Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand it is appropriate at this point for me to send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will be very brief.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Could we have a ruling on the request for the yeas and nays?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Could we have a 2-minute period, equally divided, a minute each before the second vote to explain just what it is?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection. I would like to take my additional 30 seconds to conclude my debate on my amendment before we start the votes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I will be glad to split the time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in order to describe what this amendment does, let me first just give my colleagues the context, the way this bill is structured so they understand what we are talking about here. Under this bill, the way it is pending before us, we have the Secretary of Energy proceeding to go forward and study and analyze the appropriateness of using the Yucca Mountain site as a permanent repository and doing what is called the viability assessment to decide whether Yucca Mountain is going to be the right site, or an appropriate site. If the Department of Energy, the Secretary of Energy, advises the President and the President determines that Yucca Mountain is not a proper site, then at that point we go to plan B, and plan B says that the President then has 18 months in which to choose another interim site for the waste except that under the bill the way it now stands after the last amendment and previous amendments that were adopted, he can choose another site with some exceptions. The exceptions are, first, the President shall not designate the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the State of Washington as a site for the construction of an interim storage facility. The second exception is that he shall not designate the Savannah River site and any of Barnwell County in the State of South Carolina. And, of course, we just adopted an amendment saying that he shall not designate the Oak Ridge reservation in the State of Tennessee. Mr. President, what this amendment does that I am offering right now is say let us strike those exceptions. If in fact the President determines that Yucca Mountain is not the right site for a permanent repository, then we ought to all be in this thing together and the Secretary and the President should have full discretion to designate whatever site they want. Otherwise, Mr. President, I as a Senator from New Mexico have to answer the question from my constituents, why didn't I stand up and get some exceptions added for New Mexico. For example, everyone in my State knows that we have a nuclear waste site being constructed in New Mexico and not too far from being opened, the WIPP site, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan. Why didn't I stand up and offer an amendment to exclude the WIPP site? That would be a very logical thing to do. If I were representing Colorado, I think the citizens of Colorado would have a very legitimate question that they could put to me: Why didn't you, Senator, stand up and move to exclude Rocky Flats? That is a contaminated site, just as contaminated as Hanford, just as contaminated as Savannah River. Rocky Flats certainly should be on the list of excluded sites. If I was representing Idaho, why haven't I excluded the Idaho site? There is great concern in the State of Idaho about the possibility of nuclear waste remaining in that State. Ohio, the mound site. There has been a lot of concern about contamination of the mound site. How could a Senator representing the good people of Ohio explain to them why that site was not also excluded? What about Florida? We have the Pinellas site there which was a manufacturing site for components for nuclear weapons. Why haven't we excluded that site? I would ask how any Senator here could stand and explain to their constituents why we have not excluded all Superfund sites. Superfund sites would be very logical sites for the President to choose as an alternative to this Nevada site if in fact the President has to make that determination. What about shutdown military bases. Why shouldn't we exclude them? There is a real danger in many of our States--we have been fortunate in New Mexico. None of our military bases have been shut down, but there are many States in the country where military bases have been shut down. If I was representing one of those States, I would want to be sure that shutdown military bases were not on the list that the President could choose from. So, I think I have made the point fairly clear that it is very hard for me to explain to people in my State why I am opposed to putting waste in Tennessee, I am opposed to putting waste in South Carolina, I am opposed to putting waste in Washington State, but I do not mind putting it in our State. That is a very difficult argument to make. So my amendment would say, look, let us eliminate the exceptions. Let us recognize that there is a certain amount of risk involved in the legislation we are passing. The risk says if we determine, if the President determines, down the road that Yucca Mountain is not to be chosen, then we are all in this thing together and everyone is in the barrel. We cannot just say this State is out, that State is out, the other State is out, and the other 47 are in the barrel. I think that is only reasonable. I know we have a lot of so-called NIMBY amendments around the Congress--``not in my backyard'' is a NIMBY amendment. We have three NIMBY amendments stuck in this bill so far. I am just wondering why we do not have 47 additional ones stuck in here so we can exclude all 50 States, if we are going to exclude 3. So my amendment would say let us eliminate the three that are there. If we are going to go down this road, if we are going to adopt this bill, if we are going to give the President discretion to choose an alternative site, let us give him discretion to choose an alternative site wherever he determines or she determines it makes sense to put this waste. That is the sum and substance of the amendment. To me it is straightforward. It is good government. It is good politics for any of us who represent States other than the three that are now excluded. I hope very much my colleagues will support the amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Forty-five seconds? I will not take any longer. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Oregon and his concern for the Pacific Northwest. I compliment him on getting this provision in the bill. I will only make the point that I represent the desert Southwest, not the Pacific Northwest. And just as the Pacific Northwest ought to be excluded, so should the desert Southwest. Therefore, I suggest we have a level playing field and not exclude anyone. We all ought to be in this barrel together. When we get to my amendment, I will restate that position, because we will have 2 minutes of additional debate on it. I also support Senator Bumpers' amendment which we are going to vote on right now.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Make that 30 minutes, and I will take a little less.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Bob Simon, who is on detail on my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 104.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the Surface Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act. As I do, Mr. President, I want to emphasize my belief that the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], has in large part been a great success for our Nation. ISTEA has been a revolutionary effort to distribute transportation funding to assist States in major highway, bridge, environmental, research, and safety projects. After 6 years, however, we have learned that there are areas of ISTEA in which we can make significant improvement. STARS 2000 is the best mechanism so far by which we can do that. I am cosponsoring STARS 2000 because it reemphasizes the national interest in a national transportation system. Mr. President, each State is a vital part of the national system; without one part the whole system fails. The highway system in New Mexico for instance, serves not just its resident and industrial traffic needs, but its highways also serve as a vital link for commerce between the Pacific coast and the eastern seaboard, and between Mexico and Canada. The system of highways crossing New Mexico is also crucial for the movement of manpower, equipment, and supplies in support of our Nation's defense. STARS 2000 offers a balanced, sensible approach so that all the States continue to play a central role to the overriding national goals. Just as importantly, STARS 2000 effectively addresses the unique character of western, rural States and their importance to our national system of highway. New Mexico, for example, has only six-tenths of 1 percent of the total U.S. population. However, it must maintain 2 percent, 3,000 miles, of the National Highway System. Many people do not realize that road travel takes on a different meaning in the West. For instance, a trip from Farmington, NM, to Hobbs, NM, is 513 miles, and there are few options other than driving to make that tip. By contrast, that same distance would take you from Washington, DC, to Detroit, MI. STARTS 2000 also builds on the successes of ISTEA. For instance, the Surface Transportation Program maintains Federal support for the bride replacement and rehabilitation program. STARS 2000 also maintains support for Federal lands roads, a program that is vital to States in the West where a vast majority of our Nation's Federal lands are located. Forty percent of New Mexico, for example, is Federal land. STARS 2000 eliminates the old system that penalizes a State for using Federal funds on roads located on Federal lands and Indian reservations. This is a step in the right direction and it is desperately needed in the West. I am concerned that STARS proposes only level funding for the Indian reservation road program. Although I am supporting S. 437, the American Indian Transportation Improvement Act, I will continue to try to increase funding for roads and bridges on Indian reservations. STARS 2000 also includes a program that addresses congestion management and air quality. I am concerned, however, with the degree to which resources for this activity have been cut and the fact that it is eliminated as a separate category within STARS. CMAQ has been a significant reason cities like Albuquerque have attained and are maintaining clear air standards, and I hope we will find ways to keep this program working. Additionally, STARS 2000 addresses the need to maintain our Nation's current system of roads and bridges. Unless the current system is sufficiently maintained, we will inevitably have to spend many more dollars to rebuild the system, something we can ill-afford. In New Mexico, like most other States, maintenance costs overwhelm the State's total highway budget. To its credit, New Mexico applies much of its highway funding to maintenance. Nevertheless, if the entire New Mexico road budget were applied to maintenance alone, only 7,500 of the State's 11,600 miles of highways could be adequately maintained. As many as 5,800 miles of New Mexico's roads have deteriorated to the point that they must be replaced at a cost of $1.15 million per mile. As a result, New Mexico, like most other States in the West, is unable to fund other critical transportation objects. As we continue to recommit ourselves to maintaining and improving our Nation's transportation system, let me say that it is also incumbent upon the individual States to share in this ever-increasing responsibility. Clearly, there is a strong national transportation interest, but the States must recognize its own obligations. We are doing our part at the Federal level, and States must do the same. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I commend my esteemed colleagues, Senators Baucus, Kempthorne, and Thomas, for working diligently to assemble this legislation. I believe that STARS is a measure that will eventually lead to a better, more efficient transportation system in our country and ultimately a stronger economy.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the Surface Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act. As I do, Mr. President, I want to emphasize my belief that the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], has in large part been a great success for our Nation. ISTEA has been a revolutionary effort to distribute transportation funding to assist States in major highway, bridge, environmental, research, and safety projects. After 6 years, however, we have learned that there are areas of ISTEA in which we can make significant improvement. STARS 2000 is the best mechanism so far by which we can do that. I am cosponsoring STARS 2000 because it reemphasizes the national interest in a national transportation system. Mr. President, each State is a vital part of the national system; without one part the whole system fails. The highway system in New Mexico for instance, serves not just its resident and industrial traffic needs, but its highways also serve as a vital link for commerce between the Pacific coast and the eastern seaboard, and between Mexico and Canada. The system of highways crossing New Mexico is also crucial for the movement of manpower, equipment, and supplies in support of our Nation's defense. STARS 2000 offers a balanced, sensible approach so that all the States continue to play a central role to the overriding national goals. Just as importantly, STARS 2000 effectively addresses the unique character of western, rural States and their importance to our national system of highway. New Mexico, for example, has only six-tenths of 1 percent of the total U.S. population. However, it must maintain 2 percent, 3,000 miles, of the National Highway System. Many people do not realize that road travel takes on a different meaning in the West. For instance, a trip from Farmington, NM, to Hobbs, NM, is 513 miles, and there are few options other than driving to make that tip. By contrast, that same distance would take you from Washington, DC, to Detroit, MI. STARTS 2000 also builds on the successes of ISTEA. For instance, the Surface Transportation Program maintains Federal support for the bride replacement and rehabilitation program. STARS 2000 also maintains support for Federal lands roads, a program that is vital to States in the West where a vast majority of our Nation's Federal lands are located. Forty percent of New Mexico, for example, is Federal land. STARS 2000 eliminates the old system that penalizes a State for using Federal funds on roads located on Federal lands and Indian reservations. This is a step in the right direction and it is desperately needed in the West. I am concerned that STARS proposes only level funding for the Indian reservation road program. Although I am supporting S. 437, the American Indian Transportation Improvement Act, I will continue to try to increase funding for roads and bridges on Indian reservations. STARS 2000 also includes a program that addresses congestion management and air quality. I am concerned, however, with the degree to which resources for this activity have been cut and the fact that it is eliminated as a separate category within STARS. CMAQ has been a significant reason cities like Albuquerque have attained and are maintaining clear air standards, and I hope we will find ways to keep this program working. Additionally, STARS 2000 addresses the need to maintain our Nation's current system of roads and bridges. Unless the current system is sufficiently maintained, we will inevitably have to spend many more dollars to rebuild the system, something we can ill-afford. In New Mexico, like most other States, maintenance costs overwhelm the State's total highway budget. To its credit, New Mexico applies much of its highway funding to maintenance. Nevertheless, if the entire New Mexico road budget were applied to maintenance alone, only 7,500 of the State's 11,600 miles of highways could be adequately maintained. As many as 5,800 miles of New Mexico's roads have deteriorated to the point that they must be replaced at a cost of $1.15 million per mile. As a result, New Mexico, like most other States in the West, is unable to fund other critical transportation objects. As we continue to recommit ourselves to maintaining and improving our Nation's transportation system, let me say that it is also incumbent upon the individual States to share in this ever-increasing responsibility. Clearly, there is a strong national transportation interest, but the States must recognize its own obligations. We are doing our part at the Federal level, and States must do the same. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I commend my esteemed colleagues, Senators Baucus, Kempthorne, and Thomas, for working diligently to assemble this legislation. I believe that STARS is a measure that will eventually lead to a better, more efficient transportation system in our country and ultimately a stronger economy.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to honor the achievements of the students and educators at West Mesa High School in Albuquerque, NM, and especially its growing Advanced Placement [AP] program. On Tuesday, April 1, I had the opportunity to visit West Mesa and speak with students and teachers participating in the school's AP program. Several State legislators and business leaders joined me in a short but invaluable group discussion and class visit. Perhaps most impressive was the visit to one of Mr. Tomas Fernandez' AP English classes, where students explained in their own words why AP courses are so important. In this class, the students don't ask for less home work or ``dumbed-down'' classes; they are demanding more challenging classes and higher academic expectations for all students. While AP classes are new to many, and set a very high standard, the students had found that they could succeed. Principal Milton Baca and a growing number of West Mesa teachers are responding to this demand by providing more and more challenging classes in the school's growing AP program. For example, West Mesa recently added an AP Calculus course in addition to its AP English course, and five teachers attended AP teacher training institutes last summer. More teachers are planning to attend AP training courses this summer so they can start an AP science course in the next school year. I applaud all of these efforts. For college-bound students, taking AP courses and passing AP exams can translate into valuable college credits for advanced high school work. For those AP students who decide not to go to college, they and their prospective employers can be confident that they are better prepared academically and will have an advantage as they compete for jobs and enter the work force. Because AP programs are so beneficial to both work- and college-bound students, I have been working on efforts to expand these programs, as part of the solution to our State's clear need for immediate, measurable education reform. To show the importance of strong academic skills to employers, I am working with several businesses in New Mexico to develop employment incentives for students who take and pass AP exams, especially in the core academic areas of English, math, and science. In addition, I am gratified that the State legislature increased funding for the AP New Mexico program to $200,000 next year, as I requested in testimony before the relevant committees. Despite this important progress, West Mesa High School and New Mexico have a long way to go to more fully utilize the AP program as a way to challenge high school students, raise academic achievement to higher levels, and improve our long-term economic productivity. In New Mexico, roughly 5,000 students took AP classes in 1996--up 22 percent from 2 years ago--with a 20-percent increase in AP tests taken, but this is still below the national average. New Mexico's per-capita participation rate remains 20 percent lower than Arizona's and 40 percent below the national average. We are facing an uphill struggle to improve our schools and students' academic performance in several areas, including making better use of the AP program. But the strides that West Mesa High School is making are compelling evidence that we can make real and lasting positive change in our schools. I congratulate West Mesa's students and teachers on their accomplishments so far, wish them well on further advancement, and offer my assistance as they continue to improve.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to add my voice to the statement that the Senator from North Dakota made a little earlier in the proceedings about the importance of us getting on to a vote on the Chemical Weapons Convention. I believe very firmly that this is an issue which has been hanging around the Senate for too long. We have had many--in fact, years of consideration. We have had, I believe, 14 hearings now on the Chemical Weapons Convention. The convention was supported, of course, by the previous administration. President Bush signed the agreement. We need now in this administration, the second Clinton administration, to go ahead and ratify it. There is an important date coming up which is the 29th of April, which is the date by which we need to take action. Let me address that issue first, because I know the Senator from Oklahoma did speak to the fact that, in his opinion, April 29 was not a date of any consequence and it did not matter whether we did anything this month or not on the treaty. This is sort of a recent argument that has been made and one I think needs to be responded to. A failure to ratify by April 29 will have significant adverse consequences for our security and for U.S. businesses as well. Our ability to oversee the first critical days and months of implementation of the treaty will be lost. We now have Americans who are heading up the various divisions that monitor the treaty's budget and security measures and industry inspections, and those individuals, those Americans who now are involved in that will be replaced by individuals from countries that have ratified the treaty if we do not take action by the 29th of April. Moreover, Americans will not be able to be hired as inspectors with these international teams if we do not ratify the treaty. Hundreds of millions of dollars in sales of American chemical companies and many jobs in many of our States will be at risk as a result of mandatory trade restrictions which were originally designed to pressure rogue states to join in the treaty. Those will be applied to us, Mr. President, if we do not go ahead and vote and ratify this treaty. Failure to ratify, of course, relegates us to the so-called international pariahs that we give a lot of speeches about here on the Senate floor, countries like Libya and North Korea. We would be squandering U.S. international leadership in the fight against chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. There have been many speeches given on the floor and by our President about how the United States, at this particular point in history, is the indispensable Nation. We are the one remaining superpower in the world, both militarily and economically and, as such, we have a particular responsibility to lead. Our failure to take action on this treaty on the Senate floor is an abrogation or default of that responsibility and one I think that I do not want to be any party to. Another issue that has been raised, which I think needs to be addressed, is this issue which involves the question of whether or not the Chemical Weapons Convention could be interpreted as providing rogue states with the ability to acquire advanced U.S. technologies if we enter into this treaty. The issue was raised at the Armed Services Committee hearing that we had a couple of weeks ago. In fact, the Senator from Oklahoma was there and requested that we get some kind of statement from our Department of Defense in writing about their view of this. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated April 2 to Senator Robert Smith and signed by Franklin Miller, who is the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this letter goes into great detail about why there is no provision in the treaty and there is nothing in the treaty that our Department of Defense would interpret as putting an obligation on us to provide sensitive technologies to rogue states: Senator Inhofe raised a particular concern regarding Paragraph 3 of Article X. This paragraph states that ``Each Party undertakes to facilitate, and shall have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, material and scientific and technological information concerning the means of protection against chemical weapons.'' The letter goes on to say: The inclusion of the words ``facilitate'' and ``possible'' underscores that no specific exchange is required and that any exchange which does occur is limited to that which we determine would be appropriate and permitted under the Convention. I think it is clear from this analysis that our own Department of Defense feels very comfortable with the provisions of this Chemical Weapons Convention. The overriding context that this convention is presented to us in has to be considered, Mr. President, whenever you are debating the chemical weapons treaty or the Chemical Weapons Convention. Sometime over a decade ago, the United States made a decision to terminate the use of chemical weapons and, in fact, to destroy our stockpile of chemical weapons. President Reagan signed the law to do just that. In accordance with that, President Bush came along, after President Reagan, and went ahead and carried out that policy and entered into the Chemical Weapons Convention on behalf of the country and sent the treaty to the Senate for consideration. It has been languishing here ever since President Bush sent it here for consideration. I think that we would have a very different debate and you would have a very different lineup of people on different sides of this issue-- and, frankly, you would have many more people in opposition to this treaty--if, in fact, we had not made a decision and put in our own law a provision to renounce the use of chemical weapons. But we did. We made that decision. President Reagan signed that law. And now for people to come to the floor and say, no, no, we are going to be putting ourselves at some kind of disadvantage if we enter into a treaty with 161 other countries which would subject them to the same kind of policy decision which we already made some decade ago, just has no logic to it. Clearly, there are problems in verifying this treaty. There are problems in verifying any treaty. They are probably complicated when it comes to verifying a treaty to ban chemical weapons because it takes such a small amount of technology and such a small amount of space to produce chemical weapons. But that does not mean that we should just give up on any and all efforts to verify and any and all efforts to inspect. I think Madeleine Albright, our Secretary of State, made the point very well in a statement she made yesterday where she said, just because there may be people--and there are people--who will continue to murder and pillage and sell drugs, does not mean we should not pass laws to prohibit that. We should pass those laws. We should do our very best to enforce those laws and implement them. That is true with chemical weapons as well. There may be people--and there undoubtedly will be--some rogue states and some individual groups, terrorist groups, that try to violate this treaty. All I can say is, we need to redouble our efforts to enforce the treaty once we ratify it. We need to work with other countries to gain their assistance in doing that enforcement. Clearly, it is in the best interest of the people of this country that we take every action we possibly can to reduce the likelihood that chemical weapons will ever be used against Americans in future conflicts or in a nonconflict situation. Perhaps the biggest threat that we face is not in the use of chemical weapons in a conflict. The biggest threat may be the kind of an incident that occurred in Japan in a subway where a terrorist group decides that for some perverted reason they are going to engage in the use of chemical weapons. This treaty will help us to ferret out those kinds of incidents, those kinds of risks and to deal with them ahead of time. I think it is clearly in our best interest to do so. Mr. President, let me just say that I have confidence that the Senate, if allowed to vote on this issue, will vote by the necessary supermajority to go ahead and pass the treaty and ratify the treaty. What we are up against now is an inability to get the treaty to the floor for a vote. And that, I think, is a very sad procedural circumstance that we have. We have a committee chair who has announced that he may or may not allow this issue to be reported from the committee so that the full Senate can express its will on the subject. Mr. President, I hope very much that my colleagues will join me in seeing to it that we do get this issue to the floor, and that we go ahead and vote on the treaty. If a Senator wants to vote against the Chemical Weapons Convention and go home and explain to his or her constituents why they voted against the Chemical Weapons Convention, then fine. That is the way the system is supposed to work. But for us to deny Members the right to vote is really indefensible, in my view, on an issue of this importance. This is tremendously important. I have urged, as several Members know, the Democratic leader, and indicated to the majority leader that I thought it was irresponsible for the Senate to continue doing business as usual while this issue continues to languish in committee. The deadline is approaching. This is time sensitive. We need to go ahead and get the issue to the floor and allow a good debate, allow amendments, and allow a vote on the Chemical Weapons Convention. I think that needs to be our top priority this April. And we are still early enough in the month that we can bring this to the floor, debate it, vote on it, and let the Senate do its will. The American people have a right to expect that from us. And clearly we need to go ahead and follow that course of action. I think for us to continue with discussions about: Well, it does not really matter whether we sign up now or sign up in June or maybe July or maybe this fall some time, that is not accurate, Mr. President. It does matter. And we will be giving up a leadership role that we should have on arms control issues. We will be giving up a leadership role we should have on the banning of chemical weapons. Clearly, I think that is contrary to the best interests of the people I represent and contrary to the best interests of the American people generally. Mr. President, I urge the majority leader and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put aside other business, and bring this issue to the floor. Let us vote on it. Let us have a debate. Anyone who wants to offer an amendment should be able to do that. Anyone who wants to offer implementing legislation should be able to do that. The Senate should vote on it, and then get about other business. So I hope that is the course we follow. Mr. President, I know there will be additional chances this afternoon and later on to debate this issue in more depth. I look forward to those. I believe very firmly that this is one of the most important issues this Congress, this 105th Congress, will address. I hope very much that we will clear the other procedural matters and the other substantive matters that are on the agenda and get on to a vote on the Chemical Weapons Convention. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, without objecting, I would like to ask a question of the majority leader before proceeding or determining whether to object. As the majority leader and the Democratic leader both know, I have been very concerned that we get some agreements or understanding about how the Chemical Weapons Convention is to be handled in April. We have a deadline coming at us. I think the convention, as I understand it, goes into effect on the 29th of April. We have to, if the United States is to participate, if the judgment of the Senate is we should participate in that, we would have to make that judgment several days before that. At least that is what I have been informed. I am just concerned that time is running out. We seem to be taking one legislative or executive matter up after another here without really having an understanding about how we are going to dispose of this Chemical Weapons Convention. I wondered if the majority leader could assure me about how this is going to be brought to the Senate and dealt with in the coming month?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me just respond by saying I appreciate the statements by the majority leader. I have observed the majority leader here for several months, and I have great confidence that when he expects and intends for a particular matter to come to the Senate floor and be dealt with, that that will actually occur, and I am encouraged by his statements to that affect. On that basis, I will not object to this particular unanimous-consent request. I will plan to renew my concern once we return from this recess if it is not clear at that time that we have all parties in agreement as to the timing to bring that convention to the floor. I think timing is essential. I have no problem with amendments and changes. I am not trying to dictate the end result on what the Senate does, but I think it is very important that we vote on it in a timely fashion. I take the statement by the majority leader to be a statement that he intends and expects that we will work assiduously to bring that about. I thank the majority leader. I do not object.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I just wanted to also comment on this issue and state that I think we are to the point where it is not responsible for the Senate to go on with its other business if we cannot get agreement among Senators to bring up this very important matter on a timely basis. I think clearly we can do other work while we wait for the time certain to bring up the Chemical Weapons Convention, but if we cannot get agreement to bring it up, then I do not think it is responsible for us to go ahead and proceed with business as usual. Unfortunately, under the rules of the Senate, the only option available to those of us in the minority is to insist that this issue, which is time sensitive, be given attention by the Senate or at least get scheduled for attention by the Senate before we proceed to other matters, and I would expect to do that in the future. I do think the majority leader is trying to move ahead with this, but evidently there are objections being raised by others. I do not question that amendments will be offered. I do not question that real issues will be raised about different portions of the treaty. That is what we are designated to do under the Constitution, to debate those issues and vote on them. We do have a responsibility, though, to have a final vote on this treaty in a timely fashion, and I think until we can get agreement to do that, it is very difficult to proceed with business as usual. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997. This is an act that is long overdue. It would ensure that the native American communities in our country received the necessary funding to keep up with their growing infrastructure needs, in this case, roads. This bill would also ensure that we continue the Federal responsibility and commitment to native Americans. In addition, Mr. President, the American Indian Transportation Improvement Act would go a long way toward providing native American communities the necessary means toward economic and rural development to attract more business enterprises, tourism and thereby, job creation. As my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, has aptly described today, Indian tribes and Alaskan communities must maintain over 50,000 miles of roadways. Many of our Nation's bridges and roadways are in great need of repair and upgrade, and tribal roads and bridges are by no means an exception. This year as we work toward ISTEA reauthorization, we must address many complicated issues. For example, we must determine whether and to what extent distribution formulas should be adjusted, whether to provide States added flexibility in administering programs, and whether and to what extent current environmental protections should be enhanced. But as we toil to address these issues, we must realize that tribal communities are facing and must address transportation issues just as challenging as those we address on a State and national Level. Tribes have the same needs and are just as interested as our Nation's urban dwellers in improving roads and bridges. Tribal communities are interested in establishing and maintaining mass transit systems especially to assist their elderly, disabled, and youth get to and from places for goods, services, health care, and after-school activities. Mr. President, our investment in city, State, county, and tribal transportation systems is an investment from which we will certainly reap larger economic benefits and a much greater quality of life for communities greatly in need of help.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997. This is an act that is long overdue. It would ensure that the native American communities in our country received the necessary funding to keep up with their growing infrastructure needs, in this case, roads. This bill would also ensure that we continue the Federal responsibility and commitment to native Americans. In addition, Mr. President, the American Indian Transportation Improvement Act would go a long way toward providing native American communities the necessary means toward economic and rural development to attract more business enterprises, tourism and thereby, job creation. As my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, has aptly described today, Indian tribes and Alaskan communities must maintain over 50,000 miles of roadways. Many of our Nation's bridges and roadways are in great need of repair and upgrade, and tribal roads and bridges are by no means an exception. This year as we work toward ISTEA reauthorization, we must address many complicated issues. For example, we must determine whether and to what extent distribution formulas should be adjusted, whether to provide States added flexibility in administering programs, and whether and to what extent current environmental protections should be enhanced. But as we toil to address these issues, we must realize that tribal communities are facing and must address transportation issues just as challenging as those we address on a State and national Level. Tribes have the same needs and are just as interested as our Nation's urban dwellers in improving roads and bridges. Tribal communities are interested in establishing and maintaining mass transit systems especially to assist their elderly, disabled, and youth get to and from places for goods, services, health care, and after-school activities. Mr. President, our investment in city, State, county, and tribal transportation systems is an investment from which we will certainly reap larger economic benefits and a much greater quality of life for communities greatly in need of help.