsed. How could we be so vulnerable to such clear and present dangers? I regret that once again, in the immortal words of Pogo, we have met the enemy, and he is us. The Administration has beseeched the Congress, for years now, to update the legal framework governing the IEA and to renew its authority to operate the SPR. The Senate has repeatedly and unanimously passed such legislation. The other body has refused to act, for reasons that are very difficult to understand. With a major military confrontation in the Persian Gulf imminent, further delay is inexcuseable. We cannot allow our economy to be needlessly vulnerable to, say, a terrorist attack on Middle East oil infrastructure. I applaud the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for his persistence in trying to resolve this problem. I fully support his amendment to H.R. 2472, which provides the President with all the tools he needs to respond to an oil supply disruption. In the current situation, to do any less would be irresponsible. I hope that the other body now acts quickly on this matter. If the House has concerns, let us quickly convene a joint House-Senate conference to resolve them. If not, then let this bill become law. The PRESIDING OFFICER, Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendment to the House, the Senate request a conference with the House, and finally, that any statements relating to the measure appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to give praise to a great man. Ralph Tasker has announced that after 52 seasons of coaching, he will retire as the head basketball coach at Hobbs High School in New Mexico. In his 52 seasons, Coach Tasker has amassed over 1,103 wins en route to 12 State championships, 4 State runner-up titles, and 1 National Coach of the Year title. Indeed, Coach Tasker's legacy is that of a man who not only won many basketball games, but also brought his positive influence into the lives of hundreds of high school students. From 1965 to 1967, Coach Tasker's team won 53 consecutive games. In the 1969-70 season, his team averaged 114.6 points per game, earning him the prestigious National Coach of the Year title. In the 1980's, Coach Tasker continued his winning ways as he led his team to consecutive undefeated seasons from 1980-82, and he was elected to the National High School Sports Hall of Fame. Mr. President, on the eve of the third-winningest active high school coach's retirement, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ralph Tasker for his years of dedication to the youth of New Mexico. Certainly, we all have a lot to learn from this man, and his example stands as a marker that we should all strive to attain. Thank you, Coach Tasker, for teaching us the true meaning of winning gracefully.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak about Senate Resolution 148, designating 1998 as the ``Onate Cuatro-centenario,'' the anniversary commemoration of the first Spanish settlement in New Mexico. First, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici with whom I have the great pleasure of marking this anniversary. And I thank my Senate colleagues for co-sponsoring the resolution. The bi- partisan support for this resolution I believe is indicative of the broad understanding and appreciation for the cultural contributions that Hispanics have made in our American society. This resolution commemorates one of the most meaningful and significant dates of both New Mexico and American history. July 1, 1598 stands out in history because it was on that day, almost 180 years before the Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia, that a small group of Spanish pioneers ventured north from Mexico, up the Rio Grande Valley and settled in what is now North-Central New Mexico. The settlers, led by Don Juan de Onate, established a small mission at the confluence of the Rio Chama and the Rio Grande and next to an Indian Pueblo the inhabitants called ``Ohke.'' The Spanish settlers named their mission San Gabriel de los Espanoles. From San Gabriel, Spanish families moved outward and, in 1610 established the mission of ``La Villa Real de Santa Fe'', now well- known as ``Santa Fe.'' Other settlements were soon established throughout the Rio Grande Valley, Arizona, California, Colorado, and Texas following the long-established settlements in Florida. As much as this resolution commemorates the early Spanish settlements on this continent, it is meant to do much more. This resolution celebrates the Hispanic people themselves and the many contributions they have made to the history of this continent and this country over the last 400 years. Indeed, many Hispanics have earned a place in American history. During the American Revolution, Bernardo de Galvez, a Spanish aristrocrat and governor of the Spanish province of Louisiana, was instrumental in helping defeat the British navy and army near the Gulf of Mexico. During the Civil War, David Glasgow Farragut, also of Spanish descent, commanded a Union naval expedition against the city of New Orleans. Because of his leadership at the battle for Fort Jackson, President Lincoln promoted Farragut to Rear Admiral. Hispanics have made significant contributions also in the area of Science. Luis Alvarez, for example, won the Nobel Prize for Physics. Alvarez taught at University of California-Berkeley and was later instrumental in the development of radar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1944, he went to work on the development of the atomic bomb in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Of course, I cannot speak of distinguished Hispanics without speaking of New Mexico's own Dennis Chavez, whom many of my Senate colleagues no doubt remember well. Dennis Chavez was one of eight children and through hard work and determination became one of New Mexico's distinguished Congressmen in 1934. Not long after that, he became United States Senator, and while in the Senate worked tirelessly for fair employment and civil rights legislation. Madam President, I easily can point to all aspects of our American society, from literature to sports, and identify many Hispanic individuals who have made significant contributions. It is a tremendous history--indeed, more than 400 years of history. Through this resolution, I wish to help New Mexico and our Nation celebrate that history. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join in the introduction of the Child Care A.C.C.E.S.S. Act. The initiative is designed to improve access, quality and affordability of child care. Access to child care is a necessity for all working parents. Nationwide, 55% of children under age six have both parents (if they live with two parents) or their single parent in the labor force. That figure rises to 61% of school age children who have both or their only parent in the labor force. In my home state of New Mexico, 54% of preschool and 63% of school age children have both or their only parent in the workforce. Another way of thinking of the magnitude of the issue is to consider that more than half of all preschool children are away from their parents most of the day and two out of three school age children are likely to require child care before or after school. With the passage of the TANF legislation in 1997, a number of mothers will be entering the workforce for the first time and will require child care if they are to succeed in the job market. Mr. President, while I may not agree with every portion of the bill, I believe that we need to improve child care access, quality, and affordability for our working families. I believe that this bill affords us the best approach to these child care issues and urge others to join in support of this initiative. Access is a problem for many parents and expansion of the child care and development block grants is one step toward increasing the availability of child care programs. Accessibility grows even more complicated when we look at our rural areas of the country. Each community has unique circumstances to overcome, such as a lack of resources, programs, and transportation. Since the issues of availability and access are addressed in this initiative, I am hopeful that individual states will be able to address their most critical needs. Yet, Mr. President, improving access without improving the quality of the child care is an empty gesture. Staff education and training are among the most critical elements in improving quality. Currently, many states do not require providers who care for children in their homes to have any training prior to serving children. I am told that 33 states allow teachers in child care centers to start work without prior training. This legislation includes incentives to encourage states to invest in activities that will enhance provider-child ratios, improve the enforcement of licensing standards, improve the compensation of child care providers, and offer training and education to child care providers. It is essential that we have child care staff who are trained to provide the necessary care and then have salaries commensurate with their training to retain them in the field. It is a credit to those who have worked in crafting this bill that they have ensured that child care for children with special health care needs will be addressed as well. My state currently has many families who cannot find the quality, affordable child care they need to ensure that their children are well cared for and safe. Currently, child care is unaffordable for many working families in New Mexico. Full day child care for one child can easily cost $4,000 to $10,000 per year, which is a lot of money in a state where the average per capita income is $18,803. This is beyond the reach of many families. These families simply cannot afford the cost of quality child care in addition to all of the other demands on their monthly budget. Increasing the Child Care and Development Block Grants will increase the amount of child care subsidies available to working families. Finally, Mr. President, this bill addresses a critical area: the issue of after school care for school age children. Good after school options can help children and teens do well in school and stay out of trouble. It is estimated that nearly 5 million children are left unsupervised by an adult after school each week. Studies have shown that juvenile crime actually peaks between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. when many children are unsupervised. Additionally, I am told that one study found that eighth graders left home alone after school reported greater use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana than those who were in adult supervised settings. Our initiative will allow us to strengthen local resources and is designed to improve the quality of care in after school programs. In closing, the legislation covers the full spectrum of child care from early childhood to adolescent after school needs. I look forward to participating in the debate on making child care affordable and accessible. I am hopeful that the Senate will move forward on these issues of utmost importance to our working families, parents and children alike.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join in the introduction of the Child Care A.C.C.E.S.S. Act. The initiative is designed to improve access, quality and affordability of child care. Access to child care is a necessity for all working parents. Nationwide, 55% of children under age six have both parents (if they live with two parents) or their single parent in the labor force. That figure rises to 61% of school age children who have both or their only parent in the labor force. In my home state of New Mexico, 54% of preschool and 63% of school age children have both or their only parent in the workforce. Another way of thinking of the magnitude of the issue is to consider that more than half of all preschool children are away from their parents most of the day and two out of three school age children are likely to require child care before or after school. With the passage of the TANF legislation in 1997, a number of mothers will be entering the workforce for the first time and will require child care if they are to succeed in the job market. Mr. President, while I may not agree with every portion of the bill, I believe that we need to improve child care access, quality, and affordability for our working families. I believe that this bill affords us the best approach to these child care issues and urge others to join in support of this initiative. Access is a problem for many parents and expansion of the child care and development block grants is one step toward increasing the availability of child care programs. Accessibility grows even more complicated when we look at our rural areas of the country. Each community has unique circumstances to overcome, such as a lack of resources, programs, and transportation. Since the issues of availability and access are addressed in this initiative, I am hopeful that individual states will be able to address their most critical needs. Yet, Mr. President, improving access without improving the quality of the child care is an empty gesture. Staff education and training are among the most critical elements in improving quality. Currently, many states do not require providers who care for children in their homes to have any training prior to serving children. I am told that 33 states allow teachers in child care centers to start work without prior training. This legislation includes incentives to encourage states to invest in activities that will enhance provider-child ratios, improve the enforcement of licensing standards, improve the compensation of child care providers, and offer training and education to child care providers. It is essential that we have child care staff who are trained to provide the necessary care and then have salaries commensurate with their training to retain them in the field. It is a credit to those who have worked in crafting this bill that they have ensured that child care for children with special health care needs will be addressed as well. My state currently has many families who cannot find the quality, affordable child care they need to ensure that their children are well cared for and safe. Currently, child care is unaffordable for many working families in New Mexico. Full day child care for one child can easily cost $4,000 to $10,000 per year, which is a lot of money in a state where the average per capita income is $18,803. This is beyond the reach of many families. These families simply cannot afford the cost of quality child care in addition to all of the other demands on their monthly budget. Increasing the Child Care and Development Block Grants will increase the amount of child care subsidies available to working families. Finally, Mr. President, this bill addresses a critical area: the issue of after school care for school age children. Good after school options can help children and teens do well in school and stay out of trouble. It is estimated that nearly 5 million children are left unsupervised by an adult after school each week. Studies have shown that juvenile crime actually peaks between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. when many children are unsupervised. Additionally, I am told that one study found that eighth graders left home alone after school reported greater use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana than those who were in adult supervised settings. Our initiative will allow us to strengthen local resources and is designed to improve the quality of care in after school programs. In closing, the legislation covers the full spectrum of child care from early childhood to adolescent after school needs. I look forward to participating in the debate on making child care affordable and accessible. I am hopeful that the Senate will move forward on these issues of utmost importance to our working families, parents and children alike.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Dr. David Satcher for confirmation both as the Surgeon General of the United States and Assistant Secretary for Health. In so doing, I want to speak both to the position of Surgeon General itself and to the qualifications of this nominee. From 1871 until the present, 16 individuals have had the honor to serve as this nation's chief advisor on public health matters. These individuals served to protect, improve, and advance the health of all people in the United States. While there are those that criticize and may disagree with the position, in many ways the Surgeon General serves as the health conscience for the country. Many Americans may not know the history of this position and can name few of the 16 individuals who have served as Surgeon General. However, most Americans can point to ground breaking reports or initiatives that were conducted by Surgeon Generals. For instance, they are aware of the role of the Surgeon General in programs to immunize millions against polio. Most can cite the important declaration in 1964, by the Surgeon General that: ``smoking can be hazardous to your health.'' Indeed, past Surgeon Generals have issued benchmark reports on smoking, nutrition, water fluoridation, and HIV and AIDS. The public deserves to have this position filled; it has been vacant for too long. We have been without a Surgeon General since December of 1994. We need an identifiable, objective leader as we deal with the broad spectrum of health care issues before the country. Dr. David Satcher is that leader. Dr. Satcher is a distinguished family physician, academician, and leader in the arena of public health. Indeed, he has headed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 1993. He has written that he will utilize the position of the Surgeon General to focus on issues that unite Americans. I am particularly interested in his commitment to, and expertise on, the issues of health promotion and disease prevention. During his confirmation hearing before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, he emphasized his desire to promote healthy lifestyles and focus on issues of critical importance such as better nutrition and exercise. Dr. Satcher recognized the opportunities for lifestyle modification as a way of improving the health of Americans. His performance in this arena in the past and his stated agenda for the future, place prevention as a focal point. Mr. President, the accomplishments of Dr. Satcher at the CDC have had a direct impact in my home state of New Mexico. For New Mexico, border health issues are of utmost importance. Dr. Satcher has helped develop an innovative strategy to combat threats from new and reemerging communicable diseases like tuberculosis which cause problems in our border region. Greater outreach to the general public and health professionals has resulted in four straight years for declining TB rates. Additionally, he has worked to improve the quality and quantity of immunization services. He has promoted better community involvement in the immunization programs. Nationwide, childhood immunization rates rose to a record 78 percent under his leadership at the CDC. Another initiative, the CDC comprehensive breast and cervical cancer screening program, has flourished under Dr. Satcher's leadership. This program has undeserved and minority women has grown from being offered in the initial eighteen states, to including 50 states, the District of Columbia, 5 U.S. territories, and thirteen Native American organizations. Outreach efforts such as this lead to increased access and are key to reaching low income minority and older women. They afford the opportunity as well to educate at risk women on early detection of cancers. In closing, Dr. David Satcher is eminently qualified to speak out for the public's health and the nation's health needs. The nation deserves to have this position filled now. His commitment to public health will be a credit to this country. Please join me in supporting Dr. David Satcher for Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I may not take a full 10 minutes, I advise the Senator from Connecticut. Let me start and make the points that I came here to make because I do believe that some important issues were raised by the President last night in the State of the Union Address, and they are points that are worthwhile to go back and look at for just a minute. One change that has occurred here in Washington in the time I have been here--and it was very clear last night when I listened to the President--is that we now have a consensus; at least a majority agree that education is a national responsibility as well as a State and local responsibility. I can remember very recently--and you still hear people say this, but not many anymore--but I can remember when a substantial number of people used to say education is not an appropriate issue for the Federal Government to concern itself with. Clearly, it is a great concern for the people I represent in New Mexico, and it is a great concern for working families all over this country; but ``it should not be a concern for people who come to Washington to make the laws or to appropriate funds or to allocate tax dollars because this is not a national responsibility.'' That was the argument that we always heard. I think one of the great legacies that this President will leave and this Congress will leave is that there is a change in that attitude. There is a recognition here in Washington, finally, that just as every other industrial nation in the world considers education a national concern as well as a State and local concern, here in America we need to consider it a national concern as well as a State and local concern as well. So I think that is a major change and a change for the better. Last year, Congress and the President agreed on some very significant initiatives in the area of education--a new HOPE scholarship for 2 years of college, a $3 billion overall increase in education funding was included last year, and funding for a new $210 million reading initiative. There were various other initiatives in the education area that were agreed upon by Democrats and Republicans alike. So we have made progress so far in the 105th Congress, and in the second session we can make more progress. I have heard some speeches today and some comments today by my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, and they go along two lines. Number one is the old argument that this is not a national concern, education is not a national concern, we should not be doing more in this area. We ought to leave it up to local school districts if they want to do it. Second, there is no money. We may have the largest economy in the world, and we may be in a period where the Union is strong and where the economy is strong and where we are finally getting to a balanced budget, or very near to it, but there is no money. ``We now spend less than 2 percent of our Federal budget on education and that is too much. We can't afford to spend any more.'' That is the argument I hear. I don't think the American people agree with that. When I go to my State and have town hall meetings and visits with people around New Mexico, I hear them say they are shocked to find that the Federal Government commits so little in resources relative to what the Federal Government spends in other areas. So I think we are expected by the people who sent us here to do better by education. The President is showing us the way to do that. There are three areas in particular I want to highlight today where I think he is showing some leadership, and we need to follow that leadership and try to make a difference. One is in the very important area of lowering the dropout rate in our schools, reaching those at- risk students who historically have left high school before they graduate. We have oversized schools in this country. We have low expectations of many of our students. We have inadequate involvement of parents in the education of their children. As a result of all of these factors, over 500,000 students each year in this country drop out of school before they complete high school. Thirty percent of the young Hispanic adults in this country lack a high school degree because of that very problem. This is a national tragedy, in my opinion, and we at the Federal level can do some things to try to assist with this problem. I hope very much we will take the lead of the President in doing that. He has proposed key programs such as title I, the TRIO program, bilingual education, and several new initiatives to make schools more conducive to learning, to raise expectations and lower dropout rates. He has proposed $12 billion for class size reduction and teacher training and a mentoring program for at-risk middle school students. He has proposed $150 million for comprehensive reform. Now, that funding would go to schools with a serious dropout problem that want to focus on restructuring those schools and coming up with ways to give attention to the at-risk student, to keep them in that school, prevent them from dropping out. That is an initiative that is worth our effort and support. A second area, in addition to the dropout problem that the President is providing leadership on and that we here in Congress have done a substantial amount on in recent years, is providing computers and access to the Internet for the students in our schools today. Technological literacy is an essential part of being educated today. We need to ensure that the schools throughout this Nation are equipped so that students who come through those schools have access to that technology. The President is proposing significant fiscal year 1999 increases for key technology programs. For the formula grants to States there is $425 million in fiscal 1997. For competitive grants, $76 million for technology training for teachers. And all of us understand that you have to train the teachers to use the technology in order that it can be used effectively by the students as well in the classroom. The President is proposing increases in each of these areas. I believe it is in the best interest of this country for us to follow his lead in that area. The President's $10 billion school construction initiative will also help to provide access to fully-wired, technology-ready facilities for computers, and the Internet can be readily integrated into classrooms. Schools are the last area of our society where technology is really having an impact. It is more prevalent in our homes and in our offices than it is in our schools, and it is time that we fix that problem. The final area I want to mention is where I believe the President has made some progress and this Congress has made some progress and we need to keep moving forward in, which is the area of world-class academic standards. Too many schools still offer watered-down academic programs, general education tracks, and low expectations that will not meet the demands of local competition. The President has proposed $200 million in incentives to help districts to set high academic standards, to eliminate the problem of social promotion which he spoke about very eloquently last night, and to take other measures to upgrade the quality of education in our schools. He requested roughly $13 million to pilot and field test a new voluntary national test in reading at the fourth grade level and math at the eighth grade level. This test would be developed by the National Assessment Governing Board, which is not part of the Department of Education. Mr. President, these three initiatives--the effort to reduce dropout rates, the effort to provide technology for our schools, and the effort to assist our local schools to achieve world-class academic standards-- are all worthy goals for us in this second session of the 105th Congress. I hope very much that we will follow the lead of the President and support these efforts with real resources. We will recognize that our constituents do not want to have us debate and debate and debate about whose responsibility it is to improve the schools. They want to see progress, they want to see improvement, they want to see their children receive a better education. We have the power to do that by continuing what we started in the last session of this Congress--that is, putting more resources into education, giving the priority to education that the President talked about last night. I hope very much we will do that. I believe the President has shown a direction that the American people want to see us follow. And I hope very much we will have the good sense to follow that direction. Mr. President, I know there are others who intend to speak. So at this point I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment and pay tribute to a teacher in New Mexico who is an excellent example of service and commitment to education and the students of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Marshall Floyd has been a teacher at Highland High School since 1953, a member of numerous educational related boards, and has received a wide variety of educational honors, including being the recipient of the Outstanding Biology Teacher of New Mexico by the National Association of Biology Teachers in 1974 and receiving the Science Teacher of the Year Citation from the New Mexico Science Teachers Association in 1981. In 1990, Albuquerque Public Schools named Highland High School's new science building after him in recognition of his service to the school and the educational community. Mr. President, on January 12th, the community of Albuquerque and Highland High School paid tribute to this remarkable teacher, and today I join with my fellow New Mexicans in expressing my admiration for Marshall Floyd's continued dedication to educating the students of New Mexico and his commitment to the community of Albuquerque.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as we prepare to complete this first session of the 105th Congress, I want to take a moment to look back at one of the great bipartisan accomplishments that we have made this year, and also to look forward to some important work that still lies ahead. I am referring specifically to the work we have been able to do in putting advanced technology to work to improve education in the country. Technology and better use of technology is critical in my home State of New Mexico. It is a big State. We have only a few concentrations of population and economic activity, and technology offers us a way to bring communities closer together and offers us a way to eliminate the gaps that separate the ``haves'' and the ``have-nots'' in our State and throughout the country. In more than half of American households with incomes of over $50,000, the children have access to a computer at home. But in my State the average family earns about $26,000, and in that income range the estimate is that one in four children in those homes will have access to a computer. We need to do better in the public sector, Mr. President, in providing technology in our schools so that we can use technology to narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots, rather than to allow that gap to increase. In the past year, several magazines have published articles that have challenged the idea that technology in schools can really improve education. The Atlantic Monthly had a cover story called ``The Computer Delusion.'' There have been articles that consider computers in schools to be ``snake oil'' or ``the filmstrip of the 1990's,'' just to cite some of the phrases used. Those articles are one reason I was interested in several recent reports that have reviewed the hundreds of research studies on the effects of educational technology on student achievement. The Educational Testing Service [ETS] did a report. Also, there has been a study commissioned by the Software Publishers Association [SPA]. The research results are uneven, but there are solid peer-reviewed studies that show significant improvement in student performance and attitude in all age groups and all subject areas through better use of technology. Overall, technology-based instruction is 30 percent more effective in improving student achievement than instruction that does not include the use of technology. This is the equivalent of about 3 months of additional learning each year for our students. The findings of these studies validate the Federal investment in education technology that we have made. I introduced the Technology for Education Act in 1994, and it became law later that year. But when it did become law, I don't believe any of us could have predicted the progress that could have been made in these 3 short years. Let me show you some charts, Mr. President, to indicate the progress that has been made. This first chart, I think, makes the case very dramatically. It is a chart that demonstrates computer availability, that is, the students per computer, from the period 1983-84 through this just-completed school year, 1996-97. You can see the dramatic improvement that has occurred. In 1983-84, there were 92 students per computer in our public schools in this country. In this last school year, there were seven students per computer. That is significant progress. Computers have become much more available to students than they ever were before. Let me show another chart that is an indicator of the progress that has been made. This is a chart that shows connections to the Internet. It shows how those connections have continued to increase rapidly: 65 percent of schools are now connected to the Internet. That is this green line on the chart. It indicates 65 percent are now connected. Only 14 percent of our classrooms are connected, but that number is also increasing rapidly. Real progress is being made there as well. This past summer, the Federal Communications Commission approved plans to implement the universal services fund that will provide schools and libraries with $2.25 billion in communications discounts next year. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Exon, and Kerrey, schools will have affordable access to the Internet over the coming years. So looking at these very positive trends, one would think that students are using computers a lot more, but that is not really the case, Mr. President. Let me show you one more chart that indicates the concern I have. This is a chart from a recent report by Education Week, a publication entitled ``Technology Counts.'' It shows that more than half of the eighth grade math students never or hardly ever use computers in their classrooms. Only 12 percent use computers almost every day. In my State, the numbers are even more startling. Two-thirds of the eighth grade math students indicate that they hardly ever use computers; 11 percent in my State indicate that they use computers almost every day. This chart is a graphic depiction of those statistics. Another recent report by the CEO Forum, the Chief Executive Officers Forum, supports this same finding. Only 3 percent of schools have fully integrated technology into teaching. This means that we're making progress in some places, but that some important barriers are stopping our progress in other schools. This past weekend, the Congress passed the spending bill for the Department of Education, and I was privileged to be at the White House this morning when President Clinton signed that bill. It contains significant increases for programs authorized by the bill that I introduced back in 1994. Let me show on this final chart that I have here this afternoon some of the increases that we have been able to accomplish in a bipartisan way this year. In the technology literacy challenge fund--that is grant money that goes to States and school districts to support better use of technology--in fiscal year 1997, we appropriated $200 million. In the bill signed by the President today that number goes to $425 million. So it is more than twice the amount of funding. In the technology innovation challenge grants the figure for 1997 was $57 million. The figure for 1998 is $76 million. This year, for the very first time, we have funds earmarked to go specifically to train teachers to use technology more effectively. That is $30 million that was added in by the appropriators, and I think very wisely added. I think we have all begun to recognize that that is an item that needs additional attention. This last item is crucially important. We need a balanced investment in technology. Balanced investment in educational technology means more than just buying the right hardware and software, it means investing in the training of the teachers and the administrators to use the software and the hardware. Experts say that we should invest 30 percent of our technology budget in training. Nationally, we are investing less than 10 percent in training today. In my State, the estimate is that we are investing less than 5 percent of the funds that go into educational technology in the training of teachers to use that technology. Lack of teacher training will be the biggest barrier that we have to progress in this area. This problem is described in a report entitled ``Technology and the New Professional Teacher: Preparing for the 21st Century Classroom.'' That is a report from the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE]. They indicate that 2 million new teachers will be hired in the next decade. Here is a quote from that report. It says: If teachers don't understand how to use technology effectively to promote student learning, the billions of dollars being invested in educational technology initiatives will be wasted. Colleges of education clearly need to change the way they train new teachers. And if today's teacher candidates are taught with technology, then they will teach using technology themselves. So that is why I introduced earlier in this Congress the Technology for Teachers Act and worked for the $30 million appropriation that I just referred to. Clearly, Senators Harkin and Murray here in the Senate deserve great credit for their support and their advocacy on these issues as well. The appropriation will provide competitive grants to States and will support growth and dissemination of the most effective programs for teacher training in the use of technology. This $30 million, as I see it, is a downpayment on what will need to be a very long-term investment in tomorrow's teachers. And I intend to work for, at least, a doubling of that in next year's budget. I think that is clearly the direction we need to move in. The Federal Government plays an important role in promoting the use of technology in education. But there are obviously other extremely important participants. The States and the school districts are developing challenging new standards. University researchers are discovering diverse ways that people learn. The role of the teacher is changing. The teacher is no longer going to be just a lecturer but rather a learning coach to the students. The software industry is developing powerful new learning tools. All of these efforts are pieces of a large and complex puzzle. Without a national strategy for coordination of these efforts, and without reliable data on what works, we will never get all of the puzzle's pieces to fit together. I am interested in what I read in a recent report from the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST]. That report stressed the need for more research as we introduce more technology into our schools. We need to study which approaches in this area are most effective, and we need to determine the best investment mixture among hardware, software, training, and other categories. As we come to the end of this Congress, I ask my colleagues to join me next year as we build on the progress that has been made here, the very substantial bipartisan progress. We need to take some new steps in promoting education technology. We need to continue our investment, of course, both in computers and in Internet connections. We need to increase substantially the investment in teacher training. And we need to promote new investments in research on the effective use of educational technology. The Federal Government can play a crucial role by promoting greater coordination and collaboration among the private sector and university researchers and educators and State and local governments. There are several ways to accomplish this. We can do so through a federally funded research and development center, or a consortium of private firms, or a network of universities and schools and companies and agencies. The participants will have to make the final decision as to what mechanism works best. The cost of this initiative, like the decisionmaking process, should not be the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. The costs should be shared by all the participants. Mr. President, I am proud of the progress that we have made on providing educational technology so it can be used to upgrade education in our schools. And I am very encouraged by the data that shows the first beneficial impacts in our schools, but we have a great deal left to do. The President and many here in Congress deserve credit for the progress that has been made, but obviously their continued effort will be needed in the future. The private sector, universities, and educational agencies need to work together to create a new culture of collaboration that will give teachers and their students the full benefit of these new technologies that are being developed. Mr. President, on a personal note, I also want to particularly acknowledge the excellent work that David Schindel has done as a fellow in my office throughout the year on this issue of educational technology, as well as several other issues. His accomplishments have been extremely useful to me and I think to the Senate. I appreciate his good work. Mr. President, with that I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the situation in which we find ourselves on this bill is a disgrace. The daily newspapers have been filled recently with stories of our developing political confrontation with Saddam Hussein. Just today, Saddam Hussein has ordered all American arms inspectors to leave Iraq immediately, escalating Iraq's crisis with the United Nations and heightening the possibility of a military confrontation. We may well see military action in the Persian Gulf before Congress convenes next year. We all know what that could do to oil markets. Prices might well spike up, right in the middle of the winter heating season. The most effective antidote to such damaging price fluctuations is close communication among the major oil consumption nations, and joint action to calm oil markets through the International Energy Agency [IEA]. Yet the bill before us, once again, fails to make the legal changes that are needed for the United States to continue to participate meaningfully in the IEA. The United States took the lead in forming the IEA after the Arab oil embargo of 1973, so that we would never again have to experience the market chaos that reigned at that time. At that time, it seemed that the best way to avoid a repeat of gas lines around the world was through mandatory allocations of world oil supplies. This was basically a command-and-control approach to the problem. This mandatory allocation mechanism was enshrined in our basic law on oil emergencies, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 [EPCA], which also authorized the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and which this bill would extend. But the world has changed since the 1970's. Oil markets have changed dramatically since then. And the mandatory allocation scheme contained in the original EPCA is a dinosaur. The United States has taken the lead in designing a flexible international response mechanism to oil supply disruptions that respects market forces. Our domestic oil industry played a key role in the planning process and has endorsed it. We convinced all of the other countries in the IEA to adopt it. But without statutory changes to EPCA, the United States is placed in the absurd position of not being able to participate in the international oil emergency response system that it designed. And all indications from the Persian Gulf are that we could have another emergency sometime soon. Why are we in such a predicament? It is not the fault of the administration. They have been pressing for the adoption of the needed legal changes for 3 years now. It is not the fault of this Body. We have passed the requisite legal changes in both the last Congress and in this Congress, and have forwarded them to the other Body. There is no good answer to the question of why the other Body continues to refuse to act on such clearly needed changes. These necessary changes have apparently been made a hostage to other, non-related issues. So we must pass the bill before us today, which is inadequate to our national security needs, or the President will also be without clear legal authorities to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in case of an oil supply emergency. I will vote for this bill, Mr. President, with extreme reluctance. But I hope that no one is under the illusion that it advances our energy security. Quite the opposite. The bill sent to us by the other Body will likely reduce our energy security, by inflicting long-term damage on the International Energy Agency. This is because failure of the bill to allow IEA to work with U.S. oil companies threatens the future of the Agency. When there are severe supply shortages or market instability, the IEA requires real-time information about the movement and location of oil stocks that only these oil companies can provide. In such a case, this information is shared at the express request of the U.S. Government. But the sharing of this information is normally forbidden under our antitrust laws, so an antitrust exemption of cover information-sharing undertaken at the U.S. Government's request is both needed and justified. What is U.S. industry to make of our refusal, for a third time now, to make the appropriate changes to EPCA? I believe that industry will see the passage of this legislation as a signal that the changes to U.S. law needed for their continued participation in the IEA will not be forthcoming in this Congress, if ever. None of us should be surprised, then, when these companies end their cooperation with the IEA and start to reassign the personnel who previously worked on the issues of emergency preparedness and coordination. The refusal of the other Body to act on the needed antitrust exemption places the two most important parts of the program of the IEA for 1998 in serious jeopardy. I would like to describe these planned activities in a little detail, which will illustrate how our energy security will be diminished by this bill, even if a crisis in the Persian Gulf does not occur while we are out of session. First, IEA was planning to convene a global conference next year to discuss the coordinated management of emergency oil stocks. For the first time, China, India, and other Asian countries, which will be crucial players in any international oil emergency, would have been represented. This conference will be an important opportunity to convince them to develop their own emergency stockpiles, and will provide a venue for them to learn the practicalities involved in doing so. The U.S. Government has contributed $50,000 towards holding this conference. Without the necessary antitrust exemption, though, the conference will likely be canceled, since the key players with expertise in creating and managing emergency stocks, the oil companies that operate in the United States, are precluded from participating under current law. I don't see how that serves our national interests. Second, the IEA was also planning to hold, in 1998, the first drill in 5 years to exercise its emergency mechanisms. This is important to the smooth functioning of IEA's mechanisms in an actual emergency. In the last 5 years, most of the personnel with knowledge of what actually transpired during the Persian Gulf war on world oil markets have left the scene. It is past time that we have held an exercise to test our present capabilities to handle an emergency. Next year's exercise would also have been the first full test of the revised procedures put in place since the Persian Gulf war. Without the antitrust exemption, this exercise either cannot be held, or it must be limited to exercising only the obsolete IEA procedures for mandatory supply allocation. Industry interest in doing the latter is minimal, so the exercise will in all likelihood be canceled. Such an avoidable development is also not in our national interest. If there were legitimate issues being raised by the other Body with respect to the broader legislation that is needed, that would be one thing. Such issues could be worked out in conference. But the only action from the other Body to our requests for the legal changes needed to maintain our energy security, for the past 3 years now, has been to wait until the end of session, to pass a short bill extending the expiration dates in current law, and to leave town. I believe that our country has been poorly served by this inattention to our national security interests.