Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say one more word about the amendment with regard to most-favored-nation status for China. My own strong impression is that with regard to Russia and most of the other major nations we deal with, we have a series of concerns that we deal with on a concern-by-concern basis, a case-by-case basis. And that is exactly what we should do. In the case of China, unfortunately, our debate has gotten to where it is sort of all or nothing, we are either going to have most-favored- nation status or we are not. And that is a very blunt instrument with which to try to deal with a very important and complex relationship. I believe it would be a great mistake for us to deny most-favored-nation status to China. I hope very much the amendment is rejected.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I assume that we will have 2 minutes equally divided for debate on the amendment before voting?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment addresses an important need of the Congress created by the demise, two years ago, of the Office of Technology Assessment. That need is for authoritative and in- depth studies of scientific and technological issues that are at the root of many of the problems that we are called on to address through legislation. Over the 23 years of its existence, from 1972 to 1995, the Office of Technology Assessment functioned as our in-house brain trust. It was a competent, timely, and impartial source of scientific and technical advice on a wide range of issues. In early 1995, the decision was made to end the existence of the Office of Technology Assessment by zeroing out its appropriation. The judgment of the Congress at that time was that it needed to demonstrate to the American people that it was willing to downsize its own operations. I miss the OTA, and I know that a lot of my colleagues in the Senate and in the House do too. I am not proposing today to reverse what we did 2 years ago by recreating new offices in the Congress or by hiring new permanent staff. I believe that there are other, more flexible ways for Congress to gain direct access to high-quality and timely advice and insight on cutting edge science and technology relevant to our legislative duties. My amendment attempts to use the existing legislative authorities for oversight of the old OTA to oversee a new pilot experiment. Members should realize that while we terminated the OTA by ending its appropriation, the underlying authorities governing the OTA are still on the books. For example, there is continuing legislative authority in title 2 of the United States Code to have a Technology Assessment Board of 12 members: 6 from the House and 6 from the Senate, with each chamber's representation evenly divided between the parties and appointed by the respective leadership. This is an excellent group to decide on which topics should be studied using the funds that would be provided by my amendment. The old OTA authorities also provided that topics for OTA studies be suggested by chairs of committees, ranking members, or numerical majorities of committees, or by the Technology Assessment Board. That is a sound procedure for identifying potential study topics. My amendment uses both of these authorities, but contains a crucial difference in how the studies are executed. In place of a permanent, continuing organization to undertake studies, my amendment provides for selection of external scientific, technological, or educational institutions to carry out the studies that would be funded under my amendment. Think of it as a ``virtual OTA'' or, if you prefer, an ``outsourced'' one. The contractual arrangements with these institutions would be handled by the GAO, which already has a wide network of similar contracting arrangements with accounting firms all over the country. Thus, there is no institutional mortgage associated with my amendment, and no new Congressional organization. I think that every member who reluctantly voted to terminate the OTA, because of the need to downsize our operations, can support my amendment with a clear conscience. We aren't bringing back a big bureaucracy. We are giving ourselves access, on topics that Members themselves determine are the most pressing to have authoritative scientific and technical insight, to the analytical capabilities of our best not-for-profit and educational institutions. Let me reiterate the key points behind my amendment. I am proposing a way for Congress to acquire better scientific and technological advice without an institutional mortgage. My amendment puts 12 members, selected by the bipartisan leadership of the Senate and the House, directly in charge of deciding how the funds under this amendment will be spent and what will be studied. My amendment allows all Committees of Congress to nominate topics worthy of study and to propose which not-for-profit institution would be most suitable to engage in their study. Contracting would be handled through the General Accounting Office, which routinely contracts to external sources for expert advice and assistance in its own audits. I am proposing an experiment of limited scope, only $500,000, which probably translates to somewhere between two and five studies. The offsetting funds of $500,000 come from the budget of the General Accounting Office, which is receiving over $354 million in appropriations in this Act. That is less than three-tenths of 1 percent of the GAO budget for this experiment. The contracting burden for GAO under my amendment is hardly crushing--an additional 2 to 5 contracts won't stretch their resources. I will also note that the Appropriations Committee's own report for this bill voices concern that GAO may have given priority to audits initiated under its own authority over those requested by committees and Members of Congress. My amendment represents a use of funds that is 100 percent directed to Member and Committee requests, and overseen by a bipartisan group appointed by the leadership. I believe that this is a sensible request and I urge the adoption of my amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me describe the second of these amendments. It says, and I will just read it. It is very short. It says: Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, (1) no person subject to U.S. law as it pertains to expenditures of money in Cuba shall be prohibited from sending to his or her parent, sibling, spouse or child currently residing in Cuba small amounts of money (not to exceed $200 per month) to be used for the purchase of basic necessities, including food, clothing, household supplies, rent, medicines and medical care; That is the first part. The second part: (2) each person subject to U.S. law as pertains to expenditures of money in Cuba in relation to travel to Cuba shall be free to travel without limitation for periods not to exceed 30 days per any one trip to attend to a medical emergency involving, or to attend the funeral of, such person's parent, sibling, spouse or child . . . Mr. President, the third part of this amendment says that: (3) the United States Government shall not be prohibited from participating in humanitarian relief efforts of multilateral organizations of which the United States is a member, where such humanitarian relief efforts are made in the aftermath of a natural disaster on the island of Cuba. So this amendment that is now pending before the Senate would do these three things: It would allow a modest amount of funds to be sent by a U.S. citizen or resident to their family, for purposes of basic necessities--food, clothing, supplies, rent, medicines, and medical care--not to exceed $200 per month. Second, it would provide this opportunity to return to Cuba for up to 30 days, again, by someone who has a relative, a parent or a sibling or a spouse or a child still in Cuba. And third, it would allow the United States Government to participate in humanitarian relief efforts if there is a natural disaster on the island of Cuba, and participate in those relief efforts through multilateral organizations, not unilaterally, but through multilateral organizations. None of these provisions threaten the national security of the United States. These are extremely modest ways that we can enhance the person- to-person contact and humanitarian assistance which can begin to take United States-Cuban relations in a positive direction. None of these provisions violate the spirit of the economic embargo that we have had in place these 35 years, although I must acknowledge that I think that economic embargo at this stage in our history is a mistake. None of what I am proposing here interferes with that economic embargo. None of these provisions help Castro to galvanize his public against the United States. They may very well help erode the support that he has been able to maintain during this last 35 years because of the failed policy that we have pursued during that entire period. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I believe it is a worthwhile amendment and one that would move us in a positive direction. Mr. President, we are coming on the end of this entire century and millennium, and sooner or later we need to become realistic about the fact that this other nation, Cuba, is 90 miles from our border, and we need to try to develop a more constructive relationship. This provision would help Cuban-American citizens in particular, but would begin to move us toward a constructive relationship. I urge its support, and I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to explain why I cannot support Senator Smith's amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill, S. 955, which we are debating here today. I believe that Senator Smith and others in this Chamber who vote in favor of this amendment have good intentions, but this amendment is not structured in a manner that I can support. This amendment would prohibit the United States from issuing foreign aid to the Government of Russia should it enact laws which would discriminate against minority religious faiths in the Russian federation. On the surface, this is a very well intentioned effort. I understand and completely support the fundamental importance and right of religious freedom, a constitutionally protected right in our Nation, as I also appreciate the importance of other freedoms that we hold dear in the United States such as the freedom of speech and freedom to assemble. However, Russia and many other nations have not organized their nations to provide the same degree of freedoms that our Nation provides. This is not an excuse for other countries; it is just simple fact. To tie our Nation's foreign aid decisions too closely to legislative outcomes in other countries--even absolutely egregious ones like the Russian law which recently passed the Duma restricting recognized faiths to those recognized by the former Soviet Union before 1984, including Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism-- can have serious unintended consequences and disrupt national security objectives of our Nation. Through legislative actions such as this one which we are considering today, we can actually trigger the enactment of outrageous laws in other nations which could seriously damage the existing freedoms that citizens in other nations have. We should realize that many other nations--including Israel, Egypt, Turkey, and other recipients of United States aid--would lose that aid if held to the same standard that we are proposing for Russia. Perhaps this is something that we should discuss here. But my sense is that we don't want a single measuring stick--and that today, we are focusing on Russia in a rather knee-jerk fashion. Russia needs to hear our concerns about religious freedoms, and I feel that we should pursue this matter and communicate United States objections to this Russian law in the many different arenas available to us in our engagement with Russia. However, this vehicle--as it is constructed--is not appropriate and could send matters in a negative rather than positive direction. I think that the most important item left out of the drafting of this amendment is a national security waiver, which would permit the President to waive the provisions of this bill in cases where American national security were at stake. If this provision had been included, I may have viewed this amendment more positively. Again, I believe firmly in the innate human right to worship as each individual sees fit. However, in my opinion, not only is this particular foreign aid provision an inappropriate vehicle to send that message abroad but it also ties the hands of the President in the execution of foreign policy and fails to allow for waivers which may very well be in the national security interests of the United States.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I have just sent to the desk is a very simple amendment that would provide that the President shall not restrict travel to Cuba by United States citizens and other people who are lawfully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except in circumstances where we are at war or where there are armed hostilities in or around Cuba, or where there is imminent danger to public health or physical safety of United States travelers in Cuba. My own view is that our policy today, toward Cuba, is a holdover from the cold war. It is an anachronism. It is out of step with the sentiments of the American people. And it is certainly out of step with the best interests of our own country. We have gotten into a situation where the only attention that is given to our relations with Cuba is that every 6 months the President comes forward and once again waives certain extraterritorial provisions that were part of the Helms-Burton Act that was passed last year; and at the same time that it waives those provisions, it assures Members of Congress and the Cuban-American community that it plans to maintain a posture of tough sanctions against Cuba. So any efforts that might be undertaken to promote a constructive and humanitarian engagement with Cuba, or at least some level of humanitarian assistance to those in need in Cuba, all of that has been put aside and lost, unfortunately, in our discussion of Cuban-American relations. When the Helms-Burton Act passed the Congress, Walter Russell Mead wrote an article in the New Yorker that I think sums things up pretty well. He said: Fidel Castro has survived the enmity of nine American Presidents. In concert with his enemies in South Florida, he retains a hypnotic ability to induce stupidity in Yankee policymakers. That seems unlikely to change until the U.S. Government gets around to taking control of its Cuba policy away from a small, self-interested lobby group. Mr. President, I share Mr. Mead's views on this anachronistic stance that we continue to take toward Cuba. In my opinion, the one reason that Castro has remained entrenched and has survived nine American Presidents is that he continues to be able to point to the United States as a menacing foreign presence and to call upon the Cuban people to withstand the hardships that they have to withstand because of bad intentions and actions by America, as he would have it. If people, including so many of my distinguished colleagues across the aisle and on the Democratic side, believe in the value of Radio Marti and TV Marti, our broadcasting operations in Florida, which are intended to inform Cubans about the way of life in the United States and our freedoms and our liberties, then certainly increasing contact by allowing travel by Americans to Cuba would do even more. I think it is important that the administration and others realize that the Helms- Burton Act and this 6-month clock on issuing a waiver on the worst provisions of that act not be allowed to serve as the be all and the end all of our Cuban policy. On June 19 of this year, I joined Senator Dodd and a great many other Senators in writing to the President urging that direct flights to Cuba for the purpose of humanitarian assistance be permitted. The subject of that letter is not the subject of my amendment today. I cite that as one example of an effort to improve constructive relations between ourselves and Cuba and to assist in humanitarian needs that are real. I do believe that one of the least justifiable aspects of our policy toward Cuba today is the restrictions that we place on travel by U.S. citizens and U.S. residents to that country. The right to travel is a constitutional right. It is one that the courts have recognized. It is one that we, as a country, have recognized and that we only interfere with where there is a national security reason or some overriding national interest that requires that we interfere with that free right of travel. I attended a conference, Asia Pacific Forum, 2 weeks ago at the Kennedy School in Boston. There were some Chinese leaders there and some Korean leaders and some Japanese leaders, and I was struck by the story that I heard from one of the Chinese leaders, the head of the Chinese delegation. He had been one of those singled out for abuse during the cultural revolution when that occurred in China a couple of decades ago. He was taken from his hometown, from Beijing, at that time where he was a prominent leader in the university, and he was sent to a very remote part of China and forced to work there. He worked in a factory for 10 years during the cultural revolution in a very lowly position. At the end of the cultural revolution, he was allowed to take a more responsible position and, once again, begin to demonstrate and use his talents, but he stayed in that factory for an additional 5 years after the 10 years that was required during the cultural revolution. I asked, ``Why did you stay in that part of China? Why didn't you come back to Beijing?" He said, ``I didn't have a permit. I wasn't permitted to travel.'' You couldn't just travel. You weren't permitted, at that time at least, to travel in China without a permit. Mr. President, that refusal to allow people to travel is characteristic of Communist, authoritarian regimes. It is not characteristic of the United States. It should not be our policy to keep American citizens and American residents from traveling, except where national security requires it. Clearly, there is no national security justification for us continuing to prevent travel to Cuba by Americans today. Let me also just point out this restriction against travel is an invitation to abuse. We have a lot of people in business in this country, in Canada, in Mexico and in various nearby countries who make it their business to facilitate travel to Cuba by United States citizens. We made a little search of the Web. You are supposed to search the Web whenever you want to find out anything these days. So we got on the Internet. Here is a provision, Intra Kensington Travel. It says: ``Cuba travel for U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens holding valid passports are welcomed as visitors to Cuba for purposes of tourism. Many U.S. citizens visit Cuba each year for this purpose.'' This is what the advertisement on the Web said: ``When you arrive in Cuba, ensure that your passport is not stamped. Instead, have the Cuban immigration officials stamp a separate sheet of paper and be sure to bring this with you, so your passport won't be stamped. To avoid difficulty with U.S. Immigration and Customs authorities, do not return to the United States with any evidence that you have ever visited Cuba. This would include cigars, rum, souvenir T-shirts, postcards, tourist information and other items.'' Mr. President, this restriction is not enforceable. It is being abused. It is an embarrassment to a great nation like ours that we have this restriction in our law. I believe strongly that we should eliminate it. The amendment I sent to the desk would do that. Let me also say, though, for purposes of reality in the Senate, that we have had a vote on this amendment before, essentially this same amendment. Former Senator Simon from Illinois offered this same amendment in the last Congress. I supported his efforts. I am sad to report that we only received 25 votes for the effort to eliminate these restrictions. So this year, Mr. President, I would like to offer a different amendment and see if we can't get more support. Let me, at this point, Mr. President, withdraw my amendment and send another amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk and ask that it be considered.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of the additional funds provided to the Department of Energy for stockpile stewardship and stockpile maintenance under this appropriation bill. I do so both as someone who has followed nuclear weapons' issues for many years and as the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, which has authorizing jurisdiction over these funds. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, two compelling points were made about these programs. First, we are only beginning to learn how to certify the safety and reliability of the stockpile in the absence of nuclear testing. This Spring was the first time that the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy jointly made this certification. This procedure is now required by law to be completed each year. As time goes on and the nuclear weapons stockpile continues to age, our ability to certify the stockpile without testing will become more and more dependent on new science and technology that will emerge from the stockpile stewardship and stockpile management program. This conclusion was agreed to by all concerned--by Assistant Secretary Vic Reis on behalf of the Department of Energy and by General Habiger on behalf of the Strategic Command. Second, there is considerable skepticism here in the Senate and in the defense community that the science-based stockpile stewardship can succeed over the long term. There are many who believe that the design of nuclear weapons relies so much on art as opposed to science that we will inevitably have to return to underground nuclear testing. I hope that this is not true, and I believe that ending underground nuclear testing is so important a policy objective that we must give science- based stockpile stewardship every chance to succeed. While the President shares this concern, it must also be recognized that his budget request had to strike a balance on many different dimensions and that even within the Department of Energy programmatic tradeoffs had to be made. We received strong testimony in the Armed Services Committee that the President's request was not adequate in a number of areas receiving extra funds in this bill, and I think that there is a good case to be made for keeping those funds in this bill. For example, on the stockpile stewardship side, we had the following testimony from the Director of the Sandia National Laboratories: The costs of stockpile stewardship are not a linear function of stockpile size. A threshold capability will be needed to support the stockpile as long as it numbers in thousands, especially with the sophistication and demand for reliability that is associated with the systems on which deterrence rests today. I believe that we are near that threshold now, especially in light of the closures and changes that have occurred in recent years. I don't believe that we ought to be addressing the question of the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile by seeing how close we can get to the threshold at which we can no longer certify the safety and reliability of the stockpile. Another Director of a nuclear weapons laboratory, Dr. Bruce Tartar of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, had this to say: The greatest challenges [to stockpile stewardship] lie ahead. The demands on the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program will grow as weapons in the enduring stockpile continue to age. The U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile is now older on average than it has ever been. And, the reservoir of nuclear test and design experience at the laboratories continues to diminish. Further, on the stockpile management side, the DOE production plants that make nonnuclear components for the enduring stockpile are in sorry physical shape. Some 80 percent of the nonnuclear components in nuclear weapons wear out and have to be replaced, during the lifetime of that weapon. Thus, there is an important continuing role for the DOE production plants in maintaining the enduring stockpile. The Armed Services Committee received credible testimony that the President's budget request was inadequate to do so. The budget request, for example, would result in a budget shortfall for one plant alone, the Kansas City plant, of nearly $56 million--$30 million for production operations and $26 million for capital equipment and infrastructure requirements. The president of the division of Allied Signal who is responsible for the Kansas City plant had this to say before the Armed Service Committee, in regard to the President's budget: In my view, diminishing support for the production plants would be extremely shortsighted and dangerous for the complex. For plants to be effective members of the team, we must have current and future capabilities to participate fully . . . [Implementation of the programmatic environmental impact statement for stockpile stewardship and management] will require future funding to downsize the plants physically, funding to recapitalize the plants so they are able to function properly once they are fully downsized, and adequate short-term funding to carry out production missions for current requirements. I believe that the additional funding in this bill is necessary and appropriate, and I can assure the Senator from Arkansas that as we go to conference on both this bill and the Defense authorization bill, we will arrive at final totals for funds authorized and appropriated that will result in the best possible, and most cost-effective program for maintaining the safety and reliability of the stockpile.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, section 3161(c) of the fiscal year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act called for the Department of Energy to examine the need for continued funding of the Los Alamos School District and to make recommendations to the Congress. If the Department's recommendation indicates a need for further assistance for the school board or the county, as the case may be, after June 30, 1997, the recommendation shall include a report and plan describing the actions needed to eliminate the need for further assistance for the school board or the county, including a proposal for legislative action to carry out the plan. The amendment that I am offering today, with my colleague the senior Senator from New Mexico, is the result of this planning process, involving the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Department of Energy, and the Los Alamos school board, and takes a major step toward downsizing the Department's contribution to the Los Alamos School District. The amendment provides for a Federal payment in fiscal year 1998 of $5 million to a foundation that will support educational excellence in the schools serving the children of Los Alamos employees. This Federal payment will be matched by a contribution by the University of California--out of its contract fee for managing and operating Los Alamos National Laboratory--and by private fundraising in the State. The amendment further provides that the interest earned on any Federal payment will remain with the foundation, instead of reverting to the U.S. Treasury, as would be the case absent a special provision to the contrary. In our discussions with the majority members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on this amendment, we have agreed that future payments to the foundation from the Department will be in order, so that the corpus of the endowment is sufficient to sustain excellence in the school system, but that more analysis is required to arrive at an overall figure for such additional support. This is the first step toward bringing to a close the annual payment to the school district. It is important to recognize that the Los Alamos School District is subject to a number of special conditions that makes the development of alternative funding sources difficult. The State of New Mexico funds its public schools under an equalization formula. Thus, the Los Alamos School District is not funded from local property taxes directly, but from a State-wide fund into which all such property taxes go. This factor represents an important constraint on the ability of the community to tax itself to enhance its school system. As part of the agreement that resulted in this legislative proposal, the school board has agreed to seek special legislation in New Mexico that would allow it to raise revenues to supplement the State-mediated funding. Because of its geographic isolation and lack of developable land, Los Alamos is one of the highest-cost-of-living communities in New Mexico, with a cost of living 40 percent higher than the State average and 23 percent higher than the average for all of the United States. Thus, even though Los Alamos receives the same State funding as other comparably sized school districts, in Los Alamos the dollars do not go as far. Setting up an educational foundation to help shoulder the burden that the Department has been carrying makes good sense. Further, the Los Alamos School District has committed to a number of actions that will further decrease the need for Department of Energy support in the future. It will increase fees to students for various activities, implement energy efficiency measures, and reduce administrative costs. Already, this year the Los Alamos School District has reduced its spending by roughly $900,00 through such measures, and it will continue to examine contracts and functions in the future in order to reduce costs. The Department of Energy and the Congress have always recognized that the quality of the local school system is a significant factor is many relocation decisions involving personnel whom Los Alamos National Laboratory would like to attract and retain. The national interest in maintaining the strength of the laboratory translates into a need to have a mechanism that will produce a superior school system in the communities which are home to the technical employees of the laboratory. This proposal is a major step toward doing that at reduced cost to the Government, and I urge its adoption. amendment no. 763, as modified (Purpose: To congratulate Governor Christopher Patten of Hong Kong) At the appropriate place in the bill at the following new section: Sec. . (A) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that-- (1) His Excellency Christopher F. Patten, the now former Governor of Hong Kong, was the twenty-eight British Governor to preside over Hong Kong, prior to that territory reverting back to the People's Republic of China on July 1, 1997; (2) Chris Patten was a superb administrator and an inspiration to the people who he sought to govern; (3) During his five years as Governor of Hong Kong, the economy flourished under his stewardship, growing by more than 30% in real terms; (4) Chris Patten presided over a capable and honest civil service; (5) Common crime declined during his tenure, and the political climate was positive and stable; (6) Chris Patten's legacy to Hong Kong is the expansion of democracy in Hong Kong's legislative council and a tireless devotion to the rights, freedoms and welfare of Hong Kong's people. (7) Chris Patten fulfilled the British commitment to ``put in place a solidly based democratic administration'' in Hong Kong prior to July 1, 1997. (B) It is the Sense of the Congress that-- (1) Governor Chris Patten has served his country with great honor and distinction; and (2) He deserves special thanks and recognition from the United States for his tireless efforts to develop and nurture democracy in Hong Kong.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of Senator Domenici's amendment to establish a framework for a final settlement of the assistance payments to the county of Los Alamos under the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955. As Senator Domenici has pointed out, the Congress has already implemented the first part of a two-step process to end these payments and to provide the County with the ability to develop a commercial tax base--last year the Congress appropriated $22.6 million buyout payment for the county. This amendment implements the second part of the agreement, by transferring excess land from Los Alamos National Laboratory to the county for purposes of economic development. This development will mean jobs for northern New Mexicans and improved economic self-sufficiency for the County. In crafting the language being offered today, Senator Domenici and I have worked to address the concerns of a number of parties in New Mexico who have expressed interest in any land transfer involving the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The language will ensure that land needed for national security purposes will be retained by the Department. The language ensures that an environmental review of any transfer will take place, and that land in need of environmental remediation prior to transfer is cleaned up. The San Ildefonso Pueblo, which was originally supposed to receive lands that subsequently were withdrawn for the use of the Department of Energy, will participate in the process and have some of these lands returned, including sites that are sacred to the Pueblo. Finally, the language addresses the interests of the Homesteaders Association of the Los Alamos Plateau, which represents former owners and descendants of former owners of land that was condemned by the Federal Government for the Manhattan Project. The homesteaders are now researching their claims to the land that was condemned in the 1940's, and have asked for assistance from the Department of Energy in documenting their case. The language that we are considering today requires the Department of Energy to take several actions with respect to these claims. First, after the list of parcels of lands that are to be considered for transfer is drawn up, the Department is to submit a report to Congress with the result of a title search on those parcels. Second, the Department is also required to provide Congress with an analysis of any claims of former owners, or their heirs and assigns, to such parcels. Third, during the year after passage of this act, the Secretary shall engage in concerted efforts to provide claimants with every reasonable opportunity to legally substantiate their claims. The Department, in the past, has provided assistance to other groups and communities to enable them to fully exercise their rights to participate in departmental decisions affecting their vital interests. It is our intention that, within the bounds of reasonableness and appropriateness, the Department provide assistance to the homesteaders, as well. Finally, the language states, in two places, that the Department is only to transfer land to which the Government has clear title. If a former owner has a valid legal claim to a parcel, this land transfer amendment provides the Department with no new authority to extinguish that claim. In such a case, the Department must report back to Congress on the claim and remove the affected parcel from consideration for transfer under this section, unless the Department and the former owner or the descendants of the former owner arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement of the claim. I believe that this amendment strikes the appropriate balance between the interests of Los Alamos County and the San Ildefonso Pueblo in having access to lands that are no longer needed by the Department and that are not in dispute, and the interests of the former owners of lands on the Los Alamos plateau in having their legal claims fairly examined and respected. I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first just clarify what we are about here. The amendment that Senator Dorgan and Senator Moseley-Braun and I have offered is not an amendment to cut out the funding that the administration has requested in this area. It is to support the funding that the administration is requesting in this area. The administration in its budget said that it wanted $28.8 million in the space-based laser program this year, and that is exactly what we are proposing. Now, at the committee level and the subcommittee level an additional $118 million, or essentially five times as much funding, was added to the request of the administration. What we are trying to do is say let us go with what the Pentagon requested. That is not an unreasonable position. Last evening, Senator Lott spoke in opposition to our amendment, and he said clearly in his view the space-based laser was, and I think this is an exact quote, ``the national missile defense option of choice.'' That is just flat wrong. The Pentagon has made it very clear that their option of choice is the ground-based interceptor which we are funding through the National Missile Defense Program in this budget. In fact, we are funding it at twice the level that the administration had earlier requested. Instead of the plan of spending $2.3 billion over the next 5 years, we are going to spend $4.6 billion on that. I support that, and our amendment does nothing to interfere with that. So the option of choice is the ground-based program which we have already agreed to go ahead and fund. The real question here is where is the money coming from? If we are going to do this space-based laser, where is the money coming from? We would think it totally irresponsible for the administration to come in with this kind of request in 1998 if they could not tell us what they were going to do in future years to follow on in building this so- called demonstrator. But we think nothing of just adding it ourselves and saying, well, we will worry later about how we are going to fund this thing. So that is the issue.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first I would like unanimous consent to add Senator Moseley-Braun as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, yes, I do intend to modify the amendment, so that it strikes $118 million that was added by the committee for the space-based laser, and I will delete the portion of the earlier amendment that I offered which allocated those funds to the Air Force and the Navy flying hours.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes the Secretary of Energy to ensure full participation of the Department of Energy in the very successful Hispanic Outreach Program that that department has had. In September 1995, the Secretary of Energy announced a strategic plan to address the needs, talents and capabilities of the nation's Hispanic community. This strategic plan calls for the Department to take effective steps to further the participation of DOE in educational programs, particularly in the fields of science and technology that serve Hispanic students. In fiscal year 1996 the DOE set a goal of $20 million for funding Hispanic Service Educational Institutions and Initiatives. This level of investment provides significant dividends to the Hispanic community as well as to the Department of Energy. Other programs are included within the Hispanic Outreach Initiative to encourage improved investment, training, and placement for Hispanic population in business using the internet and the Hispanic Radio Network. As a result of such initiatives, Hispanic employment at the Department of Energy has increased at all grade levels during the past four years. The amendment I am offering today directs the Secretary of Energy to ensure that all components of the Department participate fully in this initiative in order to achieve the widest possible impact. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment as an effective means to benefit the taxpayer and improve opportunities for the Hispanic community. I believe we can take action on the amendment at this point. I know of no Senator that wishes to speak in opposition.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for me to offer an amendment numbered 647. I think it has been cleared on both sides. I will describe it once the clerk has reported the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send a modified version of the amendment to the desk and ask that it be so modified.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Robert Simon, who is detailed to my staff from the Department of Energy, be permitted privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate and during any votes occurring on that bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, $148 million in the bill at the present time, and this gets it back to the administration requested level of $49.