Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to speak in support of a new Office of Tribal Colleges and Universities that has been created by Executive order, and to clarify language in the Senate Committee Report 105-58 that accompanies the legislation currently under consideration. This Executive order began as Senate Resolution 264, a Sense-of-the-Senate Resolution urging the President to issue an Executive order to promote and expand Federal assistance for Indian institutions of higher education. I am proud to be one of the initiators of this resolution, and I was very pleased when the President responded by issuing Executive Order 13021 pertaining to tribal colleges and universities in October 1996, in which he created an Office of White House Initiative in the Department of Education. The order also directed the Department of Education to ``provide appropriate administrative services and staff support for the Board and the Initiative.'' This issue was raised in two separate sections in the Senate committee report. Support for the Initiative Office was mentioned in the section pertaining to the Department of Education's Office of Indian Education, and then again in the section pertaining to the Office of Vocational Education. I ask my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, if it was the committee's intent to provide the White House Initiative Office with adequate support from the Department of Education's increased funds for general departmental management, and not from the limited funds allocated to the Office of Indian Education?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'm cosponsoring this amendment to section 13(b)(12) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, to make this law reflect the on-farm realities in the West. I believe this amendment follows what must have been the true intent of legislation in the first place. Section 13 is a long list of occupations that for one reason or another we have exempted from the various overtime requirements of the law. Section 13(b)(12) in particular exempts employees of irrigation districts. The reason for this exemption has to do with the requirements of farming in the arid West. In my home state of New Mexico, for example, we usually have two to three months each year, from about mid-May to the end of July, where we get little or no rain. This yearly dry spell is right at the height of the dry season, and if a farmer can't irrigate his crops they die. Because of the expense of irrigation systems, most farmers belong to an irrigation district that maintains a system of canals and ditches to supply water to their fields. Most irrigation districts employ their ditch riders year round so that they know the system, the individual farms, and the needs of each farmer in the district, and don't have to relearn the process every year. With year-round employment these folks are an integral part of the farm community. However, the work these people do is very seasonal. Typically, a ditch rider will work long and hard hours during the summer irrigation season, and have a relatively lax work schedule the rest of the year. In enacting section 13(b)(12), Congress recognized the importance that year-round employment has for both the ditch riders and their families, and the farming community. However, it appears that in acknowledging the unique working conditions required for western farms, that the law was written too narrowly. The current section exempts: . . . any employee employed in agriculture or in connection with the operation or maintenance of ditches, canals, reservoirs, or waterways, not owned or operated for profit, or operated on a share-crop basis, and which are used exclusively for supply and storing of water for agricultural purposes. The phrase ``exclusively for supply and storing of water for agricultural purposes,'' has recently been interpreted by rulings in the 9th and 10th Circuit Courts to mean that all of the water from a district's system must be used for irrigation or the district loses the exemption. This strict all or nothing approach just doesn't match with the reality of western farming communities and the day-to-day life on a western farm. In the dry and dusty summer months it is very typical for farmers to use of their irrigation water for dust control, and for watering their lawns and flower beds. That is just human nature. However, the vast majority of water is used for growing crops. Mr. President, this amendment, which changes the exemption to required that ``at least ninety percent'' of the water be used for agriculture, merely reflects a practical application of this long established exemption. As the irrigation season is just winding down for this year, the farm districts will soon be making decisions regarding whether to retain their ditch riders in light of the recent court rulings. With this in mind, I ask my colleagues to accept this amendment now, so that there won't be any disruption to these people's lives. amendment no. 1120

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the amendment being offered by Senator Harkin. As I have said on the floor a number of times today and in the past, we must not delay the time when every parent and teacher really knows how each child is doing academically. For that reason, I am proud to cosponsor the amendment, which transfers oversight over the new tests to the independent and bipartisan National Assessment Governing Board. This is an approach that I, having long worked with this Board through my participation on the National Education Goals Panel, believe will ensure that the new tests are fair, and independent of political influence.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BINGAMAN. It strikes me that the job of Congress is to appropriate funds for the Federal courts to administer justice as best they see fit. I am wondering why we are trying to wade in and specify how this particular Federal judge administered the implementation of the consent decree which has been entered in his court. It strikes me that we have Federal courts all over the country and we have consent decrees in place in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cases all over the country. Here we are, singling out one of those cases and saying we are going to step in and specify how a Federal judge in the future should implement the administration of that consent decree. It just seems to me that we are micromanaging, in the worst possible way, and really stepping into an area that the Congress should stay out of. We should get on with the business that we were given to do under the Constitution, which is to pass appropriations bills, and we should let the courts administer the cases that are before them. I ask the Senator from Maryland if he would agree with that basic view.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 10 minutes off whatever time remains on this side.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this morning, the appropriations subcommittee is having a hearing, as I understand it, to resolve the question about testing. The President has proposed a reading test that would be voluntarily made available to States and local school districts for fourth graders where the school wants to provide testing in reading, and one for eighth graders in mathematics. There has been some controversy about this. Senator Coats from Indiana has proposed an amendment which would--the Coats amendment and the Gregg amendment together, as I understand it--essentially prohibit the use of funds to go forward with the development of these tests. I believe this would be a very grave mistake for this Congress to make if we were to prohibit the Department of Education from going forward with the development of these tests. I think the President's support on this issue has been strong. The White House has indicated that they would veto the legislation if, in fact, it did contain a prohibition on the use of funds to go ahead and develop these tests. As I see it, the tests that the President has proposed and the Department of Education would like to develop and make available to school districts and to States is designed to allow parents, to empower parents, to understand the educational performance and the achievement level of their own children and how well the school that their child is attending is doing in preparing their child for a career later on. The Coats amendment, as I said, would prohibit the development of the tests, and I think that would be a very serious mistake. The problem we have today, frankly, is that every State that gives tests--and all of our States do give tests--every State that gives tests measures by a different standard how well their students are doing. Accordingly, you have some States where most all the students do reasonably well on the test that is provided, and there is a general perception that they are going to be fine. The general trend is that everybody thinks that although the school system nationally, the educational system nationwide, is in serious difficulty, they believe that their own child is getting a good education. It just doesn't add up. Every individual child in our country cannot be getting a good education and still have the vast majority getting a less than quality education. What we need to do is to have a system where there is agreement as to what the standard is, there is agreement as to what the test results demonstrate, and then parents can make an intelligent decision about how their child is doing relative to other children, how their child is doing, how their school that their child attends is doing relative to other schools in that same district and relative to other schools in the State or in the Nation. We have today what is called the National Assessment for Educational Progress test, and that is a test that in 43 States tens of thousands of students participate in on a voluntary basis. This test has been in place now for 25 years. The problem, of course, is that it is not available to most students. But clearly, communities, States, and school districts recognize that it is a good, objective assessment of how the students in the schools are doing. What we are trying to do through the development of these new tests is to take the model that the NAEP, the National Assessment for Educational Progress, has developed and, essentially, have a test that then is available for each student in each school around the country where they want to have that test administered. I believe this is important because I believe that improvement in education in the country is going to have to be driven by concern of parents. They are the ones who need to understand the quality of the education that their children are receiving. Without something like this test available, you are not going to have the level of concern by parents that is necessary in order to ensure and require the improvements in education that I believe are needed. Let me just indicate that there is nothing that complicated about the tests that they are talking about giving here. The reading test is a simple one. One example is they essentially go through and ask fourth graders to describe Charlotte to a friend after they read a passage from the well-known book ``Charlotte's Web.'' That is a commonsense kind of a test that all of us would like our children to be able to pass. It is the kind of test which is appropriate to make available to all of our schools. The same thing in math. The test there is a straightforward test. There is nothing convoluted or complicated about it. It tests basic math skills for eighth graders, and, goodness knows, everybody in this country, every parent I talked to believes their child should be prepared with a basic understanding of math by the time they complete the eighth grade. Let me say, the business community strongly supports the President's initiative to have these tests available to States and school districts. There has been a call, a repeated call and a consistent call, by the business community to have more objective assessment going on in our schools so that we don't have so much rhetoric, but we have actual information, good solid information, about how well our students are doing. That is exactly what employers require before they hire a person. They give them those objective tests to determine whether they have the basic skills in reading and in mathematics so that they can become productive employees. For us not to make those same kind of objective tests available in the schools before they get out into the workplace I think would be a serious mistake. Not only does the business community support this, the public supports it. In the most recent national poll, 77 percent of the public that was questioned supported establishing national standards; 67 percent specifically supported using national tests, such as were described and supported by the President and the Department of Education. I know that we have testimony being presented this morning. Secretary Riley is making the case before the Appropriations Committee. I hope very much that he will be persuasive to the members of that committee and that we can go forward with the funding of these tests as the administration intends. I do think this is an issue that has great long-term consequences for our country. It would be a serious mistake for us to head this off. We already have a whole number of States--I see the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee on the floor here right now. His State of Alaska has chosen to participate voluntarily in the use of these tests when they are made available. The superintendent of public instruction in my State of New Mexico has indicated his desire that we should also participate at some future date in the use of these tests. There are many States that are anxious to participate. There are many large school districts in our larger cities that have indicated the same thing. We need to keep faith with them, go forward and develop these tests, make the tests available. If they want to use them, so much the better, that is their choice. But it would be a serious mistake for this Congress to try to make that decision for the States, make that decision for the local school districts by denying the Department of Education the funds necessary to go ahead and develop these tests. So I hope very much that, once the appropriations subcommittee concludes its hearing on the issue, we can proceed to dispose of this matter. I hope very much that the Coats amendment and the Gregg amendment, which is a second-degree amendment, as I understand it, or a perfecting amendment, that those amendments can be disposed of and we can proceed to pass this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the amendment that the Senator from Iowa has offered on increasing the funding for the FDA youth tobacco initiative. This amendment will restore full funding for the Food and Drug Administration's tobacco initiative in order to prevent tobacco use by teenagers and adolescents. The goal of the amendment is to prevent illegal sales of tobacco products to children. In the bill presently before us, the Senate has allocated $4.9 million for the implementation of the FDA regulations that restrict the sale and distribution of tobacco products to young people. This is not adequate funding. The FDA will not be able to enforce the restrictions on the sale of tobacco to children unless the additional funds proposed by the Harkin amendment are agreed to. Some have said that the amendment is premature and the tobacco settlement is still being reviewed. Here in the Congress we will provide the money that the FDA needs in order to go ahead with the enforcement called for in the current regulations. First, I point out that it is not that clear that Congress will go ahead and approve a settlement similar to that proposed by the attorneys general and the tobacco industry. Even if we are able to agree upon legislation to implement such an agreement, money for FDA enforcement through that settlement is not likely to be provided before fiscal year 1999, and the FDA enforcement and outreach efforts are very important and should not be delayed until that time. It should also be noted that the amendment has a sunset provision. The Harkin amendment has a sunset provision, and if funding for the FDA tobacco initiative is provided for fiscal year 1998 through any tobacco settlement legislation, then the extra funds covered by that offset would be rescinded under the amendment. The amendment would raise the level to $34 million in fiscal year 1998 so that the FDA, working with the States, can carry out rules to prevent kids from smoking. Clearly, the need to give more attention and more effort and more resources to the effort to prevent young people from smoking is clear: 4.5 million young people, ages 12 through 17, are smokers today. High school seniors are smoking at the highest rates they have in 17 years. Nearly 90 percent of adult smokers began at or before the age of 18 and began with that habit. Today, just like every other day of the year, another 3,000 young people will become regular smokers. If current rates continue, more than 5 million children under age 18 who are alive today will wind up being killed by smoking-related diseases. A root cause of youth smoking is the easy access that kids have to tobacco. A survey by the Centers for Disease Control shows that children and adolescents were able to buy tobacco products 67 percent of the time that they tried. The CDC found that most young smokers usually buy cigarettes without questions being asked and without any identification being requested. The American people support the effort that the FDA is making to reduce smoking among young people. Their strong support is shown in recent polls among the public with the use- access provisions of the FDA rule in the enforcement of those provisions. Eighty-seven percent of the public agreed with the FDA policy setting a national minimum age of 18 for the purchase of tobacco products. It is estimated that there are more than $1 million in illegal sales of tobacco products to children and adolescents in the United States every year. Mr. President, let me just conclude by saying that this amendment, which Senator Harkin has offered and I have cosponsored with him, will allow us to enforce the law that is in effect in all 50 States--the law against the sale of tobacco products to minors. It simply restores full funding to the FDA's tobacco initiative to prevent teenage tobacco use. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes on the Harkin amendment.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from the State of Kansas, Senator Roberts, in introducing a bill that will enable two Tribal Colleges to pursue their missions without the burden of unnecessary Federal regulations. Like Haskell Indian Nations University, the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute of Albuquerque (SIPI) is one of about 30 Tribal Colleges that is supported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Many of the students at these colleges are the first in their families to attend college, and having a Tribal College near their home and in tune with their tradition is critical to their education and economic success. Both Haskell and SIPI have grown in academic stature in the past few decades. SIPI recently marked its 25th anniversary and adopted a Master Plan that will guide the growth of its programs and facilities beyond the year 2000. A recent report by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching entitled ``Native American Colleges: Progress and Prospects,'' documents the critical role that these colleges play in offering Native Americans access to higher education. This report also traces the history of the relationship between the Federal government and Tribal Colleges. Haskell and SIPI are the only Tribal Colleges that are administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and as a result are bound by the personnel regulations that apply to Federal agencies. At one time, this policy made sense and allowed these two universities to establish an administrative infrastructure and academic programs. But as the Carnegie Foundation report points out, the relationship between the Federal government and Tribal Colleges should evolve as the institutions take on more self-determination. The time has come to enact legislation that reflects the growth of these institutions. The Federal personnel regulations imposed on SIPI and Haskell are inappropriate for institutions of higher education and are not recognized by accreditation organizations. This bill would allow Haskell and SIPI to establish independent authority over their personnel policies and practices. There is a world of difference between a Federal agency and a thriving institution of higher education, and these differences should be reflected in their personnel classification, pay systems, and policies for hiring and promotion. SIPI needs the authority to hire and promote faculty and staff on the basis of their intellect and the excellence of their teaching, research, and service to the institution. The U.S. military academies have encountered these same obstacles, and they have adopted alternative personnel regulations approved by the Office of Personnel Management. The personnel authority that would be established under this bill have been modeled after those in use by the U.S. Air Force Academy. OPM has been consulted and is in agreement with the contents of this bill. I agree with the Carnegie Foundation's report when it says: ``These institutions have taken on a breathtaking array of responsibilities. With each passing year, tribal colleges prove their worth to tribal communities, and to the nation. They can longer be dismissed as risky experiments, nor can their accomplishments be ignored. They are a permanent part of their reservations and this country.'' I applaud Senator Roberts' efforts to develop and introduce this legislation. I look forward to working with him and with Senators Campbell and Inouye of the Committee on Indian Affairs to provide these two institutions with the flexibility they need to continue to flourish.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from the State of Kansas, Senator Roberts, in introducing a bill that will enable two Tribal Colleges to pursue their missions without the burden of unnecessary Federal regulations. Like Haskell Indian Nations University, the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute of Albuquerque (SIPI) is one of about 30 Tribal Colleges that is supported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Many of the students at these colleges are the first in their families to attend college, and having a Tribal College near their home and in tune with their tradition is critical to their education and economic success. Both Haskell and SIPI have grown in academic stature in the past few decades. SIPI recently marked its 25th anniversary and adopted a Master Plan that will guide the growth of its programs and facilities beyond the year 2000. A recent report by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching entitled ``Native American Colleges: Progress and Prospects,'' documents the critical role that these colleges play in offering Native Americans access to higher education. This report also traces the history of the relationship between the Federal government and Tribal Colleges. Haskell and SIPI are the only Tribal Colleges that are administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and as a result are bound by the personnel regulations that apply to Federal agencies. At one time, this policy made sense and allowed these two universities to establish an administrative infrastructure and academic programs. But as the Carnegie Foundation report points out, the relationship between the Federal government and Tribal Colleges should evolve as the institutions take on more self-determination. The time has come to enact legislation that reflects the growth of these institutions. The Federal personnel regulations imposed on SIPI and Haskell are inappropriate for institutions of higher education and are not recognized by accreditation organizations. This bill would allow Haskell and SIPI to establish independent authority over their personnel policies and practices. There is a world of difference between a Federal agency and a thriving institution of higher education, and these differences should be reflected in their personnel classification, pay systems, and policies for hiring and promotion. SIPI needs the authority to hire and promote faculty and staff on the basis of their intellect and the excellence of their teaching, research, and service to the institution. The U.S. military academies have encountered these same obstacles, and they have adopted alternative personnel regulations approved by the Office of Personnel Management. The personnel authority that would be established under this bill have been modeled after those in use by the U.S. Air Force Academy. OPM has been consulted and is in agreement with the contents of this bill. I agree with the Carnegie Foundation's report when it says: ``These institutions have taken on a breathtaking array of responsibilities. With each passing year, tribal colleges prove their worth to tribal communities, and to the nation. They can longer be dismissed as risky experiments, nor can their accomplishments be ignored. They are a permanent part of their reservations and this country.'' I applaud Senator Roberts' efforts to develop and introduce this legislation. I look forward to working with him and with Senators Campbell and Inouye of the Committee on Indian Affairs to provide these two institutions with the flexibility they need to continue to flourish.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, a little over two weeks ago, I sat down with several Albuquerque families who are working hard to pay the bills, put food on the table, and give their children a good home. Among those gathered at the meeting, there was Carol Howell, who is struggling with the help of her husband to make ends meet and raise four children. And there was Jan Usinger, a divorced mother with a Masters degree in French, working three jobs to build a decent life for her three children. Each of the families I met were perfect examples of who should reap the benefits of any tax relief package produced by Congress. And yet, what brought us together that day was the sad fact that none of these families would be able to claim the highly-touted $500 per child tax credit in the bill passed by the Senate --not because they earned too much money, but because they earned too little. In the eyes of some in Congress, these families were not rich enough to deserve the full child tax credit. Some even argued that to give hard-working families making about $25,000 a year a tax break was like giving them welfare. I'm pleased to say that in the heated debate that took place in Washington over who should be allowed to claim the child tax credit, these families finally won--and they won big. Jan Usinger, who would have seen only $6 in tax relief from the child credit under the House bill, will now get a tax break of $1,500 in the final bill negotiated between the President and Congress. That's no small change when you consider the cost of clothing, school supplies and child care. The final tax relief compromise enacted last week is a significant victory for the Usingers, and for the millions of working and middle- income families like them across the country. Some of the more helpful provisions in the bill will help offset the cost of raising children, make college more affordable, and even help adults go back to school for more training. There is also a $24 billion set-aside to provide health insurance to more children from working families now unable to afford it. The child tax credit tops the list of provisions New Mexico families will find most helpful. This new child credit will be available to families earning between $15,000 and $30,000, as well as those making between $30,000 to $150,000 a year. The size of the credit will vary according to the number of children and parents in the family, along with other factors. Best of all, the credit can be used to reduce a family's total federal tax burden--whether it's income taxes or federal payroll taxes. This is a key change from earlier versions of the bill, and it will make a big difference for the nearly three-quarters of lower-income working Americans who pay more payroll taxes than income taxes. Furthermore, employers will be instructed to make adjustments on withholding forms so that families can see the benefit of this credit as soon as possible. While the economic benefits of a college-educated workforce have increased tremendously over recent years, the financial obstacles have increased even faster. To help make higher education more accessible, the tax bill now includes a $1,500 tax credit for the first two years of college, and a credit of up to $1,000 for students after their first two years of college. Together, these credits would cover nearly all the costs of the average public college in the U.S. Workers can also receive up to $5,250 in employer-provided training each year, without having to count the benefit as taxable income. At a time when workers must continually update their skills, this break will help them get the training they need to make it in today's job market. Finally, a major source of economic anxiety for working families is the cost of medical care. Almost 150,000 New Mexico children are without health insurance, and many of them come from working families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford health insurance for their children. The provision setting aside $24 billion for expanding children's health insurance was designed with these working families in mind. It will provide states like New Mexico the resources to cover these children, giving them access to everything from routine checkups and antibiotics to emergency medical care. This provision will help more kids develop into healthy adults, and it will do so without imposing unworkable new federal mandates. It's important to note that this tax relief would not be possible or responsible, were we not on the brink of balancing the federal budget. In 1992, our nation ran a whopping $290 billion budget deficit, which has been shaved down to an estimated $45 billion this year. I think it is fair to say that if our country had not tightened its belt in the 1993 budget package to achieve this deficit reduction, interest rates would probably be higher, unemployment higher, and our economic growth slower. Now the people who helped sacrifice to get us to the point where we are today--like the 70 percent of New Mexicans earning under $30,000 a year--are getting some deserved tax relief. This tax deal is not perfect, and it certainly hasn't done much to make the tax code any simpler. But this final compromise does deliver where it matters. It provides relief not just to upper-income families but to the many new, young families in New Mexico who are working hard to deliver a decent quality of life to their children and to provide the educational opportunities and health care support that will lay a strong foundation for their success. In the end, this bill helps us invest in all of our children--and for this reason I think we have actually achieved something worthwhile this week in Washington. Mr. President, I do need to make references as well about certain provisions in this tax bill which are very good for small businesses in New Mexico as well as around the nation. First, the bill reinstates the home office business deduction, which I know is a very important issue for many self-employed people in our state and many other small business owners. This legislation also includes an important provision phasing in an increase in the self-employed health insurance deduction. The percentage of the deduction in 1997 is now at 40%, but it rises to 100% by the year 2007. Also, many businesses benefit by investing in continuing education programs for their employees, and this tax bill extends for three more years the tax exclusion for employer- provided educational assistance. It also provides an enhanced deduction which businesses can claim for the donation of computers and technology to schools. Also, very importantly, a provision has been included that I have been working with a number of Senators over the last year. This provision builds on a small business initiative included in the 1993 budget plan. The original legislation stated that gains from stock held more than five years in publicly traded firms with assets less than $50 million would be taxed after the sale of stock at 50% of the capital gains tax rate. The new provision allows this gain to be rolled over into other small businesses of the same size on a fully tax-deferred basis. This will hopefully keep more capital in the small business sector. Overcoming venture capital deficiencies in New Mexico is one of the major hurdles that our state constantly faces. Hopefully, this provision will do some good for our state. Furthermore, small businesses with average gross receipts of less than $5 million will be exempt from the corporate alternative minimum tax. This covers a great majority of New Mexico companies. Also in the estate tax area, owners of qualified family owned businesses and farms will be able to exclude--starting next year--up to $1.3 million of their estate from inheritance tax. This is a very big provision--particularly as the general estate tax will be incrementally increased from $600,000 to $1 million by the year 2006. This family- owned estate tax relief puts the entire exclusion in place next year. The requirements are that the family owned business or farm must be at least 50% of the estate and heirs must participate in the business for 10 years after descendent's death. This provision will help a great number of small firms, farms, and ranches pass on to their heirs estates which often have a vast majority of their value tied up in the business. The failure to provide this exclusion in the past has unfortunately forced some families to liquidate businesses after the principal owner died. Also on the farm front, farmers who often face years of boom and bust are provided the option of 3-year income averaging for the next two years. I suppose we are going to see if this provides relief to farmers and consider whether to extend this option in the years that follow. Finally, the tax deal also includes extension of the research and experimentation credit for another year as well as it extends the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) through June, 1998. This provision is particularly important to our state's jewelry firms that import some of their stones and materials from lesser-developed countries. These are some of the items that I feel that small businesses should know about. If you download the actual bill from the World Wide Web, Mr. President (the address is http://speakernews.house.gov/ taxfull.htm), you'll be printing 304 pages. My staff had to do this, in fact. Hopefully, by highlighting these items, some small businesses won't be completely dependent on H&R Block and the various computer tax packages that sort out this material. I recognize that if the standard of living is going to increase for citizens of this state, small business is going to be the primary engine in that effort. In any case, I am happy to report and restate that I think we have actually achieved something worthwhile this week in Washington.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a subject that is very important to the people of New Mexico; not just the Hispanic community, but people of all ethnicities that value the rich, historical traditions of our State. Today, I am proud to be co- sponsoring with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, legislation that will finally make possible the creation of an Hispanic Cultural Center. The Center has been in the planning stages for many years and, when completed, will be the product of very hard work by numerous people in New Mexico. I would like to thank Senator Domenici for his work and Senator Kennedy, Senator Chafee, Senator Bond, and Senator Gorton for their efforts to make this Center a reality, and I congratulate them. Mr. President, the United States and New Mexico have enjoyed an enriched legacy of Hispanic tradition and culture. New Mexico especially can be proud of strong Hispanic participation in politics, government, economic development, and cultural expression. Hispanic presence in the United States reaches far back to 1528, and in New Mexico to 1539. Hispanic influence on our society can be seen all across our state, in our architecture, food, clothing, literature, music, family tradition, and even the names of many of our towns and cities; names like ``Alamogordo,'' ``Raton,'' ``Quemado,'' and ``Penasco.'' Since the time that Don Juan de Onate first settled New Mexico in 1598, Hispanic families have been a part of the New Mexico landscape. Today, we can look forward to a Center that will showcase this rich tradition, and it will serve as a living tribute to the Hispanic experience for all citizens of our Nation. Regrettably, our Federal Government has done too little to recognize that the Hispanic community has been present on this continent for 500 years and has been an integral fiber in our Nation's fabric. The Hispanic culture has made and continues to make many valuable contributions to our society as a whole. Hispanics make up the fastest growing minority group in this country. The Census Bureau reports that Hispanics presently account for 11 percent of our Nation's population, and by 2025 it will have accounted for 44 percent of the national population growth. Certainly, the Center will promote a better understanding of Hispanics, and, more importantly, will serve as a showcase of how New Mexico is a place where many cultures, including Anglo, Native American, and African American, live and work together in magnificent harmony. This legislation is an important first step by our Federal Government to long-delayed recognition. There is still much work to be done to make this Center a reality, however. Construction on the facility will begin, and the location of the Center is presently being determined. I strongly encourage all concerned parties to work together to ensure that the spirit of the Center remains intact. Again, Mr. President, on behalf of the people of New Mexico, I thank the distinguished Senators. amendment no. 1050 (Purpose: To provide for the design, construction, furnishing and equipping of a Center for Historically Black Heritage within Florida A&M University) At the appropriate place insert the following:

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to extend the boundaries of the Bandelier National Monument. Since 1916 when President Wilson created the monument to protect the ``archeological resources of a vanished people,'' both Congress and the President have adjusted the monument's boundaries on numerous occasions to protect these treasures, and the ecological balance within the monument. The latest example was in 1976, when Congress set aside over 70 percent of the monument to create the Bandelier Wilderness area. Because we have acted to conserve this valuable land in the past, today's visitors to the monument, the people of New Mexico and Americans from around the Nation, have a wonderful place to go to. In the same morning you can see varieties of wildlife, including herds of elk and deer, and explore the homes of early native American peoples. This bill continues that foresighted tradition of protection. The greatest threat to the monument at this time is potential development in the upper watershed that drains into the park. Not only could this impair the esthetic experience of visitors to the monument, it could seriously harm the ecological balance within the monument. The potential for soil erosion, flooding, and siltation of streams from upstream development is of grave concern, and this bill seeks to address the problem. Under this bill the boundaries of the monument would be extended to include all of the lands which are not currently in public ownership in the upper Alamo watershed which drains into the monument. This bill will allow the Park Service to enter into agreements with private landowners to either purchase their land, or to restrict the development of their land in order to protect the monument. I want to note that the current landowners support this, and have stated that they would like to enter into such agreements that will protect the monument for future generations. Because of this, I have written this bill to give the Park Service authority to enter into contracts with willing sellers. This bill does not give the Park Service condemnation authority. Mr. President, because we have a situation where we can protect this treasure for generations to come with the help and cooperation of the private landowners that neighbor the monument, I am pleased to offer this bill. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian Reservation School Roads Maintenance Act of 1997. This bill, which is being cosponsored by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, addresses a unique situation with respect to roads in and around Indian reservations and nearby counties that is actually preventing children from getting to and from school safely. Because of the unique nature of this situation, it can only be addressed at the Federal level. I would like to start with an example of this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution is necessary. As you can see, Mr. President, this first chart is a map of the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. To give you an idea of its size, there are 10 States that are smaller than this reservation. For instance, it is the same size as the State of West Virginia. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, there are 9,000 miles of roads that serve the Navajo Nation. Only one-fifth of these roads are paved--the rest, over 7,000 miles, are dirt roads. The schoolbuses have to use nearly all of the 9,000 miles of roads each and every day to get the kids to and from school. About 6,400 miles of these roads on the reservation are BIA roads and over 2,500 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads, are considered part of the Indian reservation road system. However, only BIA roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA, and generally, construction and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in ISTEA is applied to BIA roads. On the other hand, States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their roads. Mr. President, the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation, given the resources most of these counties have. For example, counties around the Navajo Reservation are predominantly comprised of Federal or tribal lands. Three-quarters of McKinley County in my State of New Mexico is either tribal or Federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military. This next map is of McKinley County, and as you can see, Mr. President, everything shown on this map that is either orange, yellow, green, or red, is tribal or Federal land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of the county. As you can see, everything else is county land, which is a very small fraction of total land area. Therefore, there is a very small tax base on which the county can rely as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. The picture for San Juan County in the northwest corner of New Mexico is very much the same. Mr. President, families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and get a good education. However, the miles and miles of unpaved, deficient roads in this vast area are frequently impassable. If the schoolbuses don't get through, the kids simply cannot get to school. Of the 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 550 miles serve Indian land. Because of the vastness of the reservation, this is a cost that the counties in New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah simply cannot and should not have to bear without Federal assistance. Indeed, because of the large tribal and Federal presence in these counties, it is encumbent upon the Federal Government to provide this assistance. What my bill does is set aside $10 million from the highway trust fund that counties such as these can apply for to help maintain the roads used by schoolbuses to carry children to school or to a Headstart program. Let me be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within, or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that are used by schoolbuses. Let me just state again, Mr. President, that maintaining schoolbus routes in this vast area is a unique problem that only the Federal Government can effectively deal with. I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school safely should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural areas, already face enough barriers to getting a good education. I ask all Senators to join with me in assuring that all schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and have an opportunity for an education. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill, a summary, a McKinley County Commission resolution, a letter from the McKinley County road superintendent, David Acosta, and a letter from the Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments be included in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian Reservation School Roads Maintenance Act of 1997. This bill, which is being cosponsored by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, addresses a unique situation with respect to roads in and around Indian reservations and nearby counties that is actually preventing children from getting to and from school safely. Because of the unique nature of this situation, it can only be addressed at the Federal level. I would like to start with an example of this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution is necessary. As you can see, Mr. President, this first chart is a map of the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. To give you an idea of its size, there are 10 States that are smaller than this reservation. For instance, it is the same size as the State of West Virginia. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, there are 9,000 miles of roads that serve the Navajo Nation. Only one-fifth of these roads are paved--the rest, over 7,000 miles, are dirt roads. The schoolbuses have to use nearly all of the 9,000 miles of roads each and every day to get the kids to and from school. About 6,400 miles of these roads on the reservation are BIA roads and over 2,500 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads, are considered part of the Indian reservation road system. However, only BIA roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA, and generally, construction and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in ISTEA is applied to BIA roads. On the other hand, States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their roads. Mr. President, the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation, given the resources most of these counties have. For example, counties around the Navajo Reservation are predominantly comprised of Federal or tribal lands. Three-quarters of McKinley County in my State of New Mexico is either tribal or Federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military. This next map is of McKinley County, and as you can see, Mr. President, everything shown on this map that is either orange, yellow, green, or red, is tribal or Federal land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of the county. As you can see, everything else is county land, which is a very small fraction of total land area. Therefore, there is a very small tax base on which the county can rely as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. The picture for San Juan County in the northwest corner of New Mexico is very much the same. Mr. President, families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and get a good education. However, the miles and miles of unpaved, deficient roads in this vast area are frequently impassable. If the schoolbuses don't get through, the kids simply cannot get to school. Of the 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 550 miles serve Indian land. Because of the vastness of the reservation, this is a cost that the counties in New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah simply cannot and should not have to bear without Federal assistance. Indeed, because of the large tribal and Federal presence in these counties, it is encumbent upon the Federal Government to provide this assistance. What my bill does is set aside $10 million from the highway trust fund that counties such as these can apply for to help maintain the roads used by schoolbuses to carry children to school or to a Headstart program. Let me be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within, or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that are used by schoolbuses. Let me just state again, Mr. President, that maintaining schoolbus routes in this vast area is a unique problem that only the Federal Government can effectively deal with. I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school safely should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural areas, already face enough barriers to getting a good education. I ask all Senators to join with me in assuring that all schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and have an opportunity for an education. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill, a summary, a McKinley County Commission resolution, a letter from the McKinley County road superintendent, David Acosta, and a letter from the Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments be included in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator. I agree with him that a fair sharing of responsibility for actions to address global climate change is crucial to any agreement, and that such commitments should reflect the pace and type of industrialization that those countries have achieved.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the issue of the extent to which human- induced global climate change is occurring, and the proper societal response to this change, is one of the most difficult public policy issues facing us today. We are emitting into the atmosphere an unprecedented amount of the gases that we know trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, and thus result in what is known as the greenhouse effect. At the same time, the connection between this artificial elevation of greenhouse gas levels and changes to the world's climate is only slowly coming into view. The global climate system is extremely complex, and we are still making major scientific discoveries about the components of that system. The consensus of the world's climate scientists on the human contribution to global climate change has recognized both these uncertainties and the growing evidence that there is a human fingerprint on climate change. The key conclusion of the most recent consensus report of the global change scientific community is as follows: Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural [climate] variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long term natural variability and the time-evolving pattern of forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and land surface changes. Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate. The current state of uncertainty should not be a cause for comfort. There is a substantial lag in global climate response, so even if we were to magically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to zero tomorrow, the world's climate would still be responding, over the next few decades, to past emissions. It is also clear that the global climate system is not a well-behaved linear system, like traveling on a straight road over a gentle predictable hill. It is more like a wild mountainous road, full of unexpected curves and cliffs. In such a situation, ignorance of what might lie ahead is not bliss, and it is prudent to slow down until you have a better appreciation of what you are dealing with. For this reason, we are engaged in international negotiations to discuss how the world might arrive at a joint international plan for slowing down the emissions of the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Because of the central role that burning carbon plays in our energy, transportation, and economic systems, it is important that such discussions focus on sophisticated, as opposed to simple-minded, approaches to the problem. I believe that the Clinton administration deserves credit for having put forth, in the current negotiation, what is easily the most complete and sophisticated proposal of any that has been advanced to date. The administration's proposal rejects the command-and-control approaches put forward by many of the other parties. The administration's proposal, instead, relies on market-based mechanisms for controlling the rate of future emissions of greenhouse gases, extending our successful experience to date in this country with such mechanisms for controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide. The administration's proposal allows for maximum flexibility on the part of each participating country in designing and implementing greenhouses gas control measures that make economic sense for that country. The administration's proposal encourages the development and use of advanced technologies. These approaches--market-based mechanisms, individual flexibility, and more reliance on advanced technologies in place of command and control--are precisely the approaches that so many of my colleagues said should be at the basis of all regulatory policy, during consideration of the Dole-Johnston regulatory reform bill in the last Congress. It is commendable that the administration has made these approaches the foundation for its negotiating position. The central issue for us today is the role that the United States and other developed countries will play in any effort to control greenhouse gas emissions, compared to the role that developing countries will play. Here, too, the administration has shown considerable sophistication, compared to other parties in the negotiations. All developing countries are not alike--there is a world of difference between South Korea and Gambia, despite the fact that both are non- annex-I countries. The world should expect more from South Korea, which aspires to join the OECD in the near future, than it should from Gambia. But there should also be a minimum level of expectations mandated by the upcoming agreement, even for countries like Gambia. I believe that a careful examination of the proposal put forward by the administration shows that it is trying to make these principles part of the protocol. We should go on record, in this resolution, in support of such principles. But we need to do so in a careful and sophisticated way, befitting the complexities of the problem of human- induced global climate change, and the international policy response to it. I did not cosponsor the resolution that is now before us because of my concerns about how it expressed the relationship between what the United States should do and what the developing countries should do. It used the words ``new commitments'' for both developed and developing countries in a way that suggested to me, at least, that the intent of the resolution was that the United States should not agree to any commitment that was not also going to be agreed to and implemented simultaneously by the world's poorest countries. That would seem to be a rather simplistic approach. We shouldn't ignore legitimate differences between countries at vastly different stages of development. I was greatly encouraged by the remarks on this issue made by the sponsor of this resolution, the senior Senator from West Virginia, when he testified before the Committee on Foreign Relations. At that time, he stated that countries at different levels of development should make unique and binding commitments of a pace and kind consistent with their industrialization, and that the schedule for these commitments should be aggressive and effective, but also consistent with a fair sharing of any burden. These are principles that I support, and the senior Senator from West Virginia and I have entered into a colloquy that seeks to establish that the explanation of the resolution on this point that he provided in his testimony is, in fact, the normative one for the administration to heed, once we pass the resolution. With this clarification, I believe that I can support the resolution now before us, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the senior Senator from West Virginia regarding the correct interpretation of the language of the resolution on one particular point of importance. The resolution refers to ``new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties'' as well as to ``new specified scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties.'' Would it be correct to interpret the use of the words ``new commitments'' in both phrases as suggesting that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol unless Annex I Parties and Developing Country Parties agree to identical commitments?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak very briefly in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, as I understand it. That amendment, if it were adopted, would essentially prohibit the Advanced Technology Program, which is administered through the Department of Commerce, from allowing participation of large companies. Let me give you my own understanding of how the Advanced Technology Program works. I think it has been an extremely useful program. It has helped to keep the United States at the forefront of technology development and high-technology industry development in the world, and, to a significant degree, our leadership in that arena, in that area of high technology, is the reason why we enjoy the strong economy we enjoy today. So I believe the Advanced Technology Program is useful. It has been a great help to many companies. It has been a great help in helping us, as a country, create jobs in the industries of the future. In order for that program to succeed, though, we need to be sure that taxpayer funds are provided, and they are only a very small portion of the total funds that go into these technology development activities, but they are a catalyst. They bring together companies. They bring together research institutions to do this important work. Those funds also provide a bridge between the Government-funded research and the private-sector research, so that we have national laboratories, such as the two in my State, Los Alamos and Sandia, and we have many large and small companies working together to make breakthroughs in technology. It is essential, if this program is going to succeed, that we allow the Advanced Technology Program to put the funds where the most good can be done and we not begin to structure this program as though it was some kind of a jobs program or as though it is a doling out of funds to different corporate interests. It is not that. It is an effort by the Federal Government to stimulate cooperative research in areas that show great promise. Sometimes the people doing that work are in large companies. Sometimes there are a few individuals in a large company who are doing very important work and can benefit from collaborating with researchers in small companies or researchers in national laboratories or researchers in universities around this country. I think it would be a great mistake for us to begin to limit the companies that can participate in the Advanced Technology Program. To do so would begin to move us down the road toward mediocrity in the technologies that are developed through use of these public funds, and I believe that is a very major mistake. I know that there have been criticisms over the past that any time the Federal Government invests dollars in research and development activities that private sector companies are engaged in, that somehow or another that is corporate welfare. I strongly disagree with that point of view. I think the taxpayers are well served if we can invest in developing technologies that will create jobs, will produce revenue, will produce additional tax revenue in the future and will keep our economy the strongest in the world. I very much hope that the Senate will reject the Brownback amendment when it is finally voted on, and I hope we will allow this Advanced Technology Program to continue to be the great engine of innovation and technology development that it has been in recent years.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is basically a sunshine provision that would require nonprofit public affairs organizations to register with the Attorney General if such organizations receive contributions in excess of $10,000 from foreign governments in any 12- month period. This provision would not affect churches, hospitals, or other nonprofit, 501(c)3 organizations which are not focused on public policy matters. In fact, this amendment only affects those public policy nonprofit organizations that do accept foreign government money. Furthermore, this amendment does not prohibit or object to such foreign government contributions. It only requires that organizations publicly acknowledge such contributions--when they are over a threshold of $10,000 a year from all foreign government sources--by registering this information with the Attorney General under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Mr. President, I'm sure that many of my colleagues may be wondering what triggered the need for this legislation. Let me state that this amendment is not directed at any particular organization or nonprofit entity. This is simply a common-sense provision that will help make the public affairs environment healthier by the disclosure of when foreign government money is supporting a given nonprofit public affairs organization and when not. These nonprofit organizations are organized for the public good and they are subsidized by the American people. To the degree that these organizations are weighing in on important public policy matters-- particularly on our Nation's economic policies and defense strategies, but also in other public policy areas--and are receiving foreign government contributions to support their activities, I believe that the American public has the right to know that such foreign government contributions have been made to that organization. Members of Congress and their staff meet regularly with representatives of many nonprofit public affairs organizations--which are permitted to engage in public education activities on the Hill. But while some organizations like the Japan Economic Institute and Korea Economic Institute are quite straightforward about their primary funding sources and register with the Attorney General that their sources of funding are foreign governments, some other nonprofit public affairs organizations actually try to keep from public view the fact that they receive substantial foreign government revenue. When these groups meet with Members of Congress and staff, mail information all around the country, and organize public affairs events without ever disclosing the fact that their funding comes from other countries' national governments, something is wrong. Mr. President, this amendment has a different target than the discussions going on about campaign finance reform. It is focused on a rather narrow window in the law which allows some nonprofits to be bolstered by foreign government funds while not having to be upfront with the broader public. I believe that our public policy process can only benefit by the disclosure that this legislation would require. And I trust that my colleagues will agree and hope that they will support this amendment which I am offering today. amendment no. 1001 At the appropriate place, insert the following new section: Sec. . The Office of Management and Budget shall designate the Jonesboro-Paragould, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area in lieu of the Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area. The Jonesboro-Paragould, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area shall include both Craighead County, AR and Greene County, AR, in their entirety.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Schindel, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.