Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Schindel of my staff, a fellow in my office, be allowed the privilege of the floor for the duration of the day.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 839 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor. Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, with the support of Senator Murray from the State of Washington, to introduce legislation that will increase the effectiveness of our efforts to improve education in the country. I send to the desk the legislation and ask that it be referred to the appropriate committee.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the bill is entitled the Technology for Teachers Act. Its purpose is to increase the ability of millions of new and current teachers to use technology in the classroom. Every school day in my home State of New Mexico and across the country, computers are being purchased, are being unpacked and are being delivered to classrooms in the hope that the teachers there will do wonderful things with those computers to assist the educational process. Sometimes that happens, but most of the time, the computer that is delivered and unpacked is just one more challenge to that teacher, one more demand on that teacher's time and one more drain on the energy of that teacher, because no one has given the teacher the training necessary to be able to do wonderful things with the computer. Most of the teachers in our public schools today started teaching before the era of personal computers really began and was established. The problem begins with low standards for the preparation of teachers to use this new technology and for the licensing of new teachers. This is reflected in a chart I have, Mr. President, that I would like to call attention to. This chart demonstrates the following. On the left- hand side, we have the States that now require one course in education technology. You can see that the red area indicates that 32 States now require a course in education technology. Eighteen of our States require no instruction in education technology today. But the more problematic part of this chart is the right-hand side, where we try to depict the new teachers who feel prepared to use technology in the classroom. You can see that the green area indicates that 90 percent of our new teachers do not feel prepared to use technology in the classroom. That means 90 percent have not had adequate training, including the 90 percent who have had that one course that is required in those 32 States. So there is a serious problem. We also have a disturbing imbalance between the high investment we are making in equipment on the one hand and our inadequate investment in teachers on the other. Let me show a couple of other charts to make that point. This chart tries to make the distinction between the high availability of computers in our schools versus the low amount of teacher training to use them. Ninety-eight percent of our schools today are equipped with some computers. So, clearly, that is a major step forward from where we were, for example, 5 or 10 years ago. But if you look at the teachers who took more than 1 day of training in a single school year on how to use those computers, it is 15 percent of our teachers. Clearly, that imbalance exists. We are investing in the hardware; we are not investing in training the teachers to use that hardware effectively. Let me show one other chart to make the same point. This is connections to the Internet. This shows a 1997 estimate of the percent of schools that are connected to the Internet. About 65 percent of our schools have at least some connection to the Internet. When you look, though, down at the classroom level, you see that only 14 percent of our classrooms actually have a connection to the Internet. Only 13 percent of schools require some kind of advanced training for teachers so that they would know how to take advantage of that hookup to the Internet. And teachers who are actually using the Internet to help with their instruction is only 20 percent. So, again, we have a major imbalance between the investment in the equipment on the one hand, and the inadequate investment in training our teachers on the other. The experts say that 30 percent of the total investment we make in education technology should be used to train teachers, but right now we spend only 9 percent on teacher training. In my own State of New Mexico, only 4 percent of the $33 million spent on education technology goes for training teachers. That's less than half the national average and less than one seventh what we should be spending on teacher training. I am not saying that the Federal Government has not invested in teacher training as a part of school reform. There is a lot of money which is available for this, but also for a great many other needs. Clearly, this chart shows that. When we talk about general reform of education, there are four large programs that the Federal Government has. Of course, Title I is by far the largest, Title VI, Goals 2000, the Eisenhower Professional Development Program--all of those programs have funds that arguably can be used for training of teachers in this respect but, in fact, there are other great demands on those funds. When you look at technology for education, we now have the Technology Literacy Program that is funded at $257 million. The request from the President and the agreement in this year's Budget Resolution is to substantially increase that in the coming years. But when you look at technology training for teachers, there is absolutely nothing planned for that or required to be spent on that. This legislation tries to correct that deficiency. There are no Federal programs today devoted exclusively to technology training for teachers--either technology training for new teachers that are being trained, or technology training for current teachers in the work force. Let me briefly describe what our bill would do, Mr. President. This bill has two parts. One would improve the technology training that 2 million new teachers will get while they are in college during the next decade to try to ensure that as they begin their teaching careers, they have had this instruction. The other part involves the technology training that millions of our current teachers will need throughout their teaching careers. For both parts, our legislation provides that the Department of Education would make competitive grants to the States, to the States' departments of education that are responsible for the licensing of teachers and for maintaining high teaching standards. Those States' departments would then set up competitive grant programs, one to go to colleges of education for innovative programs to train new teachers to use technology; the other set of grants would go to local school districts for innovative professional development of current teachers. The bill would require that the States' departments of education, the colleges of education, the local school districts, and the education technology private sector all work together to create these innovative teacher training programs. This bill would be a major step forward in providing the necessary training to our teachers so that they can benefit from new technologies and integrate those new technologies into their instruction. There are some very good examples, happening in a few places, of what should be happening all over the country. For example, the University of Missouri has a program that issues a laptop computer to incoming freshmen in their College of Education. It has built telecommunications links to K-through-12 schools throughout the State of Missouri. This bill would also support some innovative programs similar to the program we have in New Mexico called the Regional Education Technology Assistance Program; it trains five teachers from each of the school districts in my State. In fact, we have only reached out now and gotten the involvement of 52 of our 89 school districts. But the idea here is to get a cadre of teachers who are comfortable with the use of technology who can then work in their school district to train other teachers so that they, too, can be comfortable with the use of that technology and not have the technology just be a frill which is put over in the corner of their classroom for people to use when they don't have other more important activities to pursue. Mr. President, I think this legislation is particularly important because it tries to deal with the very real resource constraints that some of our school districts face. In my home State, we have a school district in Cuba, NM, where they have had to give up their music instruction, they have had to give up their home economics program, in order to acquire technology to try to enrich their curriculum. This would provide some additional sources of funds for them so that they could get that technology, they could get the training for the use of that technology. That is the great need that we have at this particular time. I hope very much that we can get a hearing on this bill this summer, move ahead with it, and enact this legislation before the conclusion of this session of the Congress. I think this is a step forward. We have seen significant progress over the last few years in Federal support for technology and the use of technology in education. The one great deficiency today is that we do not put enough into training teachers so that that technology can be used effectively. This legislation will help to correct that problem. I thank Senator Murray for cosponsoring the legislation. I hope other colleagues will do so as well.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, with the support of Senator Murray from the State of Washington, to introduce legislation that will increase the effectiveness of our efforts to improve education in the country. I send to the desk the legislation and ask that it be referred to the appropriate committee.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act of 1997 and the alternative that has been offered by my friends and colleagues, Senators Baucus, Kerrey and Landrieu. Mr. President, while the goals embodied in S. 4 may, on the surface, appear to be family friendly, the legislation passed by the Labor Committee is decidedly worker unfriendly. Unlike the bill recently passed by the House, S. 4 is not limited to the issue of compensatory time. Instead it includes provisions related to flexible scheduling and flexible credit hours that repeal the 40- hour workweek, which has been the bulwark of employee protection for almost 60 years, and turn the purported choice for employees that supporters claim S. 4 provides into no real choice at all. S. 4 provides compensatory time to employees in lieu of time-and-a- half. While this is an idea that resonates with a great number of people, I believe the compensatory time provision of S. 4 does not provide sufficient autonomy to employees in selecting compensatory time in lieu of overtime and that many employees will be forced to take the option of flextime. By allowing employers to choose which of the three options to offer, compensatory time, flexible scheduling, or flexible credit hours, it is inevitable that they will offer either the flexible 80 hour work schedule or flexible credit-hour program. That is because, unlike comptime which is in lieu of overtime and therefore must be exchanged for 1\1/2\ hours off, the flexible schedule options require only a one-to-one exchange. Any employer looking at his bottom line will make the choice for the employees and the choice will be flextime over overtime or comptime. The obvious solution to this is to do what the House did and pass a comptime only bill, one that includes the protections for workers contained in the Baucus-Kerrey- Landrieu alternative. S. 4 does not adequately protect employees' rights to choose comptime, to use it when they want and to be free from discrimination against employees who choose not to agree to take comptime or work flexible schedules. As written, S. 4 provides that an employee who requests the use of comptime off shall be permitted to use the time so long as it does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer. The alternative offered by my friends and colleagues, Senators Baucus, Kerrey and Landrieu, would allow an employee to take banked comp after giving 2 weeks notice so long as it will not cause grievous injury to the employer, as well as for qualifying Family and Medical Leave Act purposes. It is important to remember that the banked hours are hours that the employee has earned. She should have control over when she uses them and the employer should have to meet a high standard for denying the request of employees to take the earned hours. While S. 4 does not provide sufficient protection for vulnerable sectors of the economy such as garment and agricultural workers, the Baucus-Kerrey-Landrieu proposal does. It exempts part-time and garment industry workers, and provides the Secretary of Labor with authority to exempt other vulnerable categories of employees if she determines there is a pattern of violations of the act or to ensure that employees receive the compensation they have earned. These are important protections that should be included in any compensatory time bill we consider. S. 4 allows too many comptime hours to be ``banked'' and does not sufficiently protect those hours in the event of bankruptcy. Senator Baucus' alternative allows 80 hours to be banked and does protect those hours in bankruptcy. It is interesting to note, that even the House- passed bill allows only 160 hours to be banked. The Baucus-Kerrey-Landrieu also provides significant penalties for employers who violate it's provisions by discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees who choose not to take comptime in lieu of overtime. Another important distinction between S. 4 and the Baucus-Kerrey- Landrieu alternative is that S. 4 does not sunset the provisions relating to either comp or flex time. Senator Baucus' proposal sunsets the provisions relating to compensatory time after 4 years and requires a Presidential commission to study the impact of the compensatory time provisions. Mr. President, even the House comptime bill sunsets after 5 years. This is yet another reasonable and sensible change to S. 4 that we should adopt and that will go a long way toward making S. 4 a truly worker-friendly bill. Briefly, with regard to flexible credit hours and flexible scheduling, I believe these provisions are simply unnecessary and will be harmful to workers if enacted. Employers currently have a wide range of options with regard to offering flexible scheduling options to employees within the context of the 40-hour workweek. Employees can, for example, work 4, 10-hour days and be allowed to take the fifth day off. What the flexible scheduling and flexible credit-hour provisions of this bill do instead is present employees with a Hobson choice; either take the flexible credit hour or flexible scheduling option or forgo the chance to earn overtime. Simply put, S. 4 does away with the 40-hour workweek without providing anything for employees except a smaller paycheck. Despite claims to the contrary about the support for the idea of flexible scheduling, I sincerely doubt that American workers want to give up the 40-hour workweek in exchange for a potential 80-hour workweek. Mr. President, I believe that many American workers could benefit from the option of choosing compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay. As many have said during debate on this measure, the workplace has changed significantly since enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The American family has changed too. While many families might like to be able to take extra time to spend with their children or on other family matters, I don't believe that they would be willing to do so under the guise of S. 4. As with many bills that come before the Senate, S. 4 embodies principles that both Democrats and Republicans can support. I hope that we will be able to do the right thing when it comes to S. 4 and limit the bill's scope to compensatory time and include the additional, needed protections for American families and workers.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to honor New Mexico's outstanding small businesses and small business advocates as selected by the U.S. Small Business Administration. I will not be able to attend the awards luncheon but I do want to recognize the significant accomplishments of these New Mexican entrepreneurs.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask that I be permitted to speak for up to 4 minutes, if that is possible, the time yielded off the bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first say that I am an original cosponsor of the amendment by the Senator from Illinois for funding for school construction. There is a great need in this country for this. In my view, one failure, one defect of the budget resolution before us is that we give great emphasis to higher education and very little emphasize to elementary and secondary education. The needs are great in my State for school construction funding, and I think this is a beginning. I grant it is a modest beginning, but it is a step in the right direction. I commend the Senator from Illinois for offering this amendment, and I intend to support it. I rise as an original cosponsor of the Mosely-Braun amendment to restore funding for school construction to the resolution. The lack of school construction funding is one of the many ways that this resolution reveals its strong emphasis on higher education rather than improving elementary and secondary schools. In fact, the lack of funding for the repair and construction of schools is perhaps the most obvious and compelling gap in this resolution. I believe this is especially true since New Mexico is facing such a serious problem with its schools: As of 1994, 94 percent of our schools needed to upgrade or repair onsite buildings, and 29 percent had crumbling roofs. In 1996, 44 percent of districts in New Mexico had at least one building in need of serious repair or replacement--much higher than the 33-percent average nationwide. Over 70 percent of high school students in my State attend schools of 900 or more students, a size that is too large to be an effective learning environment, some studies say. There is a $475 million backlog in school construction and repair for BIA schools, of which there are 45 in New Mexico. Meeting the demand to repair and build schools is difficult because New Mexico is one of the fastest growing States in the Nation, and 47 percent of its student population attends school in rural areas. Small and isolated communities such as these simply cannot generate sufficient funding to pay for repairing and building new schools required by skyrocketing enrollments. Over the last 10 years, student enrollment in New Mexico has jumped by 57,000 students, 23.7 percent. In just 3 years, enrollment will grow by another 20,000 students--the same number of students as are in Las Cruces, the State's second largest district. Having visited and heard about schools that are crumbling, incapable of handling modern computers, and overcrowded, I know Let me also say on the resolution more generally that clearly a balanced budget is an important component of the fiscal health for the Nation. It is very important that we pursue this. I do believe, however, that before we complete the process, before we complete a reconciliation bill and tax legislation, we need to look at the details as they will impact on the lives of average citizens in our country. Obviously, in my State, we have a very high rate of poverty, a high rate of inadequate health care coverage, great needs in education, great problems with unemployment. I want to be sure that the implementing legislation, particularly the tax provisions that we wind up adopting, is consistent with the needs of average citizens in my State. I intend to support passage of the budget resolution. I do believe it is extremely important that we are closing in on a balanced budget. That has been a goal that many have pursued, myself included, for a long time here in the Congress, and we need that type of fiscal responsibility. But I am concerned that when we get into implementing legislation, if we are not careful, we could adopt some tax provisions which would institutionalize in the next century, in the first and second decades of the next century, a new and increasing disparity between what we raise and what we spend. I pledge my best efforts to work with the leadership here in the Congress and in the Senate to see that that implementing legislation is acceptable and is fairly balanced. I hope that is the case, and I hope I am able to support the reconciliation bill as I intend to support this budget resolution. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I thank the managers for the time.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, during my tenure in the Senate, I have long been concerned about our Nation's economic fundamentals and long- term competitive and economic vitality. During the 1980's, budget deficits roared upward as both spending increased and major tax cuts were enacted. As Senator Hollings mentioned here last night, it can be an intoxicating combination to slash taxes for constituents while pumping up spending. This is what we did in those years. In a way, we just stole from the future, from our childrens' future and from the strength of the economy that they will live in. Fortunately in 1993, we turned this trend around. Since passage of the 1993 budget, our Nation has shaved $2.5 trillion off of our budget deficit. This is a stunning turnaround for our country, and we are on the verge of achieving the kind of balance and fiscal responsibility that I have been fighting for these many years. If the truth be told, this balanced budget resolution, which we are debating now, is rather modest and only cuts another $207 billion off during the next 5 years. This is a tenth of what we accomplished in 1993. However, this resolution is vastly better than the draconian and unfair budget package the Republican majority tried to pass in 1995. Our fiscal prudence has brought down interest rates, helped increase investment and business activity, and increased our employment levels dramatically. Continuing this trend makes sense for our Nation and makes sense for New Mexico. Balancing the budget is an important component of fiscal health--but we would be making a great mistake--to think that this solves all of our economic problems. We need to know the details of the tax framework, which we will soon debate, to fully understand how this budget will impact the lives and quality of life of our citizens. New Mexico is still trailing much of the Nation, and has a long way to go before my State will share as it should in the growth of this economy. New Mexicans have the lowest level of pension coverage in the Nation; the lowest level of health care coverage; the highest poverty rate in the Nation and the only State in the Nation to worsen its poverty level during the last 2 years; we also have the highest unemployment levels west of the Mississippi. New Mexico is not expecting large hand-outs to improve its situation--but we need to be sure that the budget framework we are debating here--and the follow-on tax bill, which represents the small print at the bottom of the contract--impacts New Mexico fairly in relation to other parts of the Nation. I want to make sure that we invest in education, which provides the best chance for the people of my State to get ahead. And I want to make sure that any tax cuts we provide are responsible, equitable, and reward the hard working families in New Mexico and across the country. While I support this budget, we need to be honest about the fact that this budget does not deal with the looming challenge of increased Social Security and Medicare entitlement spending caused by the aging of the Baby Boom generation. Also, we are not incorporating any structural changes in our defense spending. In fact, it is hardly reflected in this budget that the Soviet Union has dissolved and that strategic threats to our Nation have dramatically decreased. Our defense strategy seems to be primarily the product of inertia. Although the details of the accompanying tax bills are not yet clear, there are some items that concern me greatly. First, I am concerned that the $500 per child tax credit is not clearly specified as refundable. If this is not refundable, it means that low-income working families in New Mexico will not significantly benefit from this provision and will largely help those who are already better off in our society; 45 percent of the tax filers in New Mexico have adjusted gross incomes below $15,000; 70 percent have income levels below $30,000. This means that the majority of those in my State--and probably others--will not benefit much from this per child tax credit unless we make this credit refundable. In the areas of capital gains relief, inheritance tax exclusions, and IRA tax cuts, I see something very dangerous brewing that we must not allow to happen. While I don't want to see Medicare cuts made just to put money in the pockets of the wealthy, I can support reasonable tax cuts--as long as they do not come at the expense of achieving real balance in our budget or at the expense of improving our schools or environment. But in this deal, $85 billion in cuts is pledged during the first 5 years of the agreement--and nearly double that amount, $165 billion, is pledged in the following 5 years, 2003-7. Given that the tax cuts are priced at $42 billion in the 10th year of this program-- and are increasing at a rate of $5 billion a year during the last 3 years--we can logically anticipate tax cuts in the vicinity of $500 billion or more, or over half a trillion dollars, during the next 10 years 2008-17. What is alarming about this is that if the numbers I just cited are believable, then all of this celebration on balancing the budget could be premature. The effect of a tax package with these characteristics would be to reduce taxes on well-off Americans by half a trillion dollars, while leaving middle and lower income working Americans with very little relief. A half trillion dollar reduction in our Federal revenues could throw our budget again into substantial deficit. And just at the time that we have discovered that we are once again living beyond our means, then the crushing entitlement costs of retiring Baby Boomers will hit us. I hope we can develop a tax bill that will avoid this result--and I am confident that this budget resolution can be complied with in a fiscally responsible manner. Education As others have said before me, this budget resolution and the balanced budget agreement should be applauded for including many key education programs, including provisions such as increases in Pell grants to $3,000 per student, a new $35 billion program to help more students attend college, and substantial increases in funding for education technology, Goals 2000 grants to States, and other programs to help improve elementary and secondary education. Despite these important elements, however, I believe there are at least two key remaining issues we should address if we hope to make this resolution a blueprint for a more effective system of public education. The first of these education issues is school construction. Our schools' need for funding for school repair and construction is perhaps the most obvious and compelling need that is ignored in this resolution. With a student population that is 47 percent rural and a significant portion of the Nation's BIA schools, New Mexico is facing a school construction problem that exceeds that of many other States. Over 90 percent of New Mexico's schools need to upgrade or repair onsite buildings; 44 percent of districts report having at least one building in need of serious repair or replacement. And as one of the fastest- growing States in the Nation, over 70 percent of our high school students are forced to attend schools that are as large or larger than the 900-student maximum at which student achievement begins to deteriorate. For this reason, I am an original cosponsor of the Moseley-Braun amendment to restore $5 billion in funding to help local school construction efforts. A second educational issue we need to address is rigorous standards for students receiving tuition tax deductions. Now that the President and the leadership have agreed on the need to develop a new $35 billion program to help more students go on to college, it will be essential to ensure that these students are prepared to succeed once they arrive. For the proposed $10,000 tax deduction, we need to find uniform and rigorous measures of academic preparedness to ensure that these funds are being used effectively. A clear measure of academic preparation is necessary because it is increasingly clear that fewer and fewer of those enrolling are receiving adequate preparation to meet the challenge of college-level work. And as a result, more and more students are dropping out, taking remedial courses, or struggling academically. However, linking eligibility for these tax benefits to a student's grade point average--whether it be in college or in high school-- ignores the fact that grades are not a sufficiently uniform or rigorous measure, given the decentralized nature of our schools and colleges. We need to consider more uniform measures, including widely used examinations and adaptations of other assessments for high school students that may be available. Without taking reasonable steps to ensure the academic readiness of students, this new investment to encourage more students to attend college could be a cruel and expensive hoax. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address this issue when the tax bill is being considered later this year. Mr. President, I will support passage of this budget resolution and am glad that we are finally closing in on a balanced budget and the kind of fiscal responsibility that benefits our Nation and our people. But I support this resolution somewhat concerned about the implementing language. If we are not careful, we could adopt legislation which institutionalizes a disparity between what we raise and what we spend. I pledge my best effort to see that the end result of all these efforts is of benefit to working families in my State and it is the hope that we will arrive at such an end result that causes me to vote ``Aye'' on the resolution.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of this amendment by the Senator from Connecticut. I think, to put this in context, at least as I see it, this budget resolution is a blueprint for taking us into the next century. It sets out our priorities as a nation as we go into the next century, what we think it is important to spend our resources on, and what can we justify to the people who elect us in our States for spending resources on. I believe very strongly that we can justify to our constituents, to those who vote for us and those who vote against us, we can justify to any of them the additional expenditure for the Head Start Program that the Senator from Connecticut is recommending here. I look at my home State and the inadequate funding that we have for Head Start there, and it is a great concern. Let me give you a few specifics. In a State like mine, New Mexico, for example, 16 percent of the eligible children under age 5 are enrolled in Head Start. That is in the 1995 fiscal year. The national average is around 20 percent; in my State, it is 16 percent. There are only 1,000 of the 8,000 eligible children that are being served by Head Start in our principal city of Albuquerque, NM, which is about 12 percent of the eligible children in Albuquerque being served. I had the good fortune of visiting a Head Start center and was impressed by the opportunities being offered to those young people, but for them to tell me there are 8,000 eligible students or eligible children who are not able to participate in Albuquerque, I think, is a real concern. Despite the clear need and several proposals to obtain funding that received higher ratings, my State has no early Head Start programs. The early Head Start programs are for the students that are less than 3, as I understand it, and there are some of those around the country but very few. We will have another amendment later on in the budget debate here about the importance of early childhood education and the tremendous impact of trying to work with children from the age of birth until 3 years old. Early Head Start programs provide, fill a need there, and we are doing too little. In my State, we have no, absolutely no early Head Start programs. Increasing Head Start participation to 1 million children by the year 2002, as has been proposed in the resolution, would only increase participation by about 200,000 children, as I understand it. We need to add 1 million children to Head Start, not reach the total of 1 million by the year 2002. For these reasons, I am glad to cosponsor the amendment of Senator Dodd, and glad to speak on behalf of this amendment. Let me say we need to recognize here on the floor, we have a lot of talk about what we can afford and what we cannot afford. We are the wealthiest nation in the world. We have the largest economy of any nation in the world. We are able to afford what we determine is a priority in our country. Unfortunately, we have not determined that it is a priority to fully fund Head Start. This amendment would correct that very major defect in this budget resolution. I strongly support it. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. Modification of Amendment No. 296

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, during the last few years, many of us have been trying to figure out how to solve some of the troubling questions surrounding public education. These issues include two core questions, one about inadequate academic standards and the the other about the skyrocketing cost of going on to college. What can we do to improve the standards of academic performance in our schools and, how can we make college more affordable to more of our students? One very straightforward answer is to expand the number of advanced placement courses taught in our schools and to increase the number of students who have the opportunity to take those courses. Let me briefly describe what an advanced placement, or AP, course really is. The AP program is a set of college-level courses that are usually taught to high school juniors and seniors for college credit. They are taken on a voluntary basis. These courses are now taught in a majority of our high schools. They use locally developed materials. However, the year-end AP exams are evaluated on a uniform basis, making test scores comparable nationwide. Overall, there are 30 different AP courses, although most students take them in the areas of math and history and science and English. Today, I rise to introduce the College Affordability and High Standards Act of 1997, which is also being cosponsored by Senators Hutchison, Mikulski, Bumpers and Collins. This legislation will allow thousands of additional high school students to participate in AP courses. The bill focuses on low-income and minority students who often attend school in less affluent or in isolated areas. I am introducing this bill based in part on several recent visits to New Mexico high schools, where I learned that what students want is more well-trained teachers. They are asking for more challenging academic work. In my home State, in schools like West Mesa High School in Albuquerque and Las Cruces High School, AP students told me they never thought they could succeed in classes that are this challenging. There is great satisfaction and pride, evidenced by their ability to succeed. While it may seem new, this is not an entirely new approach to raising academics and lowering college costs. In fact, we have had legislation proposed before by Senator Kassebaum and a bipartisan group of other Members, which became law in 1992 and is still in effect. We are just building on this approach. In addition, Secretary Riley, the late President of the AFT Al Shanker, and Boston Schools Superintendent Tom Payzant have spoken out on this. Most importantly, 23 States today provide some type of incentive program to encourage more AP participation. I have a chart I want to show my colleagues to make the point, which shows where there are initiatives to promote AP instruction. The States in white do not have an incentive program in place. We need to supplement the 23 States listed on this map with AP programs in the other 27 States, and we need to have every State in the Union promoting more advance placement courses. In essence, that is the purpose of this legislation. There is a long-outdated myth that I want to address very briefly about what type of students take these AP courses. There has been in the past the impression that AP courses are only for the elite. The truth is, more and more students from minority groups from various backgrounds are taking AP courses today, as this chart shows, with out a decrease in rigor or quality. Roughly 1.5 million students participated--80 percent from public schools, 55 percent female, and 30 percent minority. Almost 60 percent of all high schools offered AP courses, and over 800,000 exams were taken. As a result of this growth, the AP program is the most widely accepted program of high academic standards in the nation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 748 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, during the last few years, many of us have been trying to figure out how to solve some of the troubling questions surrounding public education. These issues include two core questions, one about inadequate academic standards and the the other about the skyrocketing cost of going on to college. What can we do to improve the standards of academic performance in our schools and, how can we make college more affordable to more of our students? One very straightforward answer is to expand the number of advanced placement courses taught in our schools and to increase the number of students who have the opportunity to take those courses. Let me briefly describe what an advanced placement, or AP, course really is. The AP program is a set of college-level courses that are usually taught to high school juniors and seniors for college credit. They are taken on a voluntary basis. These courses are now taught in a majority of our high schools. They use locally developed materials. However, the year-end AP exams are evaluated on a uniform basis, making test scores comparable nationwide. Overall, there are 30 different AP courses, although most students take them in the areas of math and history and science and English. Today, I rise to introduce the College Affordability and High Standards Act of 1997, which is also being cosponsored by Senators Hutchison, Mikulski, Bumpers and Collins. This legislation will allow thousands of additional high school students to participate in AP courses. The bill focuses on low-income and minority students who often attend school in less affluent or in isolated areas. I am introducing this bill based in part on several recent visits to New Mexico high schools, where I learned that what students want is more well-trained teachers. They are asking for more challenging academic work. In my home State, in schools like West Mesa High School in Albuquerque and Las Cruces High School, AP students told me they never thought they could succeed in classes that are this challenging. There is great satisfaction and pride, evidenced by their ability to succeed. While it may seem new, this is not an entirely new approach to raising academics and lowering college costs. In fact, we have had legislation proposed before by Senator Kassebaum and a bipartisan group of other Members, which became law in 1992 and is still in effect. We are just building on this approach. In addition, Secretary Riley, the late President of the AFT Al Shanker, and Boston Schools Superintendent Tom Payzant have spoken out on this. Most importantly, 23 States today provide some type of incentive program to encourage more AP participation. I have a chart I want to show my colleagues to make the point, which shows where there are initiatives to promote AP instruction. The States in white do not have an incentive program in place. We need to supplement the 23 States listed on this map with AP programs in the other 27 States, and we need to have every State in the Union promoting more advance placement courses. In essence, that is the purpose of this legislation. There is a long-outdated myth that I want to address very briefly about what type of students take these AP courses. There has been in the past the impression that AP courses are only for the elite. The truth is, more and more students from minority groups from various backgrounds are taking AP courses today, as this chart shows, with out a decrease in rigor or quality. Roughly 1.5 million students participated--80 percent from public schools, 55 percent female, and 30 percent minority. Almost 60 percent of all high schools offered AP courses, and over 800,000 exams were taken. As a result of this growth, the AP program is the most widely accepted program of high academic standards in the nation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments this morning and talk about this Congress' commitment to education, and special education in particular. S. 717, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Amendments Act of 1997, is the first piece of major legislation to come out of the Senate Labor Committee since the start of the 105th Congress that directly affects the important issue of education. This piece of legislation before the Senate today is an integral part of providing educational services to over 5 million children across this country. This legislation reminds us of the fundamental importance of the need for strong educational funding at a time when all eyes are focused on budget-balancing. Mr. President, special education is of critical importance to my home State of New Mexico, in which over 50,000 children receive specialized educational services. In New Mexico over 14 percent of the eligible school age population receive needed educational services from this law. Currently, New Mexico receives over $26 million in Federal funding to assist the educational needs of special education students. This funding is very important to States like New Mexico that have rural and isolated communities and are working to provide specialized educational services at great distances. Over the past 2 years especially, and throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have heard numerous stories from New Mexico's students, parents, educators, and administrators about the need for added resources and effective programs for special education students. I have also heard their concerns about the current Federal law, which include: financial incentives to over-identify students as disabled; lack of standards and performance assessments; the difficulty teachers and administrators face in maintaining classroom discipline; and the concerns of parents who are struggling to find the best possible placement for their child and to ensure that educational services are provided. However, I believe that the legislation before the Senate begins to address these concerns. This bill: First, includes language that will increase educational accountability and standards for disabled students, Second, creates new measures to allow parents and Federal agencies to monitor and assure the adequacy of special education programs, Third, includes language that aims to increase flexibility for State and local school districts and reduces paperwork for school districts, Fourth, strengthens teachers' and administrators' abilities to control their classrooms, without ceasing educational services to students, Fifth, includes language that will ensure access to assistive technology for our special education students and provisions to allow blind and visually handicapped students learn Braille, Sixth, removes past incentives to encourage the overidentification of children with disabilities. I am especially happy to see statutory language that requires the inclusion of almost all special education students in testing and accountability programs. Just recently I heard a story from a special education administrator in New Mexico that expressed the importance of integrating standards in special education and how they promote accountability and improved services. In Kentucky, for many years, some neighborhood schools were sending their special education students to other schools to receive specialized services. However, when Kentucky started to require assessments for special education students and included these scores in school report cards, some of these neighborhood schools started to educate their special education students within their own schools so as to improve the student's academic levels. Mr. President, the requirement for inclusion of special education students in academic assessments is a key aspect to ensuring that this legislation will be effectively implemented in schools throughout New Mexico and across the United States. Mr. President, I plan to support this legislation because I believe it strikes a balance between the different views and needs of many of the stakeholders within the special education community. This legislation begins to address many of my concerns and the concerns that I have heard from my constituents in New Mexico. I am especially pleased to see language included in this legislation that allows states and local districts flexibility in the implementation of IDEA. Just 2 weeks ago, the President and congressional leaders reached a budget agreement that included increased funding for education. It is imperative that Congress remains committed to providing quality education to our Nation's youth. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take the bipartisan and bicameral commitment to education that has been exemplified in the reauthorization of IDEA and to focus on increased funding and the development of standards that provide educational opportunities to all students. Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of my colleagues both here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to reauthorize IDEA and I applaud their commitment to education. This is not the time in our Nation's history to waver on our commitment to educate America's students.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, is it in order to ask unanimous consent at this time? I ask unanimous consent a fellow in my office, Bob Simon, be allowed the privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 672.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would prefer to make a short statement after this bill and then do the colloquy.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me point out the general framework of this discussion as I understand it. The administration, in the supplemental request that they sent to Congress, suggested that we needed to add $318 million in order to essentially continue a windfall that had been in the previous law to various States under the highway funding formula. There was 24 States. And this was what I would refer to as the 1997 fix. For fiscal year 1997, we were saying, essentially the administration was saying, look, these States expected to get more than they really should have been getting, but we will give them this $318 million to divide among these 24 States. Then, in the supplemental, we first saw a proposal to add some additional money for 10 other States, and that was added by the subcommittee chairman in the Appropriations Committee, not for fiscal year 1997 but for fiscal year 1996, and he was saying, OK, you have made good to these States for this windfall that was represented to them for 1997; what about for 1996? They ought to get the money they expected in 1996 as well, and he added money for that. Now, the Appropriations Committee has come along and said, what we are going to do, if all this windfall money is going out to these 24 States--and, clearly, that is what is happening here, and I am not opposed to that, but they are saying if all that money is going out to these windfall States, let us at least hold harmless the rest of the States. Let us make sure they do not see an absolute cut in the level of funding for highways in this current year over 1996. So it is essentially a save harmless provision. It says that although we are going to give this money to these 24 States that expected to get the money, we are not going to have it adversely affect any of the other States, and that is the provision which Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd have reported to the full Senate here. The Warner amendment, of course, comes along and says, no, we do not want to save harmless these other States. We, in fact, want to go ahead and cut some of those States' funding from what they did receive in 1996, and, clearly, that to me is not a fair arrangement. If this group of States is going to get the windfall, which the administration requested and which the appropriations subcommittee has added, then all other States should be held harmless, and that is what the bill does at this time. The Warner amendment would eliminate that hold-harmless provision and would result in States like mine getting less money than we otherwise would. So I think, clearly, the Warner amendment should be defeated. The committee proposal here is by far the fairest of the proposals, and I hope my colleagues will join me in defeating the Warner amendment. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, during the last several days, I have expressed concerns about various provisions and amendments on this supplemental appropriations Bill. In the end, however, I believe that this bill addresses not only New Mexico's transportation infrastructure needs but also many of the disaster relief demands facing other parts of the Nation, and I will vote for passage. Unfortunately, this bill's continuing resolution provisions--which call for automatic across-the-board cuts--if the Congress fails to pass our appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year is a poor and unacceptable way to legislate. I strongly oppose this provision which does remain in the supplemental appropriations bill. I am hopeful that this provision will be struck in conference and support the President's promised veto if this provision is not struck. These supplemental appropriations bills should focus on the most pressing needs of the Nation--particularly natural disasters that call for our care and attention. We should not be cluttering these bills with provisions such as the continuing resolution provision which either the Conference Committee or the President must remove.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to speak about my amendment No. 69, which strikes section 305 of this supplemental appropriations bill. Section 305 of the bill states that ``Section 5803 of Public Law 104- 208 is hereby repealed.'' That is a very economical formulation, but it doesn't tell the reader much about the substantive issues at stake. For this reason, I would like to take some time to describe to my colleagues what I think the key issues underlying section 305 in the supplemental appropriations bill are, and why I believe section 305 is an unwise step and should be stricken from this bill. Section 305 repeals a $100 million appropriation to a Department of Defense program known as the Dual-Use Applications Program. By doing so, it eliminates one of the two major initiatives in this program. The Dual-Use Applications Program is just getting started. It was authorized for the first time in last year's Defense Authorization Act. Because of this, most of the money appropriated last year has not yet been spent. Awards are now just being made and announced. So, at a very superficial level, the $100 million looks attractive as a candidate for rescission. But the Dual-Use Applications Program is, in my view, essential to our future national defense. This program will introduce major technological changes and cost savings in military applications, and major cultural changes in how the Department of Defense manages R&D. We have forged a bipartisan consensus on the Senate Armed Services Committee in favor of this program. Once my colleagues in the Senate understand what this program is all about, I am confident that they will agree with me that gutting the Dual-Use Applications Program at its inception is a very bad idea for our long-term national security. America's Armed Forces today enjoy technological supremacy over any potential adversary. This is not an accident. It is the result of two things: wise past investments in defense R&D and competent advocacy from the top echelons of DOD for moving the fruits of that R&D into practice. Our current recipe for maintaining military technological supremacy, though, is not a guarantee of future success. In fact, to ensure that our men and women in uniform maintain their technological edge over any future adversary, we will need a new strategy for defense technology. In this strategy, we will have to rely more on the commercial sector to provide defense technologies, through adaptation of cutting-edge commercial technologies to military use, rather than developing the same technology in isolation in a MILSPEC world. There are two forces driving this new overall technology strategy. The first force is the constrained budget for defense R&D. Defense R&D, like all defense spending, is under tremendous pressure as we move toward a balanced budget. We no longer have an open checkbook for defense scientists and engineers, as we essentially did during the cold war. Thus, we need to spend our funds more strategically, and seek ways to leverage our defense R&D dollars. with R&D investments being made by other funding sources. The second force driving the defense world toward greater use of commercial technologies is the fact that technological advances from commercial R&D are outpacing similar advances from military R&D in many applications important to national defense. For example, the military is faced with an explosion of requirements for rapid and widespread processing and dissemination of information. The commercial world has led the development of the Internet, despite its origins in DARPA, and there is now much that the defense world can learn from the commercial world's experience with distributed information processing and communication. Despite the emergence of these two new forces, the defense world is not used to, and is not prepared for, working with the commercial R&D sector in a radically new manner. It is used to thinking about its own, supposedly unique, defense requirements and perhaps some subsequent defense spinoff to commercial applications. It is not used to thinking about common requirements between defense and commercial applications and desirability of commercial ``spin-ons'' to defense applications. This is where the Dual-Use Applications Program, established by section 203 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, comes in. The missions of this program are to a prototype and demonstrate new approaches for DOD to use in leveraging commercial research, technology, products, and processes for military systems. Over the long term, these new approaches to working with industry must become widespread throughout DOD, in order for the Department to take full advantage of the technological opportunities afforded by the commercial sector. These leveraging approaches are not widespread in DOD today, by DOD's own admission. While acquisition reform has helped clear the path to a new relationship between DOD and the commercial sector, DOD reports that its experience to date with acquisition reform has shown that leveraging approaches are unfamiliar to many in DOD and are not widely adopted in the services. There are two initiatives now underway in the Dual-Use Applications Program. Both encourage the leveraging, by the services, of the commercial sector's research, products, and processes for the benefit of DOD and the Nation's defense capabilities. The first initiative is in science and technology research and development. It is very important, and I will describe it at some length. It is not immediately affected by this supplemental appropriations bill, in its current form, but I understand that it is likely to become a target for cuts in a conference. I hope that, after I finish my statement, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee can give me some assurance that he will resist attempts to cut the Science and Technology Initiative. The second initiative is zeroed out by section 305 of this supplemental appropriations bill. It is a Commercial Operations and Support Savings Initiative that will prototype an approach that the service can use to insert, on a routine basis, commercial products and processes into already-fielded military systems to reduce operations and support costs. Section 305 of the bill would repeal section 5803 of last year's Defense Appropriations Act. That provision provides $100 million in funding for DOD's commercial operations and support savings initiative, known as COSSI. Under the COSSI program, DOD plans to insert new commercial technologies into weapons systems to reduce operations and support costs. I am concerned that the elimination of this program could increase defense costs in the long run. DOD has learned that for many weapons systems, operations and support costs far exceed acquisition costs. By investing in upgraded commercial technologies with improved performance, the Department hopes to bring operations and support costs down in the long run.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Having made the case for restoring funds to the COSSI program, I would like to state my hope that such restoration not come at the expense of other dual-use technology programs that will benefit the Department of Defense. The Senate Armed Services Committee has carefully reviewed and authorized the dual use science and technology research element of the Dual Use Application Program as provided for in section 203 of the National Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. Programs developed under this section will provide major enhancements in our military capabilities and can also benefit the commercial sector. Cooperation between DOD and the private sector will provide dual use benefits at a significantly lower cost to the government.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this morning the Federal Communications Commission made its ruling on implementation of the Universal Services Fund. They passed it by a 4-to-0 vote supporting the findings of the Federal-State joint board. This decision by them has opened the door to affordable Internet access for schools, libraries, and hospitals throughout this country. I want to congratulate Commissioner Hundt and his colleagues on the Commission for their leadership and their commitment to putting technology to work in our schools and in our communities. I also want to congratulate my colleagues, Senator Snowe, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Exon, and Senator Kerrey, especially, for their leadership in proposing the Universal Services discount as a provision in the Telecommunications Act which we passed last year. Their hard work on behalf of education technology was critical in getting us to this point. This Universal Services Fund will provide telecommunications discounts of between 20 and 90 percent, depending in part on the income levels of families in the particular school communities. I have done some back-of-the-envelope calculations about my State, and, as far as I can determine, the FCC's decision could mean a discount of more than 70 percent for many New Mexico schools. Education technology is important to my State. We have all seen how it can allow even the smallest or most isolated school across the State to develop a level playing field with larger school districts and, in fact, with wealthier States. In a cost-effective manner, education technology can provide advanced courses and access to amazing amounts of information for all of our students. That is why I am very proud. In 1994, we passed an act that I proposed entitled ``Technology in Education Act.'' That act will provide $200 million to America's schools for purchase of advanced technology. It has brought $1.7 million to my home State of New Mexico this year alone. I support the President's request in his budget to increase the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund from $200 million this year to $425 million next year. The 1994 Technology in Education Act also created the Regional Technology in Education Consortia, these consortia providing schools and school districts with the technical assistance that they need to be full participants in this information age. This technical assistance will be more needed than ever now that the telecommunications costs will be less of an obstacle to schools seeking connections to the Internet. Our country has also made some progress in raising the awareness of the need for high academic standards. I serve on the National Education Goals Panel, and, as such, I have supported the effort to build a nation of learners, and education technology is an important part of doing that. One of the things that we have to do a better job of clearly is training teachers to be comfortable with this new technology. I believe we need to pursue legislation on this area this Congress. I hope to have a part in that. In my view, the educational technology movement will change the way people teach and learn from now on. Distance learning is more than delivering instruction any time and anywhere, although that is an important part of what is involved. It is also about giving teachers the resources that they need to be effective as learning coaches. It is about empowering students to explore and learn in ways that are best for them as individuals. Today's FCC ruling is an important step forward. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to help ensure that our teachers and schoolchildren have the best technology that we can offer as we prepare them for the 21st century. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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