Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Schindel, who is a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this period of morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in the spring, I was asked by the Laymen's National Bible Association to serve as a congressional cochairman for National Bible Week. The goal of the association is to encourage the reading and study of the Bible. I was pleased to agree to do this, and to join the association in announcing that November 23 through 30 of this year has been designated as National Bible Week. As we expect to adjourn before then, I take this opportunity to offer my support for the association's efforts. This book, the ``Good Book,'' has come down to us through the faithful over the centuries. The bedrock of religion for Jews and Christians, it is a boundless source of comfort, hope, action, love, guidance, and inquiry. Some of the most beautiful expressions of human experience, belief and thought are found in the Bible, flowing from the magnificence and grace of God. Every day that the Senate is in session, our fine Chaplain, or his designee, offers a prayer drawn from the lessons in the Bible. This is a solemn, wonderful, reliable moment in the daily routine. Reading the book itself is the same.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just comment on the agreement that has been reached on the issue of national tests and is part of the conference report that we are getting ready to vote on. After weeks of delay, and essentially a campaign of misinformation waged against voluntary national tests, we now have an agreement that will allow parents to know how their children are really doing in school. And they will be able to know that as soon as the 1999-2000 school year. As my colleagues know, people who paid attention on this issue, I have long advocated developing voluntary national education tests. And despite the firestorm of controversy that has erupted here on Capitol Hill in the last week or two, the vast majority of Americans have always thought that this was a good idea. Why should we continue to fumble around in the dark trying to guess what is wrong with our educational system when we can simply turn on the light and see for ourselves? For these reasons, I worked with others here in the Senate to negotiate the initial Senate compromise that we approved here by a vote of 87 to 13. I worked with my colleagues to ensure that the Labor-HHS conferees knew how important it was to have new tests that States could use if they chose to as soon as possible. Here on the floor I have done my best to describe the myths and the realities of what national testing is all about. As a result, I am glad to report that an agreement on moving forward with developing new tests has been finalized. In essence, this new agreement does four things. First, it transfers control over development and administration of voluntary national tests to the National Assessment Governing Board. That was part of what we discussed and proposed here in the Senate version of the legislation. And I think that was a very good proposal. So I am very glad to see that in this final bill. Second, it calls on the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study about whether it is feasible to link State and commercial tests to the rigorous National Assessment of Educational Progress. Third, it allows for development of new national test items aligned with the National Assessment in the areas of 4th grade reading and 8th grade math. And, fourth, it eliminates any prohibition against future implementation of the new tests without prior congressional authorization. In my view, there are two main benefits to this agreement. First, transferring control to this National Assessment Governing Board, NAGB, takes the same approach as the Senate compromise. This ensures that the tests are controlled by an independent and bipartisan agency with a proven record of administering national assessments. The second benefit of this agreement is that it removes any explicit requirement for future congressional authorization before implementation of testing. Making sure that the tests are available to be used is one of the most important objectives here. There is no point in having shiny new tests ready and on the shelf if States and districts and parents who want to use those are prohibited from doing so. This agreement puts the burden of blocking any implementation of national tests on those who would oppose States and school districts and parents from using them when they want to. In my view, these provisions are all reasonable steps to take. They allow the process to go forward. They establish a level playing field for authorizers and appropriators during any future disputes about the implementation of national tests next year. And they provide reassurances against inventing a wheel that we have already invented before. Let me make a few additional statements though about the agreement. First, I want to clarify that, in fact, the agreement does allow the development of national testing to go forward this year. The development of fourth grade reading and eighth grade math exams based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress will go forward during the upcoming school year. Starting in the next fiscal year, this National Assessment Governing Board can begin piloting and field testing these items, which are necessary steps for implementing the tests in the spring of 2000. Second, I would like to lower people's expectations about the proposed study of the feasibility of linking State and commercial tests to this National Assessment. That is because the current hodgepodge of State and commercial tests cannot replace a uniform national test and are almost certainly not comparably vigorous to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Few of the current State tests require more than 10th grade learning levels. The percentage of students who score proficiently in the National Assessment of Education Progress on any given subject is usually much lower than the percentage of students who pass a State exam or a commercial exam. A series of studies and reports over the past two decades, have shown that linking State or commercial tests is a costly and an uncertain undertaking. In the end, the National Academy of Sciences study will most likely reiterate the need for a voluntary national test. Third, I would like to say that it is unfortunate that the opponents of voluntary national testing did not allow the agreement to include as many protections against discriminatory uses of the tests or bias or other safeguards for poor and minority students as were in the Senate version of the test proposal that we negotiated here. Coming from a State with many poor and minority students, I am committed to ensuring that any new tests are fair to all who take them. Overall, I would have to say that this agreement brings us closer to the day when we will have a national yardstick to measure students' academic progress and gauge how well our education system is doing, and not just the system overall, but be able to gauge how the system is doing on a State by State basis or a district by district basis. I know that there are those who oppose this effort who still fear that voluntary national tests will undercut local control. I myself would have preferred to move faster than this bill will move us. But I am glad that the commonsense potential of developing these measures now seems clear to all and that we can finally move forward.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the time very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Voluntary National Testing

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to comment on the agreement that has been entered into on national tests. Do I need to have time yielded?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that would have a significant impact on two communities within northern New Mexico. The villages of Jemez Springs, and El Rito, NM, are small communities that are completely surrounded by Forest Service land. Despite the fact that their populations are not growing rapidly, they do have some specific land needs; some of which are actually caused by their proximity to national forest land. For example, on any given weekend, the Jemez National Recreation Area, within the Santa Fe National Forest will have over 50,000 visitors. Village of Jemez Springs is the only community wholly within the Jemez National Recreation Area. As such, this community of 460 people is often called upon for assistance with emergencies within the national forest. In fact, over 90 percent of the village's fire responses, emergency rescues, and ambulance calls are outside the town limits, placing enormous strain on the village's resources. To help address this problem, in 1996, the State of New Mexico provided funds to Jemez Springs to build a fire substation which would house three emergency vehicles. However, Jemez Springs does not have a suitable location for this facility, nor does the village have the tax base available to buy land for it. Mr. President, what this first bill would do is to acknowledge the services that the Santa Fe National Forest currently receives from the village of Jemez Springs, and the additional benefit that a fire substation would provide to visitors to the forest. In recognition of these benefits, my bill would transfer one acre of land to Jemez Springs for use as the site of a fire substation. Mr. President, my second bill concerns the venerable customs and religious practices of the people of El Rito, NM. El Rito is a community of a little over 2,000 people nestled within the Carson National Forest in New Mexico. It is a community that has existed for hundreds of years, that is now running out of space. Specifically the El Rito cemetery, where people have buried their dead for generations, is full. As a result, the residents of El Rito must now obtain special permission from the Forest Service in order to bury their family members on Forest Service land that is adjacent to their cemetery. This situation has created what can only be described as an unbecoming bureaucratic burden upon families just at the time that they are grieving. To solve this problem, my first thought was to transfer a small portion of land from the Forest Service to El Rito for their cemetery. However despite its age, the community of El Rito is not an incorporated town so the Forest Service would not have a legal public entity to transfer the land to. In order to solve this problem, my bill does not transfer the land, but rather it recognizes the historic nature of this cemetery, and designates five acres of adjacent Forest Service land as special use land for expansion of that cemetery. This will remove the need for the residents of El Rito to obtain a special use permit each time someone dies. Mr. President, I think all of the New Mexico delegation realizes that both of the problems addressed by these bills need to be resolved. In fact, the House has passed a bill concerning these two issues which was originally sponsored by former Representative Richardson, and is currently sponsored by Representative Redmond. However in response to concerns raised by the Forest Service, the bill as passed by the House would require these small communities to either exchange land of equal value or pay for these lands. Mr. President I think the reality here is that being surrounded by Forest Service land, that it will be next to impossible for these communities to find land of equal value to exchange. These communities also do not have the financial resources for outright purchases of property. I believe that the way my two bills are written can meet the concerns of the Forest Service and still resolve the underlying problems these communities are facing. I am committed to working with other Members of the delegation to move this legislation as quickly as possible. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that these two bills be entered into the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. Presdient, I rise today to introduce the Quality Teacher in Every Classroom Act, a bill to ensure quality and accountability in Federal efforts to improve public school teaching. Let me begin by stating that I am a strong supporter of the hard- working teachers in American classrooms. Coming from a family of teachers, I know first-hand how challenging the work is. Having visited schools throughout my home State of New Mexico, I know how dedicated and professional the vast majority of our teachers are. And any time you talk to students, the conversation always comes back to teachers. However, it's also pretty clear that we are not doing anyone--neither teachers nor students--a great service by putting so many under- qualified teachers in American classrooms, and providing so little support to teachers and the institutions that prepare and support them. Too often, our teachers lack enough background in their subjects, our colleges of education are not rigorous enough, our state licensing standards are too low, and local districts have too few high-quality candidates to choose from. Improving teaching quality won't solve all of our educational problems, but it is at the heart of what goes on in individual classrooms around the nation. And as shown on the following charts, the state and national statistics are alarming. None of us is doing as much as is needed to improve teaching quality: As this first chart shows, most States have a long way to go in promoting teaching quality. In the 1997 Education Week national report card called ``Quality Counts,'' none of the States received an ``A'', and most received ``C's.'' Like many other States, New Mexico received a ``C-minus'' for teaching quality in this report because--while the State does require national certification for all its schools of education: Only 52 percent of NM high school teachers have degrees in their subject areas; the State does not require that teachers have a degree in liberal arts (math, science, history, etc.); and fewer than three-fourths of NM teachers who participated in professional development received some form of support to do so. As a Nation, we are unfortunately actually doing worse over all as the 1990's have progressed. The just-released 1997 Goals report showed that the percentage of high school teachers with a degree in their subject area actually declined over all from 66 percent in 1990 to 63 percent in 1994. For New Mexico, the percentage has remained near the bottom, at 52 percent. For New Mexico students, that means that it's about a 50-50 chance whether their teachers have a strong background in the area they are teaching. And the situation is particularly bleak in the key areas of math and science, where we need to be at our best. This second chart shows the latest data showing that nearly one in three high school math teachers lacks a math degree. In New Mexico, the percentage was 36 percent, and in other states over half the math teachers lack even a minor in math. This next charts shows a similar story in the area of high school science. Nearly one in four high school science teachers lacks a science degree. In most states, over 20 percent of the high school science teachers lack that background. It's worth noting that in this area New Mexico fares better than most States, at only 19 percent. More than 50,000 people are teaching America's children without the minimal training required to meet professional standards. In schools with the highest minority enrollments, minority students have less than a 50% chance of sitting in the class of a math or science teacher with a degree in that field. From talking to teachers, however, I know that it's they more than anyone else who want our public schools to be improved so that children to learn as much as they can. And that's important, because improving and maintaining the quality of America's teaching force is on the mind of every policy maker today. Clearly, all our efforts at raising curriculum and testing standards for children will be severely diluted without the powerful presence of a competent instructor in each classroom. More than anything else, the public is demanding properly prepared teachers. A properly prepared teacher in every classroom is a reasonable demand. And the federal government, which has for too long talked about improving teaching without doing anything about it, needs to become a leader in this area. That's what this legislation is all about. Now I want to be the first to acknowledge that I am not the only one interested in this issue. Senators Kennedy, Reed, Frist, and others have already introduced teacher training legislation, much of it based on the 1996 findings of the National Commission on Teaching and Learning. And I know that the Chairman of the Labor Committee is extremely interested in this issue. I look forward to working with all of them as the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act continues. However, this legislation, called the Quality Teacher in Every Classroom Act, is distinctive in several regards. Most importantly, this is the only Senate proposal that provides a thorough formula for reform in teacher training. The legislation addresses the problem comprehensively, and leverages as much improvement as possible given the limited Federal investment in education. Let me take a moment to describe its main features, which are outlined on the chart summarizing the bill. First, the Act would take the simple step of making sure that parents have available to them important information about the basic qualifications and academic background of their children's teachers. Teachers are professionals just like the family doctor or the local lawyer, and so their backgrounds should be just as available as if their diplomas were framed on the wall. I believe that the availability of this information will engage and empower parents in advocating for improved schools. Second, the Act calls on states to reduce the percentage of teachers who are uncertified or lack a sufficient academic background. States must make zero tolerance for poorly prepared teachers their number one priority. This bill gives them five years to reduce substantially the number of unlicensed teachers as well as those who are teaching outside of their area of expertise. It also requires them to accept any teacher from another area who has national certification as a master teacher as fully qualified to teach in that state. Next, the Act calls on colleges of education to make substantial changes in the preparation that they provide teaching candidates, including graduating more students who will pass state teacher licensing exams and requiring a rigorous liberal arts major in an academic subject area, which is not uniformly required. In addition, the Act will address the lack of high-quality teachers and teaching candidates in our most poverty-stricken schools by providing financial incentives for highly qualified teaching candidates. For each year they taught in high-need areas, new teachers would have their school loans forgiven. And experienced teachers who pursue advanced work such as national certification or Advanced Placement training would also qualify for loan forgiveness. This incentive should bring new energy and talent to poor communities, inspiring students and instilling parents with renewed confidence in their children's schools. Finally, the bill would help improve the recruitment and support provided for new teachers by creating a competitive grant program to fund partnerships among colleges of education, school districts, and schools. Each member of the partnership including a school district, a school that includes at least 30% children who meet criteria for poverty, and a university or college that offers teacher preparation. Special priority would be given to applications that used or created laboratory or ``teaching'' schools with their partner districts, where teaching candidates learn hands-on. In conclusion, I would like to say that I am excited to introduce a bill that brings together so many of the legislative agendas I have been promoting for many years: rigorous standards, constructive support for those who are failing to meet those standards, and a comprehensive approach to solving central problems of American public life. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, Veteran's Day is an appropriate occasion to honor those who have served our Nation so nobly. I'd like to take this occasion to offer special recognition to New Mexico's most distinguished veterans, our living Medal of Honor winners. Col. Robert Scott, who celebrates his 84th birthday this month, is a longtime resident of Santa Fe, NM, who received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroic deeds during World War II. Cpl. Hiroshi Miyamura, from Gallup, NM, was honored for his bravery as an infantryman during the Korean war. Second Lt. Raymond Murphy, a resident of Albuquerque, served heroically with the U.S. Marine Corps during that conflict. Sgt. Louis Richard Rocco, also from Albuquerque, celebrating his 59th birthday this month, received the Medal for his courageous deeds as a medic during the Vietnam war. New Mexico and the Nation are proud of these fine men and deeply grateful for their contributions to the freedom enjoyed by all Americans. Since the birth of our Nation in 1776, 40 million American men and women have bravely sacrificed and served in defense of the freedoms that we enjoy, perhaps even sometimes take for granted. But our freedom isn't free, it was bought and paid for with the sacrifices of more than 1 million of those heroic servicemen and women who gave their lives for God and country. It was our first President who cautioned a young nation that, ``If we desire peace, it must be known that we are at all times prepared for war.'' Time and again in our 220-year history, our Nation's sons and daughters have been called upon to demonstrate that preparedness. Perhaps in no other war, however, was their resolve more tested than when our Nation struggled within itself during the Civil War. Early in that conflict, Iowa Senator James W. Grimes realized that soldiers needed not only leadership, they needed role models--heroes to look up to and emulate. To accomplish this, he introduced to this body, legislation authorizing a Medal of Honor for sailors and marines who distinguished themselves by their gallantry in action, in order to ``promote the efficiency of the navy.'' Six months after President Lincoln authorized the Navy's Medal of Honor on December 21, 1861, he signed similar legislation introduced by Massachusetts Senator Henry Wilson to establish a Medal of Honor for members of the U.S. Army. Since it was established by the Senate and authorized by President Lincoln 136 years ago, the Medal of Honor has been awarded to only 3,408 veterans of military service. The ``roll call'' of heroes includes an 11-year-old Civil War naval cabin boy, an escaped slave, the sons of two Presidents, conscientious objectors, privates and generals, chaplains and medics, and members of the U.S. Senate. These heroes have come from every State in the Union, from all nationalities and ethnic backgrounds, and from all social and economic strata. Three other Medal of Honor winners hail from New Mexico--about whom we are equally proud; Richard Rocco, Raymond Murphy, and Hiroshi Miyamura. Each of these men, and all winners of this coveted award have one thing in common, an action of such remarkable heroism ``above and beyond the call of duty at the risk of their own life'', that their comrades in arms have called them ``heroes.'' World War I gave us 119 Medal of Honor heroes, men like Eddie Rickenbacker and Sgt. Alvin York. But when the armistice was signed concluding the ``war to end all wars'' at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, all America prayed that there would be no need to extend the honor of Medal of Honor recipient to future generations, a distinction that could be achieved only as a result of U.S. involvement in a war. Sadly, this would not be the case. Since that first ``Veterans Day'', subsequent tyranny and human rights violations around the world have continued to test the commitment of our Nation's men and women in uniform. In the horror and devastation of the battles to defend freedom and human dignity since World War I, more than 30 million Americans have risked everything. All who served were heroes in their own right, and to each of them we owe our thanks, our thoughts and our prayers this Veterans Day. Of this multitude of patriots, only 811 received the Medal of Honor. So incredible were their acts of courage that only 316 of them survived to wear this highest honor. It is often said that the youth of our Nation today need real heroes, men and women of patriotism and integrity, examples of sacrifice and service; that they can look up to and emulate. We who are of generations past can lament the loss of great Americans such as Sgt. York, Jimmie Doolittle, Audie Murphy, and other heroes of our childhood. But I am happy to report that today there are still many heroes and heroines in our land, men and women who embody the principles and character that have created and preserved the United States. Among those role models are the millions of veterans that we honor today, and among those veterans of military service are 168 surviving Medal of Honor heroes. Today, as we honor all our Nation's veterans, I would like to pay special homage to our New Mexican Medal of Honor winners. On November 30, 1913, Robert Sheldon Scott was born here in the Nation's capital. His family later moved to California where Bob Scott attended school before moving again to my own State of New Mexico. Bob Scott answered his Nation's call to duty to serve during World War II. On June 30, 1943, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Adm. William Halsey launched ``Operation Cartwheel'', a bold two-pronged offensive to gain control of Rabul in the Pacific. On the day, Admiral Halsey landed the 43rd Infantry Division on the New Georgia in the Solomon Islands for the purpose of capturing the Japanese-held Munda airstrip. Underestimating the jungles of the island and the tenacity of its Japanese defenders, Halsey expected the campaign to last only 2 weeks. By mid-July the Admiral was forced to land two more divisions on the island, and the attack on the airstrip resumed with new fervor on July 25. More than 1,000 Americans would give up their lives in the effort. By July 27, the 43d Infantry's 172d Regiment bogged down in front of a salient facing the Munda airstrip. Battle-weary and demoralized from 27 days of bitter fighting, the well-entrenched enemy seemed to have again halted the advance. Two days later, a squad from the 172d's 1st Battalion again assaulted the hill. Young Army Lt. Robert Scott led his men halfway up the hill to a position within 75 yards of the enemy, when the Japanese counterattack stopped them. Enemy soldiers rose from their fortifications firing their rifles and throwing grenades. Their fierce attack threw the exhausted Americans off the hill. Except for Lieutenant Scott. Ducking behind the blasted remains of a tree stump, the brave lieutenant had an unobstructed view of the enemy bunkers. Despite being twice wounded and once having his rifle shot from his hand, for the next half hour, Lieutenant Scott stood alone on the hill to repulse the enemy. Throwing some 30 grenades, his one-man stand ended the enemy assault and caused them to withdraw. His Medal of Honor citation concludes with the notation that ``our troops, inspired to renewed effort by Lieutenant Scott's intrepid stand and incomparable courage, swept across the plateau to capture the hill, and from this strategic position, four days later, captured Munda airstrip.'' Of his award, Mr. Scott recently wrote, ``I was awarded the Medal of Honor in World War II for deeds one day as a Second Lieutenant infantry platoon leader, deeds that I initiated at least in part from the conviction that I ought to have enough guts to do what I was authorized to order a sergeant or private soldier to try to do.'' Today, Bob Scott still lives in the town of his youth, Santa Fe, NM. He is one of four of my State's living Medal of Honor heroes. The ninth oldest of our Nation's living Medal of Honor recipients, on the 30th day of this month, he will celebrate his 84th birthday. Our Governor, the Honorable Gary Johnson, has declared that day to be ``Colonel Robert Scott Day'' throughout our State. Other Medal of Honor recipients from New Mexico contributed similar deeds of valor. Corporal Miyamura of Gallup was with Company H holding a defensive position near Taejon-ni, Korea in April 1951. When the enemy began to overrun his position, Corporal Miyamura left his sheltered position and engaged the enemy in hand-to-hand combat, then returned to his position to tend to the wounded. Under attack again, Corporal Miyamura manned two machine-guns to provide covering fire while his squad withdrew. He killed more than 50 enemy soldiers before his ammunition was depleted and he was severely wounded. Second Lt. Raymond Murphy served as a platoon commander of Company A, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division in action against the enemy west of Panmunjom, Korea. Wounded by artillery fire, Lieutenant Murphy refused medical aid while leading his men up a well-defended hill through a withering barrage of enemy fire. Murphy rescued many of his fallen comrades and returned each time to lead the assault and provide cover for his troops. While all the wounded evacuated and the assaulting units began to disengage, he remained behind with a carbine to cover the movement of friendly forces off the hill. After reaching the base of the hill, he organized a search party and again ascended the slope for a final check on missing Marines, locating and carrying the bodies of a machine-gun crew down the hill. Wounded a second time, he again refused medical assistance until he was certain that all of his men had been safely evacuated. Sgt. Louis Richard Rocco of Albuquerque served in Vietnam as a medic northeast of Katum. While evacuating wounded comrades, Sergeant Rocco directed fire against the enemy to enable a helicopter to land and assist in the operation. In the battle, the helicopter was disabled by enemy fire and crashed. Sergeant Rocco continued to direct covering fire while personally extracting survivors from the helicopter and carrying them to safety through dense foliage and enemy fire. It is said, ``Poor is the nation that has no heroes or heroines, but beggard is the nation that has and forgets them.'' On this day, our Nation has set aside to remember our veterans, as I stand before the same body that established the Medal of Honor, I offer this special salute to Col. Robert S. Scott, Cpl. Hiroshi H. Miyamura, 2d Lt. Raymond G. Murphy, and Sgt. Louis Richard Rocco--great citizens of the State of New Mexico and the Nation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly in support of this year's national defense authorization bill which was reported out of conference committee. The bill is the product of many months of dedicated work by Senator Thurmond, Senator Levin and many others here, and of course, the committee staff and personal staff of Senators as well. It reflects the collective interests of the Congress. It includes many provisions that were arrived at through many long weeks and even months of debating and negotiating. I want to call particular attention to the provisions to fully fund the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and the related Department of Energy programs to secure the nuclear materials and destroy chemical stockpiles and strategic weapons in the former Soviet Union. In my view, the money spent on these programs is among the most cost- effective ways that we expend taxpayer money to pursue our own national security and to promote international peace. I am also pleased that there is significant funding in this bill authorized for a range of dual-use research and development programs. I believe that is important and allows the Department of Defense to leverage commercial investment in advanced technologies to meet our defense needs. The bill also authorizes funding to meet the requirements of the defense programs in the Department of Energy, particularly the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which I believe is extremely important to the future of our country. The bill also contains, and I am sure others have commented on this, a 2.8 percent pay raise for active duty military members. Without this bill, that increase would be limited to 2.3 percent. This may seem like a small amount, but I believe that for people in uniform it is an important difference and one that we should definitely adopt this bill to accomplish. The bill also, of course, is essential if we are going to go forward with the construction programs for the fiscal year 1998 military construction projects, and that is another reason why the bill should be approved by this Senate and should be signed by the President. Mr. President, this bill does not meet all the goals of individual Senators, but it does express the collective priorities of the Senate, and I urge that we move to adopt it and send it to the President for his signature. I hope the President will recognize the value of this legislation to the Nation and sign it into law. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I know the Senator from California is waiting to speak.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me talk separately about two issues. One is this Senate resolution disapproving the cancellations that were transmitted by the President resulting in this S. 1292. Let me first indicate the reasons that I support the resolution, and then I will say a few things about the line-item veto issue, the larger issue that the Senator and others have been discussing here. First, I do support the legislation, S. 1292, for the simple reason that I believe the administration acted to cancel worthy projects on the basis of erroneous information and that it is our duty in the Congress to override that decision if we have the votes to do that. The administration has admitted as much to us in a statement that we received today, and the President continues to insist that he will not allow the passage of this resolution to be signed into law. At a minimum, I believe that if this override effort proves unsuccessful, the administration owes it to the military personnel in the country and to their families and to those of us in Congress to ensure that there is funding provided for the projects that were incorrectly included in the President's line-item veto package. The Senate received a statement from the administration today indicating that some military construction projects that the President vetoed were canceled on the basis of erroneous information. Mr. President, that is exactly what happened on the two projects that I am most familiar with, the two in New Mexico. The project at Kirtland Air Force Base and White Sands Range. In both of those cases, we had information from the Department of Defense indicating that those projects had been substantially designed, and they were ready to be executed in this fiscal year, and as such, they did not meet this criteria that the President has indicated he used and the Office of Management and Budget used in deciding which items to line-item veto. In fact, I had a conversation with Franklin Raines, head of the Office of Management and Budget, on the day that the decision was announced by the President, and I discussed with him the information we have received from the Department of Defense and how it conflicted with the information that he had which he was urging the President to use in making the decision. So I am persuaded that the decision as to those two projects was based on erroneous information. I believe, based on what the President has indicated in his letter to us, that the decisions on many other projects were also based on erroneous information. So I believe it is in our best interest and it is our duty, in fact, to go ahead and pass this legislation. I intend to vote for it. Let me say a couple words about the line-item veto itself. I am not one who supported the line-item veto legislation. I opposed it for many of the reasons that the Senator from West Virginia has articulated so well here on the Senate floor. First of all, I don't believe it is good policy. I think the Founding Fathers had it right when they determined that this was not a power that should be granted to the President, and so I support the basic structure that was put into our Constitution. Second, if we were going to try to enact some type of line-item veto and grant that authority to the President, it cannot be done by statute; we would have to amend the Constitution. We would have to go through the very elaborate procedure set up in the Constitution to amend the Constitution. Clearly, that was not done in this legislation. Let me also say that all the debate over the last several years in the Congress about the line-item veto has been an effort to describe it as something which was needed in order to impose fiscal responsibility on the Government. My experience here in the Congress has led me to conclude that fiscal irresponsibility is just as much a result of action in the executive branch as it is a result of action here in the Congress. There are many instances where those of us in Congress are fiscally irresponsible. I have witnessed that on many occasions. But I have also witnessed many examples where the executive branch and the President in the budget sent to the Congress were also fiscally irresponsible. So I don't think the case has been made that fiscal irresponsibility is just a province of the Congress. I do believe we should pass this resolution. I believe that the Supreme Court, when it gets the opportunity, will declare the legislation that enacts the line-item veto to be unconstitutional. I believe the issue will be back before us at that time to see whether we want to do a constitutional amendment. I will urge my colleagues not to do a constitutional amendment at that time. I yield the floor, Mr. President. I appreciate the time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I will ask for 5 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business 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 want to take a few minutes this morning to debunk a few myths that are being spread about how the Senate voluntary national testing plan would work and explain why a so-called compromise that has been discussed here in the Capitol in the last few days misses the mark almost entirely. As many of my colleagues here in the Senate already know, the opponents of a voluntary national test are blocking what in my view is a reasonable and carefully crafted proposal to improve our schools. Over a month ago here in the Senate, we voted 87 to 13 in support of this proposal. Since then, the opponents of it have refused to even sit down at the table and talk about the issue. In fact, they have threatened to shut down the Federal Government again rather than to allow States and school districts and parents to decide for themselves whether or not they want to use these new tests. In recent weeks, the opponents of voluntary national testing have tried to spread a series of myths about the proposal that was passed by the Senate. Many of these are described on the chart here. Let me just go through a few of them. First of all, one of the myths is that this is ``just another test.'' In reality, these national tests would provide essential information to parents that none of the commercial tests presently available provide, by allowing a comparison. The tests that are being considered by us in this legislation would allow a comparison between students across the Nation as to their level of performance on reading in the fourth grade and mathematics at the eighth grade. Another myth is that the tests are not voluntary. The claim is that they are not voluntary. In fact, we have written into the language of the bill a specific requirement that they be voluntary; a prohibition against any impediment or any force being put on a State or district or community that chooses not to use the tests. Another of the myths is that they would not do anything, when in reality we have various States and communities and school districts around the Nation that are showing that high standards and uniform measures of achievement can engage and empower area communities to put more emphasis on their schools and increase the learning that occurs there. But, despite the mischaracterizations of the voluntary testing proposal, I am glad to report that educators and business leaders and the American public support this proposal overwhelmingly, the proposal that the President sent forward. I know this from having heard it from people on the front lines. This last Friday we had a meeting with various people. An elementary school parent and PTA member, Laura Scott, told about how important independent tests were for parents who are handing their children over to schools and need all the leverage they can get to make sure the education their children are getting in those schools is adequate. Gov. Roy Romer of Colorado spoke about the efforts that are being made in Colorado to develop their tests in these various subjects and how he would appreciate a chance to know how his State is doing relative to other States. He could not see any justification for each of the 50 States having to reinvent the wheel. Obviously, the President's proposal would eliminate the need for that. The Governor of North Carolina, Jim Hunt, also spoke eloquently about the importance of having benchmarks so that he can determine the appropriateness of the education that is being provided to his own grandchildren in the public schools of North Carolina. From a business perspective, Alan Wurtzel, of the National Alliance of Business, and Chris Larson, of the Technology Network, described how important uniform measures of achievement are to preparing a qualified work force for the 21st century and how the business community insists upon objective measurements of achievement in the training that they do. And they believe that same concept makes a lot of sense in our schools as well. Representing large, urban school districts, Philadelphia School Superintendent David Hornbeck said that the tests, as he saw it, would be, and the phrase he used was a ``sword of equality'' for poor and minority students in Philadelphia and elsewhere who today are receiving an inferior education, unfortunately, in many of these school systems but, by virtue of this kind of objective performance testing, would be able to improve the situation. Most recently, opponents of the voluntary national tests came up with the so-called compromise proposal that in my view reveals a basic misunderstanding about what the voluntary national testing proposal is supposed to do. The proposed compromise preserves the status quo. It relies on a type of test --the type which many of our school districts are now using--which creates the impression that students are doing better than they really are. We could refer to this proposal as the Lake Woebegone proposal. It is clearly a situation, which we have today, where ``all the children are above average.'' First off, the compromise they are proposing is not much different from an outright prohibition on the development of any new tests. Further development of a voluntary national test would be immediately and completely prohibited under this compromise, so-called compromise, that has been discussed. That is nothing else but protecting the status quo, in denying States, denying school districts the choice to participate in a national measure of student achievement. Seven States have already indicated they want to participate and 15 major school districts have opted to do so. Second, this proposed compromise wouldn't really accomplish anything useful in terms of focusing more attention on world-class standards for all children. That is because instead of developing new national tests on fourth grade reading and eighth grade math, this antitesting proposal would fund a $3 million study of the feasibility of linking various commercial tests that are already there with each other. These commercial tests that would be linked under this study do not conform to the rigorous academic standards of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The whole idea behind this development of a fourth grade reading test and eighth grade math test is we want these kinds of rigorous national academic standards that are reflected in the National Assessment of Educational Progress available for all schools to look at. In addition, the tests that would be studied are all ``norm- referenced'' tests, which means their scores are all reported by percentiles. They show how you scored compared to others, but they do not show how you score relative to any kind of objective criteria, as to whether or not you can read at a reasonable level or do math at a reasonable level. In many ways, this proposal misses the point. It suggests that the current hodgepodge of commercial tests can adequately solve the problem. It proposes to preserve the status quo rather than allowing States and districts to make their own choices. It undercuts the National Assessment for Educational Progress which is the most rigorous national measure of student achievement. And this so-called compromise is completely unsatisfactory in that it would block the proposal we agreed to here in the Senate, to allow this test to be developed by the National Assessment Governing Board. Here in the Senate, the compromise that was negotiated, it was clear, was supported overwhelmingly by a bipartisan group of Senators. Leading scholars in this field such as Checker Finn and Bill Bennett supported that compromise. Since then, 43 Senators have pledged to block the appropriations bill or to uphold a veto, if the President is required to veto the bill, if that original compromise is not maintained. So, if testing opponents want the National Academy of Sciences to study whether commercial or even State-developed tests are as rigorous as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, I have no problem with that. I think studies can sometimes be useful. But until it is clear that State and commercial tests are up to the task, I believe we should be able to go ahead with the voluntary national test development and that funding should be kept in the bill and not be prohibited as the House is considering doing. Mr. President, I know there are others waiting to speak. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 1305, the National Research Investment Act of 1998. Boosting the strength of our R&D infrastructure is crucially important to the future health and prosperity of every inhabitant of my home State of New Mexico, just as it is to every American. The scientific, technical, and medical advances of the past 40 years have dramatically improved our standard of living. If we are to maintain these advances into the future, we cannot afford to stand still. Unfortunately, we are now headed in the wrong direction. Federal funding for research and development has declined as an overall percentage of the Federal budget over the last 20 years. We now spend less than 2 cents of each dollar of Federal spending on science and engineering research and development. We need to do better. It is clear that if we want to create the kind of high-paying, high-technology jobs that will ensure a decent standard of living for American workers, we will need a much stronger commitment to investing in research and development. Although the focus of this bill is ensuring a strong future for civilian R&D, it is important to recognize that the basic science and fundamental technology development supported by the Defense portion of our budget also contributes to our domestic prosperity. For our Nation to remain prosperous into the next century, we need both sources of support for basic science and fundamental technology to remain strong, even in a time of constrained budgets. There was a time when our investment in research and development equaled that of the rest of the world combined. But through the years, we have allowed our commitment to slide, and have lost much ground compared to our international competitors. Mr. President, this is not where we want to be, and I hope that the National Research Investment Act of 1998 will put us on the path to a better future.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 1305, the National Research Investment Act of 1998. Boosting the strength of our R&D infrastructure is crucially important to the future health and prosperity of every inhabitant of my home State of New Mexico, just as it is to every American. The scientific, technical, and medical advances of the past 40 years have dramatically improved our standard of living. If we are to maintain these advances into the future, we cannot afford to stand still. Unfortunately, we are now headed in the wrong direction. Federal funding for research and development has declined as an overall percentage of the Federal budget over the last 20 years. We now spend less than 2 cents of each dollar of Federal spending on science and engineering research and development. We need to do better. It is clear that if we want to create the kind of high-paying, high-technology jobs that will ensure a decent standard of living for American workers, we will need a much stronger commitment to investing in research and development. Although the focus of this bill is ensuring a strong future for civilian R&D, it is important to recognize that the basic science and fundamental technology development supported by the Defense portion of our budget also contributes to our domestic prosperity. For our Nation to remain prosperous into the next century, we need both sources of support for basic science and fundamental technology to remain strong, even in a time of constrained budgets. There was a time when our investment in research and development equaled that of the rest of the world combined. But through the years, we have allowed our commitment to slide, and have lost much ground compared to our international competitors. Mr. President, this is not where we want to be, and I hope that the National Research Investment Act of 1998 will put us on the path to a better future.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rena Subotnik, a fellow in my office, be permitted privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak up to 12 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Dropout Prevention Act. I will talk just a bit about the issue and talk about the problem that I am trying to address and that this act is intending to address. It is a problem, I think, all Senators should join me in trying to resolve and I believe will join me in trying to resolve. We have a serious problem on our hands that is a threat to the youth of America. The problem is that far too many of our kids are dropping out of high school before they graduate. Some, even, are dropping out of middle school before they proceed on to high school. Each fall, starting about a month ago, students begin dropping out of school and they drop out in very, very large numbers. Nationwide, nearly half a million kids leave school each year. That is, leaving school not by graduating but leaving school early and deciding not to stay in school and graduate. That is 2,700 dropouts for each school day. Studies show that our children are dropping out at a younger and younger age. Who are these kids who are dropping out of school? The charts that I have here make the case fairly well. They are largely from low-income and middle-income families, and as a percent they are largely minority. The numbers are disturbing across the board, but they are particularly alarming for Hispanic students. First, on the income level. If you look at this chart, the top line shows the period from 1975 to 1995, a 20-year period. On the left-hand side we show the dropout rates for grades 10-12, ages 15-24, by family income. What this means is that among students from low-income families at times it has been as high as 17 percent that have dropped out in a particular year. In middle-income families, it is closer to 6 to 8 percent, and in high-income families it is substantially lower than that. When you break it down not just by income level but by ethnic background, you can see that the problem is concentrated and particularly alarming for Hispanic students who are dropping out at a rate more than double that of non-Hispanic students. Also, black students drop out at a rate about 50 percent higher than the rate for white students. You can see from this chart the point I am making here, the top line, the red line, represents the percentage of Hispanic students dropping out. This is called status dropout rates for persons 16-24, and you can see somewhere between 30 and 35 percent of Spanish students nationwide drop out rather than compete high school. It is a very serious problem, particularly in that group, and of course that is a great concern in my State where a very large percent of the student population is Hispanic. Why are they dropping out? With all the emphasis on self-reliance these days it is tempting to ask what is wrong with kids that so many of them are leaving school. When you actually sit down and talk to these young people, as I have done across New Mexico, you soon learn that it is not the kids that are failing the schools as much as it is the schools that are failing our young people. Ask groups of high school students why they and their friends are leaving school and you will hear the same answers again and again. Some of them are bored with the dumbed-down lessons that they don't see as having any relevance to their own lives. They are lost in giant school buildings with endless corridors and teachers who have very little time to give them or to use in encouraging them to succeed in their school work. They are trapped in an educational system that does not meet the individual needs of individual students. With all the focus on education these days you would think this issue would be getting substantial attention but, in fact, it is not getting any real attention. It has been 8 years since President Bush and the Nation's Governors established as a national goal that we would graduate 90 percent of high school seniors by the year 2000. Obviously, we are much closer to the year 2000, but we are nowhere near the goal of graduating 90 percent of our students before they drop out of school. Now, let's talk a little about the bill we are introducing, this National Dropout Prevention Act of 1997. This is the only comprehensive effort that we have seen, that we have come up with, or that we are aware of anyone coming up with, that will prevent students from dropping out of school and take this issue head on. Let me outline the proposal very briefly. First, two basic points. The reasons that kids drop out of school cut across racial and ethnic lines. The solutions we are proposing are aimed at helping all at-risk students make it through high school. Second, the emphasis here is on preventing students from dropping out of school by reforming the schools that they are in rather than trying to help students later after they have made the decision to leave school. But what I am proposing in this bill sets out to achieve four basic goals: First, to focus greater national attention on the problem and to coordinate our Federal efforts to deal with the issue. Second, to provide more resources to help communities to fight back at this problem. Third, to enable school districts to try effective prevention strategies that have been shown to work. Fourth, to enlist the States where most of the resources are and most of the policy is related to education in the effort to keep more kids in school. The bill directs the President to appoint a dropout czar within the Department of Education who would coordinate efforts at the national level, would streamline programs, would recommend changes and, most importantly, could be held accountable for progress on dropout prevention. This czar would make sure that existing Federal programs such as the Upward Bound Program and vocational education do their level best to help at-risk kids to complete high school. Second and third, this bill creates a new $100 million grant program to reach the 1,000 schools across the country with the highest dropout rates. With these funds, schools would be able to try proven strategies that have been shown to work--strategies like breaking larger schools down into smaller learning communities so that kids can have regular and closer contact with the adults in the school, particularly with their teachers, and can have challenging and relevant work to do. Finally, because States are so much a part of our educational system, we would ask them to place a greater emphasis on dropout prevention as well. We have asked in this bill that instead of awarding education dollars based on how many students are enrolled in school 40 days into the year, as my State does and as many States do, the States change their laws so that they monitor enrollment levels throughout the school year. Because gathering accurate data is the first step toward fixing the problem, we also ask that States keep track of who is leaving school. Let me show you a chart. This chart takes the 23 States that presently collect data on the number of students dropping out of school and it ranks them. It shows that, according to the statistics we have, as a percentage dropout rate, New Mexico --and this is on an annual basis--ranks third in the country. Each Senator can look at this list and determine very quickly, first, whether his or her State collects data on this subject and, second where his or her State ranks in dealing with the problem. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me just summarize what our bill does. It coordinates the Federal dropout prevention initiatives; it streamlines the unconnected and overlapping dropout prevention programs; it provides additional Federal resources for dropout prevention programs at the State level and local school district level; it targets and expands participation by at-risk students in the programs, and it calls on State and local agencies to coordinate and expand their own efforts. Mr. President, this is a difficult problem. It is one that we are not going to solve by waving some magic wand. The effort will demand a concerted effort, a real commitment by State and local leaders, parents, educators and, of course, students. But if the issue is not placed on the national agenda and done so immediately, our chances of meeting this 90 percent graduation target any time in the near future will be greatly diminished. Clearly, it will be impossible to meet that by the year 2000. But, hopefully, we can meet it some time in the next decade if we get about the business of trying to do so. This legislation is being introduced, Mr. President, with the hope that we can begin to educate others in the Congress about the seriousness of the problem, begin to educate others in the country about the seriousness of the problem. I hope we can get colleagues to cosponsor the legislation and that we can move toward hearings on the bill some time in the Labor and Human Resources Committee early after we reconvene in the second session of this Congress.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Dropout Prevention Act. I will talk just a bit about the issue and talk about the problem that I am trying to address and that this act is intending to address. It is a problem, I think, all Senators should join me in trying to resolve and I believe will join me in trying to resolve. We have a serious problem on our hands that is a threat to the youth of America. The problem is that far too many of our kids are dropping out of high school before they graduate. Some, even, are dropping out of middle school before they proceed on to high school. Each fall, starting about a month ago, students begin dropping out of school and they drop out in very, very large numbers. Nationwide, nearly half a million kids leave school each year. That is, leaving school not by graduating but leaving school early and deciding not to stay in school and graduate. That is 2,700 dropouts for each school day. Studies show that our children are dropping out at a younger and younger age. Who are these kids who are dropping out of school? The charts that I have here make the case fairly well. They are largely from low-income and middle-income families, and as a percent they are largely minority. The numbers are disturbing across the board, but they are particularly alarming for Hispanic students. First, on the income level. If you look at this chart, the top line shows the period from 1975 to 1995, a 20-year period. On the left-hand side we show the dropout rates for grades 10-12, ages 15-24, by family income. What this means is that among students from low-income families at times it has been as high as 17 percent that have dropped out in a particular year. In middle-income families, it is closer to 6 to 8 percent, and in high-income families it is substantially lower than that. When you break it down not just by income level but by ethnic background, you can see that the problem is concentrated and particularly alarming for Hispanic students who are dropping out at a rate more than double that of non-Hispanic students. Also, black students drop out at a rate about 50 percent higher than the rate for white students. You can see from this chart the point I am making here, the top line, the red line, represents the percentage of Hispanic students dropping out. This is called status dropout rates for persons 16-24, and you can see somewhere between 30 and 35 percent of Spanish students nationwide drop out rather than compete high school. It is a very serious problem, particularly in that group, and of course that is a great concern in my State where a very large percent of the student population is Hispanic. Why are they dropping out? With all the emphasis on self-reliance these days it is tempting to ask what is wrong with kids that so many of them are leaving school. When you actually sit down and talk to these young people, as I have done across New Mexico, you soon learn that it is not the kids that are failing the schools as much as it is the schools that are failing our young people. Ask groups of high school students why they and their friends are leaving school and you will hear the same answers again and again. Some of them are bored with the dumbed-down lessons that they don't see as having any relevance to their own lives. They are lost in giant school buildings with endless corridors and teachers who have very little time to give them or to use in encouraging them to succeed in their school work. They are trapped in an educational system that does not meet the individual needs of individual students. With all the focus on education these days you would think this issue would be getting substantial attention but, in fact, it is not getting any real attention. It has been 8 years since President Bush and the Nation's Governors established as a national goal that we would graduate 90 percent of high school seniors by the year 2000. Obviously, we are much closer to the year 2000, but we are nowhere near the goal of graduating 90 percent of our students before they drop out of school. Now, let's talk a little about the bill we are introducing, this National Dropout Prevention Act of 1997. This is the only comprehensive effort that we have seen, that we have come up with, or that we are aware of anyone coming up with, that will prevent students from dropping out of school and take this issue head on. Let me outline the proposal very briefly. First, two basic points. The reasons that kids drop out of school cut across racial and ethnic lines. The solutions we are proposing are aimed at helping all at-risk students make it through high school. Second, the emphasis here is on preventing students from dropping out of school by reforming the schools that they are in rather than trying to help students later after they have made the decision to leave school. But what I am proposing in this bill sets out to achieve four basic goals: First, to focus greater national attention on the problem and to coordinate our Federal efforts to deal with the issue. Second, to provide more resources to help communities to fight back at this problem. Third, to enable school districts to try effective prevention strategies that have been shown to work. Fourth, to enlist the States where most of the resources are and most of the policy is related to education in the effort to keep more kids in school. The bill directs the President to appoint a dropout czar within the Department of Education who would coordinate efforts at the national level, would streamline programs, would recommend changes and, most importantly, could be held accountable for progress on dropout prevention. This czar would make sure that existing Federal programs such as the Upward Bound Program and vocational education do their level best to help at-risk kids to complete high school. Second and third, this bill creates a new $100 million grant program to reach the 1,000 schools across the country with the highest dropout rates. With these funds, schools would be able to try proven strategies that have been shown to work--strategies like breaking larger schools down into smaller learning communities so that kids can have regular and closer contact with the adults in the school, particularly with their teachers, and can have challenging and relevant work to do. Finally, because States are so much a part of our educational system, we would ask them to place a greater emphasis on dropout prevention as well. We have asked in this bill that instead of awarding education dollars based on how many students are enrolled in school 40 days into the year, as my State does and as many States do, the States change their laws so that they monitor enrollment levels throughout the school year. Because gathering accurate data is the first step toward fixing the problem, we also ask that States keep track of who is leaving school. Let me show you a chart. This chart takes the 23 States that presently collect data on the number of students dropping out of school and it ranks them. It shows that, according to the statistics we have, as a percentage dropout rate, New Mexico --and this is on an annual basis--ranks third in the country. Each Senator can look at this list and determine very quickly, first, whether his or her State collects data on this subject and, second where his or her State ranks in dealing with the problem. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me just summarize what our bill does. It coordinates the Federal dropout prevention initiatives; it streamlines the unconnected and overlapping dropout prevention programs; it provides additional Federal resources for dropout prevention programs at the State level and local school district level; it targets and expands participation by at-risk students in the programs, and it calls on State and local agencies to coordinate and expand their own efforts. Mr. President, this is a difficult problem. It is one that we are not going to solve by waving some magic wand. The effort will demand a concerted effort, a real commitment by State and local leaders, parents, educators and, of course, students. But if the issue is not placed on the national agenda and done so immediately, our chances of meeting this 90 percent graduation target any time in the near future will be greatly diminished. Clearly, it will be impossible to meet that by the year 2000. But, hopefully, we can meet it some time in the next decade if we get about the business of trying to do so. This legislation is being introduced, Mr. President, with the hope that we can begin to educate others in the Congress about the seriousness of the problem, begin to educate others in the country about the seriousness of the problem. I hope we can get colleagues to cosponsor the legislation and that we can move toward hearings on the bill some time in the Labor and Human Resources Committee early after we reconvene in the second session of this Congress.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Power Act Amendments of 1997. This bill streamlines the Federal regulation of electric power and helps reduce costs for all factories, businesses, and homeowners. The changes in Federal regulation in this bill will also yield savings for consumers by providing new opportunities for competition in the wholesale market for electric power. This bill improves the way the Federal Government regulates electric power to achieve three important goals. First, it will facilitate the ongoing transition to more competitive and efficient markets. Second, it will assure the continued reliability of the transmission system that carries the power in interstate commerce. And third, it will remove Federal regulatory ambiguities and barriers for those States that elect to give customers a choice in selecting their energy provider. Very importantly, my bill leaves for the States the issues that are best dealt with at that level and provides for Federal authority only over issues raising a clear national interest. In the last 9 months the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has conducted seven workshops that helped bring forward many of the complex electric power issues facing State and Federal regulators. The debate today remains centered on whether or not the Federal Government should require the utilities in every State to implement competition at the retail level. There are, however, other important issues that underlie this central debate. These include the possible repeal of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act, known as PURPA; changes in the Public Utility Holding Company Act, known to everyone here as PUHCA; and the treatment of past investments in powerplants that may no longer be economical, so called stranded costs, to name just a few. Our electric power industry has a strong regional and local character with over 3,000 individual utilities, including investor-owned, municipal, Federal, and rural cooperatives. Several comprehensive bills have now been introduced in the House and Senate that promise to deregulate the Nation's electric power industry. Meanwhile, a number of individual States are moving forward with retail competition. However, in list of the vast difference in the circumstance of 3,000 individual utility companies, it is going to be difficult to develop a consensus on comprehensive Federal legislation. If comprehensive electricity legislation does not move forward, I believe Congress must still address a number of important issues that can only be dealt with at the Federal level. I'd like to take a moment to explain what these issues are and how my bill differs from proposals that require retail competition for all electric utility customers. Madam President, our electric power industry is made up of three main components: Powerplants that generate the power, high-voltage transmission lines that carry the power over long distances, and the local distribution systems that bring the power into our homes and businesses. Most of the other bills would require States to deregulate their utilities and implement retail competition. Still, for all the talk about deregulation, I hope everyone realizes they are talking about deregulating, only the first piece: The powerplants that use coal, natural gas, or other sources to generate the energy on which we all depend. The other two components of the industry, the transmission and local distribution systems, will remain regulated monopolies. My bill takes a very different approach. It is not a restructuring bill. It will not overturn the established division between State and Federal regulation, and it does not require States to implement retail competition by a date certain. Rather, my bill forges new ground in the debate by focusing on the middle piece of the electric utility industry: The interstate transmission grid that is the critical link between generators and consumers. The transmission system clearly involves interstate commerce with a distinct national interest that can only be addressed at the Federal level. Let me explain why it is important that we streamline the Federal regulation of interstate transmission and how that can save consumers money. The Nation's transmission system serves, if you will, like an interstate highway for electric power. We all know what can happen when the highway on-ramps or off-ramps are closed or when bottlenecks or breakdowns occur. The same is true of the electric transmission system. The smooth flow of electric power depends on having sufficient transmission capacity and on the system operating reliably and without disruptions. Problems in the electricity transmission system, like problems on interstate highways, can impede commerce. If some businesses are denied access, or if different highways operate under different rules, competition will suffer. Madam President, I believe an efficient and reliable electric transmission system will be one of the most important factors in the development of robust regional and national markets for electric power. Over the last 100 years we have developed a complex grid of transmission lines owned by private, government, and cooperative utilities. With the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress took the first steps toward providing fair and open access to portions of the transmission system. Today, Federal and State regulators are continuing to push for increased competition. These dramatic changes in regulation are placing new demands on the transmission system. We are asking it to function increasingly like the interstate highways. However, the system we have was never planned to function in this more competitive environment. Today we have a transmission system with many constraints and bottlenecks, with no uniform system of regulation, with some portions of the system closed to users, and without any assurance that all users of the system will follow the same rules. Clearly, we can't hope to realize the full benefits of competition if buyers and sellers of power can't deal equally in an open and fair market. Without fair competition, the cost of power is higher than it should be. My bill will help correct this situation. Currently, the regulation of power sales over the Nation's electric power grid is split between various State and Federal jurisdictions. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has authority over pricing of transmission service. The States have authority to license and site new transmission facilities. A growing portion of power transmission and sales is taking place on a regional and even a national scale. We are increasingly dependent on long-distance power transmission; sometimes from as far away as 1,000 miles. In the West, every single State from New Mexico to Montana and from California to Washington is electrically interconnected. All of the Eastern States except parts of Texas are similarly interconnected. My bill seeks to maintain a careful balance of State and national interests that assures the Nation's transmission system operates efficiently, all players are treated equitably, and reliability is maintained. Madam President, I'd like now to describe briefly some of the key provisions in the bill. Federal and State Jurisdiction One of the important goals of this bill is to resolve ambiguities in Federal and State jurisdiction that have arisen since 1992 with the implementation of open transmission access. First, this bill removes once and for all any ambiguity over whether States, indeed, have the authority to implement retail competition. In addition, we used to have a clear line between Federal and State jurisdiction. However, now that some States are electing to implement retail competition, the bright line is increasingly blurred. If we don't clarify these ambiguities we could well find ourselves swamped with litigation that frustrates State and Federal efforts to expand competition. Transmission Access Another provision in the bill requires all transmission systems to be operated under the same regulatory policies. Under current law, FERC's jurisdiction is primarily limited to transmission systems owned by investor-owned utilities. Only these utilities are required to provide open access to anyone who requests it. The goal is to bring all transmission systems, including those owned by Federal entities, municipalities, and rural electric co-ops, under the same system of regulation. My bill also extends fair and open access to transmission lines that cross the borders with Mexico and Canada. A uniform regulatory environment will promote the use of the transmission grid for fair and equitable competition. Rural and Low-Income Consumers Will all customers be able to benefit from competition? I have heard this concern expressed often. My bill makes sure the States that choose to implement retail competition do not forget about low-income and retired citizens on fixed incomes, or about rural consumers who might otherwise be left out because they are not as profitable to serve as urban consumers. Reciprocity A provision of this bill deals with the situation where one State elects competition and a neighboring State does not. Utilities in the State without competition could cross the State line and steal customers without fear of losing their own customers. My bill would prevent this practice by allowing a State to protect its own utilities from unfair competition. It also encourages utilities to open up their systems voluntarily so they can participate in the growing competition. Reliability Finally, to assure fair and open competition on the Nation's interstate transmission system, the bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority in several new areas. First, to enhance system reliability, we provide the commission with regulatory authority to back up the existing voluntary system with rules and regulations that have the weight of Federal enforcement. The existing system under the National Electric Reliability Council has worked effectively. However, competition is bringing many new players to the interstate transmission grid, and effective enforcement of rules and standards requires there by some teeth in the system. transmission siting The bill provides a Federal role, in partnership with States, to assure that transmission lines that cross State boundaries are upgraded and expanded when needed. Any siting decision would be subject to all applicable State and Federal legislation, including the Environmental Protection Act. The interstate transmission system is one of the keys to maintaining system reliability and additional capacity will stimulate competition by allowing new players into the market. independent system operators My bill also provides new authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to assure the transmission system is managed and operated in an open and fair way that does not discriminate against any users. With this new authority, the commission may require the formation of independent operators for regional transmission systems. Having an independent system operator provides greater efficiency in transmission pricing, makes sure there is fair and open access for all users, and that the owners of the transmission system do not use it to their own advantage. In some cases, these independent systems are already developing voluntary or under state mandates. Madam President, I'd like to say a few words about an issue known as ``stranded costs.'' Stranded costs are investments in powerplants made under past regulatory practices that may no longer be economic in the new competitive environment. Stranded costs are of critical concern to utility investors and to rural electric cooperatives. As I hope I have made clear, my bill focuses on the regulation and use of the interstate transmission system, a national issue that does not compel retail competition or the resulting stranded costs. I believe the States are the proper forum to deal with retail competition and to resolve thorny issues like stranded costs that are not national in nature. We in Congress are monitoring how the States are handling stranded costs from retail competition. If in the future it appears that States are not equitably addressing stranded costs, then I believe Congress should take a very serious look at the subject. In putting forward the proposals in this bill I have listened to a number of suggestions and evaluated a variety of concepts. Not all of the ideas could be incorporated into the framework of a single bill, even though many of the approaches clearly have merit. As the debate on electricity regulation moves forward, I expect to refine and expand on the proposals I am putting forward today. In summary, Madam President, this bill will reduce costs for consumers by encouraging the development of robust competition in the interstate market for electric power. We do this by streamlining Federal regulation of the interstate transmission system and by assuring that all transmissions owners and users play by the same rules. In addition, the bill will remove Federal regulatory barriers for those states that allow consumers to choose their source of electric power. I hope all Senators will consider the important proposals in this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me speak for a few minutes, then, on campaign finance reform. I would like to step back from the details of the debate. There has been some debate about limiting spending: Should we limit spending or not, should we ban soft money or not, should we regulate phony issue advocacy ads or not, should we provide more power to the Federal Election Commission or not--those are the kinds of questions we debate here. But I believe this entire discussion about campaign finance reform is about one central question and that is what should determine the outcome of our Federal elections? Should we allow money to determine the outcome of our Federal elections? Or should we allow, or try to get to a situation, where a complete and a balanced discussion of the differences between the candidates determines the outcome of the election? Should we allow money or helpful information to change the minds of voters? And should we allow money or robust debate to determine who wins the race? This fundamental issue, which I think is at the center of campaign finance reform, has been obscured because opponents of campaign finance reform have been hiding behind what I believe are mistaken Supreme Court opinions that have tried to equate money and speech. They argue that money is speech, and, therefore, to limit money is to limit speech. They say that money is robust debate. They say money is helpful information for voters. And they even say that money is or constitutes a complete and a balanced discussion about the differences between candidates. In my view this argument is blatantly wrong. To any reasoned observer of our Federal campaigns, the argument obviously is without merit. Ask any challenger to an incumbent Senator if the millions of dollars that an incumbent is able to raise and spend in the race has meant more robust debate, more helpful information for the voters, more complete and valuable discussions about the difference between the candidate and the challenger? The challenger will laugh out loud at the question. My colleague said, to limit spending in campaigns is to assist incumbents because you have a lot of challengers out there who would like to be able to spend more than incumbents to challenge them and to get their message out and they are not able to do so. Madam President, that may be true for a very few rich individuals who have very substantial private wealth that they can put into races. But for an average candidate for public office in this country, your ability to raise large sums of money and compete in the media and buy the air time is directly dependent upon your incumbency. Accordingly, a challenger is at a very substantial disadvantage unless we somehow restrict or control the amount of money coming into this process. Ask any voter who has been deluged with negative TV ads, funded by swelling campaign war chests, whether those TV ads have produced a more robust debate and provided more helpful information to the voters, or a more complete and balanced discussion of the differences between the candidates? They would think that you were crazy to suggest that those 30-second negative TV spots in fact improve their ability to make a reasoned judgment. No, the vast increases in money spent in political campaigns have not produced more robust debate, they have not produced more helpful information for voters, or more complete and balanced discussions about the differences between candidates. This increased amount of money has meant the very opposite. In fact, voters will tell you not only that money does not equal speech, but that excessive campaign money does equal the erosion and the undermining of our political system. To them, money means bad government. To them, money is not speech; money is the corruption of the system. The American people are very specific in their beliefs about this, Madam President. Voters surveyed recently by the Princeton Survey Associates tell us exactly what the public thinks: 55 percent of the public think that campaign money gives one group more influence by keeping other groups from having their say in policy outcomes; 50 percent think that campaign money gets some people appointed to government office who would not otherwise be considered; 48 percent think that campaign money keeps important legislation from being passed in the Senate and in the House of Representatives; 45 percent think that campaign money leads elected officials to support policies that even those elected officials don't think are best for the country; 41 percent think that campaign money even leads elected officials to vote against the interests of the constituents who sent them to Washington; 63 percent of the public think that campaign money leads elected officials to spend too much time fundraising; And, finally, 52 percent think that money, and not speech, determines the outcome of elections under our current system. Madam President, it is hard to argue with the public's view on these various points. I submit that the arguments by opponents of campaign finance reform, that money is speech, should not and fortunately does not pass the laugh test with the American people. The people are right, that we desperately need to reform the campaign system. In fact, they are right that we need to do a full U-turn from where we are today. We need to reduce the amount of money raised and spent in campaigns. We need to increase the amount of robust debate, providing really helpful information to voters. We need to increase the amount of complete and balanced discussions about the differences between candidates so the public has good information. Even the modified McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill is a big step in the right direction. It does at least two very important things. First, it will reduce the amount of big unregulated donations from corporations and unions and wealthy individuals in our campaigns, and that is good. We need to reduce that. And second, it will regulate the huge amounts of money spent by so-called independent special interest groups on advertising that they disguise as issue ads but are, in fact, designed to advocate the defeat of a particular camp. The original McCain-Feingold bill did much more. There were more affirmative proposals to actually encourage more robust debate, more helpful information for the voters, more complete and balanced discussions of the differences between the candidates, but the bill had to be scaled back to reduce the objections of some of the opponents of campaign finance reform. This modified version of the bill that we now have before us does not complete the U-turn that we ought to be making, but it is turning the car in the right direction. Madam President, I stand ready to support the modified version of McCain-Feingold. I hope we will have an opportunity at some point in the near future, and hopefully this week, to have an up-or-down vote on the bill. Perhaps at some point we can get past these parliamentary maneuvers of killer amendments, of filling out the amendment tree, second-degree amendments to block an up-or-down vote. Perhaps at some point in the near future the opponents of campaign finance reform will listen to the people and conclude that money is not speech, that money, in fact, is undermining the political system that we were sent here to help ensure the functioning of. I hope we will move expeditiously this week to pass campaign finance reform. Our constituents desire it, and we should do it. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, is there any limitation on speaking at this point? What is the parliamentary situation?