Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I strongly support the President's nomination of Federico Pena as Secretary of Energy. He comes before the Senate today with 4 years of experience as Secretary of Transportation. This experience will stand him in good stead in his new position since the Department of Transportation has a number of features that are in common with the Department of Energy. Both agencies were formed by fusing organizational elements taken from various other departments and agencies. Both agencies currently have responsibility for a wide range of divergent issues and programs, and in recent years both agencies have had to square the desires of their traditional core constituencies with new environmental considerations and sensitivities. Only two of Secretary Pena's predecessors, James Schlesinger and James Watkins, were able to come before the Senate at the time of their nomination with comparable credentials as managers of large and complex Federal organizations. The Department of Transportation's budget is more than $30 billion, nearly twice the budget of the Department of Energy. It employs nearly 100,000 Federal employees compared to the 20,000 employed at the Department of Energy. Secretary-designate Pena has faced some important challenges as Secretary of Transportation. He will face even more important challenges as Secretary of Energy. As the first order of business, he will need to develop a close working relationship with the Department of Defense. Cooperation with the Department of Defense is essential to the success of the Department of Energy in carrying out its national security missions. His track record at the Department of Transportation is very encouraging in this respect. Secretary Pena went out of his way while at the Department of Transportation to establish constructive partnerships with the Department of Defense on issues of mutual concern, such as shipbuilding technology. He also worked closely and successfully with DOD on commercialization of global positioning satellite systems. A second major challenge for the new Secretary is to preserve and enhance the research and development capabilities of the Department. Our nominee's track record at the Department of Transportation is also impressive in this area. Under Secretary Pena's leadership, the Department of Transportation posted a 60-percent increase in research and development spending, with substantial growth in nearly every part of the Department. Few Federal agencies over the last 4 years can make the same claim. Secretary Pena also reorganized and improved the coordination of the Department of Transportation research and development programs, establishing joint program offices cutting across internal departmental boundaries. I am looking forward to Secretary Pena's strong leadership in this area in the future. A final challenge facing Secretary-designate Pena will be to carry out the Department's missions in an environmentally responsible manner. The Department of Energy lost public trust and credibility in some previous years by pursuing its programs without sufficient regard to human and environmental consequences and to the need for public participation in decisionmaking. Recovering that public trust has been a slow and difficult process. It is essential to maintain momentum in this direction if the Department is to regain that public trust. Secretary Pena has a track record here that augers well. At the same time that he accelerated progress at the Department of Transportation on the construction of new highways and transportation projects, he also increased the speed of the Department of Transportation's response to natural disasters and he brought new emphasis to environmental considerations in transportation management planning. Mr. President, the Senate's action on this nomination is long overdue. It should have occurred a month ago. The committee's delay in bringing the nomination to the floor, as the chairman of the committee has said, had nothing to do with Secretary Pena's integrity or qualifications for the job. The delay resulted from Senators trying to hold his nomination hostage to attempt to persuade the President to change his position on nuclear waste legislation. The President has stated serious and well-founded concerns about the nuclear waste bill which is being marked up in the Energy Committee today and the effect that bill would have on the long-term solution to the nuclear waste problem. I share many of those concerns, as do other Senators. To his credit, the President has not been bullied into changing his mind on the substance of that bill, but he has agreed that Secretary Pena, once confirmed, can work with those of us in Congress to try to find a solution to this very difficult and complex problem. Ironically, we are going forward today in the Energy Committee to mark up the nuclear waste bill. This is at a time, of course, before Secretary Pena will be sworn into office and before he will have had a chance to work with us to resolve some of the differences which have arisen with regard to this legislation. I believe Secretary Pena will be a great Secretary of Energy. I hope we will confirm him today. I am looking forward to working with him on all the important issues--national security, energy policy, environmental protection and technological competitiveness, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to comment about the balanced budget amendment on which we will be voting today. I came to the Senate in January 1983, at a point in time when the Federal Government was making terribly unwise choices about spending and revenues. Our budget deficits were off the charts during these Reagan years, and I felt that the very foundation of sound fiscal policy was being undermined. These were the years when we needed to have more serious debate about bringing spending under control--and when we needed to at least consider a more serious response such as amending the Constitution to require balanced budgets. We have a very different situation today. During the last 4 years, the budget deficit has declined remarkably. Tough choices are being made about spending and revenue which are bringing the deficit down to levels thought unimaginable only a few years ago. And today we nearly have unanimous bipartisan support to bring the budget into balance by 2002. The Nation's budget deficit, as a percentage of gross national product, is the smallest it has been in decades and the least of all the great industrial powers. The difference between today and 14 years ago is that we are clearly moving strongly in the right direction, not through amendments to our Nation's most important legal document, but by debating our national priorities and making our spending better reflect those priorities. I believe in balancing the budget, but sound fiscal management demands that such balance be achieved by responsible choices that reflect our values-- helping those in need, promoting long-term infrastructure investment, and promoting high-wage job growth in our Nation. Those who have doggedly pursued this amendment to the Constitution did not do so when the budget imbalances were growing by great leaps during the Reagan administration; a balanced budget was not their concern. But cutting taxes on those who are best off is one of their primary concerns--and it was in part the spending profligacy of the early Reagan years combined with the ill-considered and regressive Kemp-Roth tax cut that created the enormous deficits we are financing today. We are actually spending less today than the Treasury is taking in--but because of enormous interest payments which take up nearly 20 percent of our entire annual spending, our budget is still in the red. We must be careful about confusing serious budget balancing efforts with partisan exercises that could disrupt the fiscal foundation of the country. One of my major concerns about this amendment 2 years ago which remains today is that the House still has in place a rule requiring three-fifths supermajority vote to raise income tax rates and income tax rates alone. Under the House rule, other taxes--such as the gas tax, Social Security tax, or other excise taxes--can still be raised by a simple majority, taxes that impact far more many of the working families from New Mexico whom I represent. This House rule stands as an obstacle to efforts to use the income tax, our most progressive tax, to raise revenues for deficit reduction. The balanced budget amendment that has been proposed does not help us resolve many of the problems that challenge our future economic health. Passing this resolution does not help us solve the challenge to Social Security that looms in our future. It is clear that we must address the problem of solvency of the Social Security trust fund, but as written this amendment could cause a train wreck at the point when Social Security disbursements become greater than Social Security receipts. At least under one interpretation of the proposed amendment, countless seniors could experience disruption in receiving their checks. During a time of severe economic hardship and recession, the Government has traditionally helped by using fiscal policy to prime the economy and jolt it toward growth. Such a strategy would not be possible given the requirements outlined in the balanced budget amendment. In addition, national security demands, the need to increase spending to thwart aggressive moves by some future enemy, or to respond to some military crisis might also be improperly constrained by the balanced budget amendment as written. There is also no provision in the balanced budget amendment permitting Congress to develop a capital budget, a budget capable of distinguishing between spending to meet current operating expenses and spending over a series of years for major capital improvements, such as highways, buildings, or a Federal agency's computer systems. I voted for amendments that would have made improvements in the balanced budget amendment and which would have made this a more workable piece of legislation, but all of these improving amendments were defeated. The authors of this amendment are pursuing too rigid a course--and are bent more on a theology of balanced budgets without taxes than they are on the economic health of the Nation. Also left unaddressed in this proposed amendment is the enforcing mechanism. When the Congress fails to govern responsibly and does not produce a balanced budget as called for by the Constitution, does the Supreme Court, as the chief interpreter of the Nation's Constitution, decide what accounts will be advanced and what accounts cut in order to achieve balance? These matters are unresolved and threaten to create confusion and harm our Nation's fiscal solvency--rather than create the order and balance that the Nation needs and wants. I will oppose the balanced budget amendment today because I believe that we should leave the question of how to achieve sound fiscal policy to a vote of a majority here in Congress. We should not try, by rule or other provision, to determine how future Congresses choose to reduce the deficit or keep the budget in balance. We should not dictate whether they cut spending or raise taxes. We should not try to predetermine for future Congresses, as this amendment would, which group of taxpayers will pay the taxes and which group will suffer the spending cuts. Because of the way that the balanced budget amendment is constructed, our decisions would be locked in permanently if this amendment were to become part of the Constitution. This is not wise, and I cannot support such an effort. The framers of the Constitution chose to leave neutral the way in which sound fiscal policy is achieved. We are well advised to defer to their good judgment on that subject, to cease our efforts to solve this problem by changing the Constitution, and instead, to solve it as we should--by continuing to make tough choices that reflect the priorities of our Nation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first I would like to call attention to several recent reports that have come out on the issue of high academic standards and the need for high standards and national standards in our schools, and refer to those reports and perhaps put them in context. I think it is clear from the reports that I am going to refer to here that there is a need for accelerating the progress that our country is making in developing world class academic standards. It is also clear that the States and local school districts are having great difficulties in determining for themselves what those standards ought to be, which is a large and costly task. First, I will refer to the comprehensive Third International Math and Science Study that was recently released. It shows that math standards have not yet been implemented at the classroom level in many of our schools, and our students score at or below the average on math and science compared to students in other nations. Mr. President, you will remember that one of the goals which the Governors and President Bush established in Charlottesville in 1989 was that the United States would be first in the world in math and science by the year 2000. In fact, the reality is very different from that lofty goal that was set 8 years ago. This first chart here indicates the average math scores of eighth graders on international tests. We can see in the group of nations that are considered top performers that the United States is not listed. Those nations are Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and Belgium-Flemish. In the middle range, the United States is at the very bottom, far behind the Russian Federation. After us, there are the bottom performers, and the most we can say with pride is that we are not in that category. But, Mr. President, I think most parents in this country would aspire to our doing better than we are showing we have done on this test. And I hope very much that we can. Here is a second chart that makes somewhat the same point. This chart indicates that of students scoring among the top 10 percent of eighth graders on international tests, 45 percent of these were from Singapore, and 34 percent from South Korea. It goes on down to where, in math the United States had only 5 percent of the world's top students in math, and only 13 percent in science. So, clearly, again, we find ourselves very far down on the list of nations in this comparison. There is also a new national report card on education that has been published by Education Week, which is a respected publication in our country. It confirms the findings of several previous reports that the standards many States have now established may not be rigorous enough compared to other nations' standards, and, also, that there are all too few States that plan to hold students or teachers accountable for measurable results. Let me show you these two charts to make this point, Mr. President. The first of these is a chart entitled, ``Who's Accountable?'' What this essentially says is that only those few States that come up on the map here as colored yellow are States that have standards for their graduates from high school. Clearly, most of the country--and, unfortunately, my State included--do not have accountability standards that students have to meet in order to graduate from high school. Clearly, this is a problem that we need to address as a nation. Another chart, ``8th Grade Math Course-Taking.'' This indicates very clearly that most of our eighth-graders are simply taking general math and only 19 percent, according to this analysis, are, in fact, taking algebra at the time they go into the eighth grade. This is one of the reasons we do so poorly on the international comparisons of mathematics scores. Finally, the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress math scores, which were just released last week, show that over 30 percent of 4th, 8th, and 12th-graders lack basic math skills, despite recent progress. Let me show you that chart, Mr. President. When you look at this, you can see a very modest upward trend from 1990 to 1992 to 1996 at the three different grade levels, 4th, 8th, and 12th. As you can see, we are nowhere near approaching the level of improvement that is necessary if we are going to meet any of the national goals that we have set out for ourselves. Delays in developing standards have been made worse by the fact that, despite the abundance of tests and report cards published by State and local education agencies, very little of the information is comparable from district to district, or very little of the information is set at a high enough standard for us to make reasonable comparisons to these international tests. As Education Week recently pointed out, ``If the data that we depend on to monitor the economy were as incomplete, as unreliable, and as out of date as the data we depend on to monitor education in the United States, we might as well have the economy of a Third World country.'' Instead, we have a hodgepodge of different tests and standards, most of them testing basic skills rather than world-class materials, a lot of data that only describes how students in one area are doing compared to how they did in the previous year. Differences in student ``pass rates'' on State and national testing indicate enormous gaps in what we are testing for. Let me show you the final chart that I have here, Mr. President, to make that point. You can see from this chart entitled ``State NAEP Scores for 4th Grade Reading Compared to the State's Own Assessment'' that, for example, in the State of Wisconsin, it shows here that 35 percent of the students are shown to reach the standard that NAEP sets on their National Fourth Grade Reading Test. In their State standard test, Wisconsin shows 88 percent of their students meeting the standards. So you can see there is very little comparability between what the States are testing for and the level of performance that they are expecting and what the NAEP, the national assessment, is testing for. As a result, we still have schools that are doing superbly, and we also have schools that are doing miserably. Many times they are in the very same areas and in the same school districts. Parents and educators often do not even know which of those types of schools their own children are in. In response to this situation, many have come to agree that we need to set our standards much higher and we need to gather more accurate information in order to improve achievement, as has been done with great success in several parts of the private sector. The National Association of Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Round Table have now focused their joint efforts on raising standards and promoting more accountability in our schools. The National Education Association president, Bob Chase, spoke out about the need for his 2.2-million-member union to support key changes such as these. Frequent education critics Checker Finn and Diane Ravitch recently offered surprising enthusiasm for standards. Let me quote: ``how powerful it will be for parents and teachers to compare the math prowess of 8th graders in, say, Phoenix and Minneapolis, to the performance of their peers in Korea and the Czech Republic.'' In addition to national polls showing strong support for high standards, a Public Agenda poll last month showed that high school students themselves know that our expectations for them are low, and those very high school students respond accordingly. Raising academic standards has proven to be an immense and costly job for States and for school districts, who have been left to do the job largely on their own. They have been struggling to make the necessary progress but have been unable to do so. For these reasons, we need renewed national efforts toward making standards a reality in the near future.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 12 minutes in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the recent death of a great education leader, Albert Shanker, who was as committed and effective in the fight for National standards as anybody in our country. For those of us who believe that the Federal Government should do more to improve the quality of education in the country, Al Shanker's death was a great loss. More than anyone else in the Nation, Al Shanker was the visionary pushing for higher standards and national standards for teachers and students alike. In a recent piece in the Washington Post, E.D. Hirsch, Jr., said it very well: If a single person could be said to be responsible for the shift in sentiment that prompted the President to call, in his State of the Union Address, for national educational standards--a proposal that would have been unthinkable a few years back--it would be Al Shanker. Albert Shanker had an abiding belief that collectively we in America could improve the lives of all of our citizens. He dedicated his life to that belief. He also believed passionately that public schools were the great strength of our country and were the means by which we could improve the lot of Americans. A recent essay by Albert Shanker was contained in the New York Times. I would like to read two paragraphs from that. This is an essay that he wrote in a publication a few years ago. He said: Why do I continue when so much of what I've worked for seems threatened? To a large extent because I believe that public education is the glue that has held this country together. Critics now say that the common school never really existed, that it's time to abandon this ideal in favor of schools that are designed to appeal to groups based on ethnicity, race, religion, class, or common interests of various kinds. But schools like these would foster divisions in our society; they would be like setting a time bomb. * * * * * Public schools played a big role in holding our nation together. They brought together children of different races, languages, religions, and cultures and gave them a common language and sense of common purpose. He was not outgrown our need for this; far from it. Today, Americans come from more different countries and speak more different languages than ever before. Whenever the problems connected with school reform seem especially tough, I think about this. I think about what public education gave me--a kid who couldn't even speak English when I entered first grade. I think about what it has given me and can give to countless numbers of other kids like me. And I know that keeping public education together is worth whatever effort it takes. Al Shanker believed that the National Government needed to commit itself to improving our Nation's schools. Should we have national education goals? Al Shanker believed strongly that we should. Should we have educational standards? Al Shanker believed we should so that every parent could determine whether their child was getting the education that they deserved. Mr. President, I was privileged to work with Al Shanker on several issues but, most importantly, on the issue of improving standards for our schools. His vision and his strength of commitment were always an inspiration. With his death, the American Federation of Teachers lost a superb president and all of us in America lost a tireless champion for public education and for a better America. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about an American hero and an American patriot, CWO-05, Harry Floyd Hinkle, Jr. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am presented almost daily with young men and women who have dedicated their lives to the service of their country in our Armed Forces. As I know my colleagues agree, these men and women are truly America's finest. Today, it is an honor for me to present to the Senate an example of America's best, Chief Warrant Officer-05 Hinkle. Chief Warrant Officer-05 Hinkle will soon be retiring from the Marine Corps after 30 years of honor, patriotism and distinguished service. I have not had the privilege of meeting CWO-05 Hinkle personally, however, a review of his record clearly demonstrates why it is appropriate for the Senate to honor him today. CWO-05 Hinkle joined the Marine Corps on February 7, 1967. He spent 3 years in Vietnam with the First Armored Amphibian Company, 11th Marine Corps Regiment. While serving in Vietnam he was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat V. Mr. President, for most men and women that service alone would have been more than above and beyond the call of duty, but not for Chief Warrant Officer-05 Hinkle. He returned from Vietnam where he was appointed warrant officer and later commissioned as an officer eventually reaching the grade of captain. In 1990 when his country called upon him to once again serve in the face of great danger, Chief Warrant Officer-05 Hinkle responded. He served in Desert Storm and Desert Shield where he guided deployments to southwest Asia for installing and operating secondary imagery dissemination devices. Mr. President, Chief Warrant Officer-05 Hinkle has served as an enlisted marine, officer, and warrant officer. He has shown gallantry on the battlefield and has been a model marine in the classroom. He served heroically in the past and has helped make America's future safer by training the marines, airmen, soldiers, and sailors of tomorrow. Chief Warrant Officer-05 Hinkle's personal decorations include the Bronze Star with Combat V, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal, the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat V, the Good Conduct Medal and the Combat Action Ribbon, the Kuwait Liberation Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, and the Southeast Asia Service Medal. Mr. President, after 30 years of service to his country, I believe that America owes Chief Warrant Officer-05 Hinkle a thank you, a heart- felt God's speed, and a proud semper fi.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the Rural States Highway Preservation Act. This is an act that would ensure fairness in the distribution of funds from the Highway Trust Fund. But more importantly, Mr. President, this bill ensures that we continue our commitment to maintain a national transportation system, that in doing so, we meet all the Nation's transportation needs and, just as importantly, the unique needs of our States that have small populations and very large geographic areas, States such as New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Alaska, Nevada, Montana, and Wyoming. My home State of New Mexico has only 14 people per square mile and its total land area is 121,335 square miles. Residents of large, rural States like New Mexico pay more per person in gas taxes because of the long driving distances. It is not uncommon for New Mexicans to travel 50 or more miles to their nearest large town or country seat, where they have to go to get essential supplies, health care, school, or interact with their government. To maintain this infrastructure, New Mexicans currently pay one of the highest per capita State taxes to maintain the same highways used by interstate trucks or the tourists who visit our beautiful State. Under any eventual ISTEA reauthorization that does not address these unique characteristics, New Mexico and similar States would lose highway funding that it could never recover. Under devolution, for example, New Mexico would have to impose at least a 17.8-cent gas tax just to generate the same revenue as it received from the Highway Trust Fund in 1995. Such a proposal would be devastating not only for our residents, but for the many trucks that cross our State, and for the increasing traffic between Mexico and the United States. Such a proposal would impair new Mexico's highways, but because we are but one part of a national transportation system, it would impair our national system. The Rural States Highway Preservation Act would ensure that transportation funds that will be distributed under a reauthorized ISTEA will be done fairly, with consideration to the uniqueness of States with low population density and high geographic area, and with our national transportation needs as a priority. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, our Nation has been very fortunate over the years to have had distinguished, capable representatives serving as our Ambassadors to the United Nations. It is my honor today to speak on behalf of yet another distinguished American, Bill Richardson, who has been nominated by the President to serve in that capacity. Let me offer a few words of strong endorsement for my colleague. Bill Richardson and I first campaigned together in 1982, when he was running for the House of Representatives and I was running for the Senate. Starting with that 1982 campaign, and in the 15 years since then, I have continued to be impressed by his resourcefulness, by his energy, by his talent for winning the trust and respect from people of diverse backgrounds with widely varied points of view. Much has been made of the successful diplomatic efforts that he has engaged in in the last few years, but I would like to say just a few words about his performance on his so-called day job, that is, his job as Congressman for the State of New Mexico. As you know, Mr. President, New Mexico is a State of many cultures. We have a very large native American population, a very large Hispanic population, a community such as Los Alamos, which has the largest number of Ph.D.'s per capita of any city in the world. Bill Richardson has managed to gain the trust and support of each of these as well as many other groups and has been a very effective and successful Congressman receiving very large majorities each of the eight elections that he has stood for in our State. Bill will demonstrate the same resourcefulness, energy, and skill in building trust and rapport in the United Nations that he has demonstrated in New Mexico. We in New Mexico will be losing a very capable and effective Representative in Congress, but the country will be well served by having Bill in this key position of advocacy in the world's key international institution. Mr. President, I strongly recommend to my colleagues that they vote to confirm the nomination of Bill Richardson for the U.N. Ambassador position.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes. I am glad to yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota and his comments. Let me say one other thing and then I will yield the floor, Mr. President. I was on a radio interview program earlier this morning, and one of the reporters, who is a very knowledgable reporter, said to me, ``The President said we ought to increase funding for education by 20 percent. That is a very major increase. Can we afford that kind of an increase given the budgetary constraints on us?'' My response was that you have to look at this in the context of the overall Federal budget. In the overall Federal budget, we spend somewhere near 1.5 percent on education, which represents less than 10 percent of overall spending by States and localities. So what the President is saying is that we ought to spend 1.8 percent, or thereabouts, on education. Most of the people I talk to in New Mexico do not think that is excessive. I think it is not unreasonable for the Federal Government to give education that high a priority. So I hope very much we follow the President's lead. I hope very much we will make education the centerpiece of our efforts here in this 105th Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate, Mr. President, the statement of the Senator from North Dakota. Let me just add one other element to this. I commend him for his proposal to deal with the problem of someone coming into school with a gun and no one being able to apprehend him. I am also persuaded that virtually everything we want to see happen better in our schools will be facilitated if we recognize that we need to have smaller classrooms. Much of the crime, discipline, and absentee problems in our schools today are because the schools are too large and because the teachers do not know the students by their first names. The students don't feel accountable to their peers. We put 40 kids into a class and wonder why the teacher can't teach all of them. We put 2,000 or 3,000 kids in a high school and wonder why the principal can't keep track of everybody. There have been some very good studies done that show that the optimum size for a high school, for example, is somewhere between 600 and 900 kids, and that when you go over 900 the quality of the students' performances start dropping, the discipline problems start rising, and the incidence of criminal problems start rising. We need to factor this issue into what we do as well. Of course, we in Congress don't make the laws that govern the size of the schools, and we should not. But we need to encourage States and local school districts to take that into account when they decide to build a new high school. You don't necessarily need to tear down the old building. You can take an existing complex and break it into two or three high schools just as well as leaving it in one 3,000-person high school.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes commenting on some of the points the President made last night in his State of the Union Address. I was particularly impressed and encouraged about his decision to make education the centerpiece of that speech and his decision to make education the first priority of his administration this next 4 years. One aspect of what he talked about in education, I think, is extremely important, and that is standard setting. We have had debates in Congress for many years now about the issue of standards. In fact, I introduced legislation in 1990 to establish national standards in education, and, of course, we are continuing to pursue that through the National Education Goals Panel, which I serve on along with Senator Jeffords. I am persuaded that part of what the American people would like to see in their educational system is higher standards and more accountability. They want to be sure that teachers are performing to a high standard, students are performing to a high standard, and the parents of children in our public schools want to know where their children stand relative to other students around the country, around their State, and in general. The President in particular talked about how he was going to work through the Department of Education to adapt two widely used high- quality tests--the fourth grade NAEP reading test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is already being used in more than 40 States, and the now-familiar eighth grade math test, the TIMSS test, which recently confirmed how poorly many of our students are doing relative to the achievement level of other nations. The President proposed adapting those two tests into a new test that will be available free of charge to every student, every school district, and every State in the Nation that wishes to participate in it. This is going to be done in the next 2 years. I think this will be a major step forward, because what it will do is to allow us to give very hard, objective information about which of our schools are succeeding and which of our schools are failing. We have the anomalous situation that, because of our inability to track performance, we have in many school districts and major cities in the country some schools that are doing superbly and other schools that are doing miserably. Parents, unfortunately, sometimes do not even know which of those two schools their children are in. For this reason, we need to give parents clear indications of which schools are doing the best job in educating students. Currently, we have a hodgepodge of different tests, a hodgepodge of different standards around the country. Parents who are interested in finding out how their children are doing often are misled by inaccurate information. So I very much commend the President for this initiative to adapt these two well-recognized tests into something which each student can take, each parent can understand, each school can understand. I think that will be a major step forward. Let me also talk about another aspect of the standards issue, which the President, I hope, will also move ahead on very aggressively, and that is the teaching of advanced placement courses. Many of us are familiar with advanced placement courses because of our own children going through high school. These are courses that are taught in the 11th and 12th grades, generally to students who are planning to go on to college and who want to get advanced credit so they can avoid taking the same course once they get there. We have not done what we should at the national level to encourage States and school districts to expand instruction in advanced placement courses. I believe this year, for the first time, we will see a change in that. I hope to see the President, in the budget we receive tomorrow, requesting some funds to assist low-income students in the cost of taking those advanced placement courses and tests. That, I believe, would be another major step forward. I had the chance to speak to the New Mexico Legislature on Monday of this week, and I talked to them about the challenge that my State faces in expanding access to advanced placement classes. These courses should be available to all students. They are highly demanding, but any willing student can succeed in them. Many people know about the advanced placement program because of a movie that came out several years ago called ``Stand and Deliver.'' This was a movie that Edward James Olmos starred in. It was the story of Jaime Escalante, a high school calculus teacher, I believe in Garfield High School in east Los Angeles. He had become very famous in that school and in that school district because of his success in teaching students, many of them students without a good academic grounding. He would teach those students this advanced placement course in calculus. The reason he became famous and the reason that movie was made was not because he was teaching any old calculus course. He was teaching a course that was an advance placement course so that anybody in the country who paid attention would know that was a high-quality course. If his students in east Los Angeles passed that course, they were every bit as good as any student in Manhattan, or Ohio, or in New Mexico, or anywhere else. So they got the recognition that they deserved. He got the recognition that he deserved. They were very proud of their achievement. I have believed for a very long time that one reason our school system falls short is that we expect too little of our students. We have low expectations for what our students can learn, what our children can learn. The truth is, if you expect very little, you will receive very little. We need to expect higher performance by our students, higher performance levels by our teachers, and through this advanced placement set of courses we do exactly that. New Mexico lags behind the national average fairly significantly in the per capita rate of 11th and 12th graders who take advance placement courses. In my State I think the percentage is something like 24 percent. Nationally it is 40 percent. We need to do better than that. We can do better than that. We are setting about working with the business community and our State legislature to bring together the resources to expand the training of advanced placement teachers and to expand course work in advanced placement courses. I think one other point needs to be made. It should be obvious to everybody. You are not going to bring about a major reform of education, a major improvement and upgrading of education, without a very major program to reeducate and develop the human capacity to do that. We need to have training courses for our teachers in the summer. These advanced placement courses are very good. But, unfortunately, too few teachers are able to take advantage of them, or do take advantage of them. So we need to think seriously in this Congress about what we can do to support the retraining that is needed to get people to these higher standards that the President is talking about. This is an essential part of the agenda that we need to confront over the next couple of years. I commend again the President for his leadership in putting this on the front burner for the country. I hope we, in Congress, are up to the task of following his lead. I think he has identified a very important priority for our country. It is the one that I hear the most about. I get around New Mexico a lot, and people want to know why we can't do a better job of educating kids in this country. I hope that we can.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to create a National Cave and Karst Research Institute in Carlsbad, NM. This bill will continue the efforts started by Congress in 1988 to develop the information needed to effectively manage and preserve the Nation's cave and karst resources. In 1988, Congress directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide an inventory of caves on Federal lands and to provide for the management and dissemination of information about the caves. The results of that effort have increased our awareness that cave and karst land forms are a resource we must learn how to manage for our future welfare. For example, in America, the majority of the Nation's fresh water is groundwater--25 percent of which is located in cave and karst regions. As we look to the 21st century, the protection of our groundwater resources is of critical importance, especially in the arid West. Furthermore, recent studies have indicated that caves contain valuable information related to global climate change, waste disposal, groundwater supply and contamination, petroleum recovery, and biomedical investigations. Caves also often have historical or cultural significance. Many have religious significance for native Americans. Yet, academic programs on these systems are virtually nonexistent; most research is conducted with little or no funding and the resulting data is scattered and often hard to locate. To begin addressing this problem, in 1990 Congress directed the National Park Service to establish a cave research program and to study the feasibility of a centralized cave and karst research institute. In December 1994, the National Park Service submitted to Congress the National Cave and Karst Research Institute Study. As directed by Public Law 101-578, the report studied the feasibility of creating a National Research Institute in the vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park. The report not only supported the establishment of the National Cave and Karst Research Institute, but also concluded that now is the ideal time to consider it. The report to Congress lists several serious threats to our cave resources from continued uninformed management paractices. These threats include alterations in the surface waterflow patterns in karst regions, alternations in or pollution of water recharge zones, inappropriately placed toxic waste repositories, and poorly managed or designed sewage systems and landfills. The findings of the report conclude that it is only through a better understanding of cave resources that we can prevent detrimental impacts to America's natural resources and cave and karst systems. The goals of the National Cave and Karst Research Institute, as outlined in the report, would be to develop and centralize scientific knowledge of cave resources, foster interdisciplinary cooperation in cave and karst research programs, and to promote environmentally sound, sustainable resource management practices. The National Cave and Karst Research Institute would be jointly administered by the National Park Service and another public or private agency, organization, or institution as determined by the Secretary. Mr. President, the Park Service report to Congress also notes that the vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park is ideal particularly in light of the incredibly diverse cave and karst resources found throughout the region and the community support which already exists for the establishment of the institute. Numerous varieties of world class caves are located nearby. Furthermore, the Carlsbad Department of Development, after reviewing the National Cave and Karst Research Institute study report, has developed proposals to obtain financial support from available and supportive organizational resources-- including personnel, facilities, equipment, and volunteers. The Department of Development also believes that it can obtain serious financial support from the private sector and would seek a matching grant from the State of New Mexico equal to the available Federal funds. Mr. President, my legislation will help provide the necessary tools to help discover the wealth of knowledge contained in these important, but largely unexplored landforms. Carlsbad, NM already has in place many of the needed cooperative institutions, facilities, and volunteers that will work toward the success of this project. It is imperative that we take advantage of these conditions and establish the National Cave and Karst Research Institute.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to create a National Cave and Karst Research Institute in Carlsbad, NM. This bill will continue the efforts started by Congress in 1988 to develop the information needed to effectively manage and preserve the Nation's cave and karst resources. In 1988, Congress directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide an inventory of caves on Federal lands and to provide for the management and dissemination of information about the caves. The results of that effort have increased our awareness that cave and karst land forms are a resource we must learn how to manage for our future welfare. For example, in America, the majority of the Nation's fresh water is groundwater--25 percent of which is located in cave and karst regions. As we look to the 21st century, the protection of our groundwater resources is of critical importance, especially in the arid West. Furthermore, recent studies have indicated that caves contain valuable information related to global climate change, waste disposal, groundwater supply and contamination, petroleum recovery, and biomedical investigations. Caves also often have historical or cultural significance. Many have religious significance for native Americans. Yet, academic programs on these systems are virtually nonexistent; most research is conducted with little or no funding and the resulting data is scattered and often hard to locate. To begin addressing this problem, in 1990 Congress directed the National Park Service to establish a cave research program and to study the feasibility of a centralized cave and karst research institute. In December 1994, the National Park Service submitted to Congress the National Cave and Karst Research Institute Study. As directed by Public Law 101-578, the report studied the feasibility of creating a National Research Institute in the vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park. The report not only supported the establishment of the National Cave and Karst Research Institute, but also concluded that now is the ideal time to consider it. The report to Congress lists several serious threats to our cave resources from continued uninformed management paractices. These threats include alterations in the surface waterflow patterns in karst regions, alternations in or pollution of water recharge zones, inappropriately placed toxic waste repositories, and poorly managed or designed sewage systems and landfills. The findings of the report conclude that it is only through a better understanding of cave resources that we can prevent detrimental impacts to America's natural resources and cave and karst systems. The goals of the National Cave and Karst Research Institute, as outlined in the report, would be to develop and centralize scientific knowledge of cave resources, foster interdisciplinary cooperation in cave and karst research programs, and to promote environmentally sound, sustainable resource management practices. The National Cave and Karst Research Institute would be jointly administered by the National Park Service and another public or private agency, organization, or institution as determined by the Secretary. Mr. President, the Park Service report to Congress also notes that the vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park is ideal particularly in light of the incredibly diverse cave and karst resources found throughout the region and the community support which already exists for the establishment of the institute. Numerous varieties of world class caves are located nearby. Furthermore, the Carlsbad Department of Development, after reviewing the National Cave and Karst Research Institute study report, has developed proposals to obtain financial support from available and supportive organizational resources-- including personnel, facilities, equipment, and volunteers. The Department of Development also believes that it can obtain serious financial support from the private sector and would seek a matching grant from the State of New Mexico equal to the available Federal funds. Mr. President, my legislation will help provide the necessary tools to help discover the wealth of knowledge contained in these important, but largely unexplored landforms. Carlsbad, NM already has in place many of the needed cooperative institutions, facilities, and volunteers that will work toward the success of this project. It is imperative that we take advantage of these conditions and establish the National Cave and Karst Research Institute.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, with many of my colleagues, I traveled to Lowell, MA, last Thursday for the funeral of our friend, Paul Tsongas. He died at age 55. His battles were many, and so were his victories. His grace and courage will stand for many of us as beacons in our own lives. Paul befriended me when I was running for the Senate. His desire to spend more time with his family caused him to retire at the close of his first term here, and our Senate days overlapped by only a couple of years. Still, he was an influence on my life, and certainly on my career. There is no disagreement that Paul was one of the outstanding sons of Massachusetts. The affection for him and grief over his death which we all felt at the services are the kinds of emotions reserved for one of the family. The people of Massachusetts respected him, and valued what he stood for. We all did. When he served in the Senate, one of the items in his office was a framed quotation from one of John Adams' many letters to his wife, Abigail. The Massachusetts College of Art had produced it in January 1980. I had admired it on visits to Paul's office and when Paul left the Senate, he sent it to me, with a handwritten note. I treasure them both, and the feeling behind John Adams' words: I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy * * * in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, and music * * * May 12, 1780. I believe Paul Tsongas took this message to heart, and that it guided much of what he did. The country is fortunate to have had such service from such a man.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last week my State and this country lost an extraordinary man. Clyde Tombaugh, a retired New Mexico State University professor, died on January 17 at the age of 90. In 1930, at the age of 24, this completely self-taught high school graduate was working at an observatory in Arizona when he spotted something unusual in a photographic plate. Remarkably, his discovery turned out to be the ninth planet, Pluto. His discovery earned him a full scholarship to the University of Kansas to study astronomy, and he went on to a long and distinguished career. He founded the research astronomy department of NMSU, and retired in 1973 and served as professor emeritus. This ``remarkable man of science,'' as one colleague described him, has left a truly great legacy.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I was very pleased that at the end of the last Congress, we finally did the right thing by education. We increased funding for education. It was a bipartisan effort. We got good support in the waning days of that Congress for improvements in education. This time I believe we should not wait until the end of the Congress. I believe that education needs to be a top priority of this Congress beginning now and continuing on through the rest of the first session and, of course, the second session as well. For this reason, I think it is timely that Education Week, which is perhaps the preeminent weekly publication dealing with education issues at the national level, issued its report card on the condition of public education in the 50 States just as this new Congress is beginning. The report is entitled ``Quality Counts.'' It is a very comprehensive, thorough look at the issue, and it goes through great detail in trying to assess how each State is doing in providing education to its young people. I recommend this report to all of my colleagues and anybody who is watching. I think it does a good job. It focuses where we need to be focused. I think it needs to be taken very seriously by this Congress. In the area of quality of teaching, which I am sure we would all agree is essential to a strong education, this report finds that 40 percent of high school teachers lack a college degree in the subject area that they are teaching in. There are too many unlicensed teachers being used in our classrooms today. Ongoing training is still not a reality in most of our States. So the national grade that we received for quality of teaching was a C, which I think all of us who have been through the educational system know is not a stellar performance. A second finding is about ``school climate.'' Here the findings were that nearly half of elementary teachers have classes of 25 or more students. More than half of high school teachers see in excess of 80 students per day. Almost 70 percent of students attend high schools of 900 or more. The reason that this last statistic is important is that we have several studies now that conclude that the quality of education and the quality of student performance goes down as the size of the school increases. When you get a high school of more than 900 students the quality and level of student achievement goes down. So it is unfortunate that a majority of our students are in schools which our own experts tell us are too large. That is something we need to focus on nationally, and we got a C-minus on school climate because of those facts I just cited. Third, on ``overall spending,'' the States received a C-plus. The report found that most of the increases in spending have gone toward rising enrollment and special education and salaries for an aging work force. And we are not putting the resources into education that we should be, considering the growth in the school population. Fourth, on ``equity of funding'', which means the disparities between the rich school districts and the poor school districts, the States got a B-minus. This is a little better than we have done in some of the other areas, but the report finds that the quality of the child's education still depends too greatly on skin color, on family income, and on which school district they happen to reside in. The fifth indicator is the effective ``allocation of funds.'' According to the report, classrooms still receive only 61 percent of total resources that go into our educational system. Too many of those resources get stopped at the administrative level. On average, there are still over 35 students for each multimedia computer in our school system. Thirty-three percent of districts have at least one serious school construction need. So in that area of allocation of funds, the States received a C-minus. The sixth area is ``standards and assessments.'' There the States got a B because the conclusion was that this is the area perhaps where we are making the most progress. However, in most States standards have not yet found their way into the classrooms. Even if tests were developed, we do not yet know how rigorous they are, and few States are ready to hold either the schools or the students sufficiently accountable. The final indicator is ``student achievement,'' which of course is the bottom line, the ultimate goal of our educational system. They did not give a grade there. They said that in student achievement our ``results were disappointing.'' That was the phrase which was used. The report finds that only 28 percent of fourth graders nationwide ranked as being proficient in reading, which is not an adequate level of performance. Even the highest scoring States in the Nation have fewer than half of their elementary students scoring proficient in reading and in math. Madam President, let me put this in some perspective. Many of us who try to follow education-related issues know that we have a national test that is given around the country periodically called the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP for short. This is a chart that shows trends in NAEP reading scores from 1971 through 1994. You don't need to look at this chart long before you notice that all of these lines are not going up. These lines are flat. That means that we essentially are seeing no significant improvement in reading scores by students in this period from 1971 to 1994. Madam President, we are stuck on mediocre, or perhaps stuck on even worse than that. I think this is a cause for concern. When I look at my own State and read this report there are three areas in which New Mexico performs above the national average. We get an A for standards, compared to the B that most States get. We get a B for overall educational spending, versus the C that is given nationally by this report. And we get a B-minus for classroom resources, versus a C-minus nationally. There are three other areas, however, in which my State of New Mexico performs worse than the national average. First, the State's test scores still are near the bottom in this National Assessment of Educational Progress test in almost all areas. Only 21 percent of the fourth graders in my State were judged to be at the proficient level in reading, and only 11 percent were judged proficient in math. Also we received a C-minus for teaching quality, compared to a C nationally. And we received a D-plus for school climate compared to a C-minus nationally. S. 12, the Democratic leadership education bill, does address several of the key issues that are raised by this report. I think they are very important issues. Let me very briefly summarize what this bill is trying to do. To address the low literacy rates that I described, S. 12 creates a program to increase the efforts of over 1 million teachers, parents, and volunteers in literacy training. To lower financial barriers to college, including tuition that rose over 100 percent over the last 10 years, S. 12 proposes a $1,500 tax credit and a $10,000 deduction for students with a B average. To help schools build and repair seriously deteriorating facilities, which 33 percent of all school districts report having, S. 12, provides $5.75 billion in bond interest subsidies. And finally, to help schools address the fact that over 70 percent of the computer equipment available is outdated and cannot provide adequate instruction and there are roughly 35 students for every modern computer, S. 12 calls for $1.8 billion in funding for the 1994 Technology for Education Act, which was funded at the level of $200 million in the current fiscal year. In conclusion, let me say that this report needs to be looked at by a great many people here in the Congress and elsewhere. It clearly reinforces other findings and reports that have raised these same issues in recent months. Second, it is clear that nothing has changed since the end of the last Congress, when we finally gave education the attention it deserved and began to really do what should be done at the national level to support education. We need to keep that up, and maintain that momentum in this new Congress. I do believe we can renew our efforts to improve education, renew our efforts to put resources where the people of this country want them, and that is in the education of their children. There should be no letdown in the efforts of Congress in this regard. Mr. President, I look forward to the additional opportunities in the coming weeks to focus on some of these issues, and I hope we can pursue this set of issues on a bipartisan basis and make real progress for the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, encouraging strong reading habits in schoolchildren is a goal that we all share. Reading skills are a core element of the National Education Goals, and literacy is the subject of a new Presidential initiative. To highlight the importance of reading, I would like to take a brief moment to describe the achievements of an innovative program at a very special school in New Mexico that I believe captures what we should all be trying to do to promote reading. This fall, the lunch period at Dolores Gonzales Elementary School in Albuquerque will be satisfying a different kind of appetite: A hunger for reading. Thanks to their Join-a-School Partners--Sunwest Bank, Bueno Foods, the Albuquerque Zoological Park, and community members-- more than 50 students at Dolores Gonzales Elementary will have a partner to read with under a pilot program which I helped initiate at the school last spring. The Read-Write-Now program pairs an adult volunteer with a student from Dolores Gonzales for reading. The program has grown from a dozen or so volunteers last spring to more than 50 this fall. I commend principal Dora Ortiz and her dedicated staff and teachers for fostering the Read-Write-Now program at their school. I borrowed the idea from a similar program which originated in New York City. Volunteers pledge 1 lunch hour a week for the entire semester to read with the children. This one-on-one approach helps the children develop their reading ability and love of books, as well as make a new friend. It is impossible to overestimate the value of this program because so much of one's educational and personal success is built on one's ability to read. If we are to be a nation of learners and achievers, we have to first be a nation of readers. A recent National Educational Goals Panel report indicated that students in New Mexico and many other States are not achieving in reading comprehension as well as they need to do in order to succeed in school and work. This initiative will help us improve, and I would urge other businesses in our communities in New Mexico and around the Nation to initiate the Read-Write-Now program at their partner schools.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will not take a full 10 minutes, but I would like to speak briefly about this so-called parks bill or Presidio package which is being considered here in the Senate this week and urge my colleagues who are engaged in negotiations on this to come to some resolution so that we can move ahead with this important piece of legislation. My home State of New Mexico will be greatly benefited if this package of legislation becomes law. There are many provisions in it that I believe would be important to many constituencies around the country. I notice in the October 1 Congressional Record, the Record that we received on our desks today, there is a list on page--let us see--it is H12197, a listing of the various titles which are included in the bill. I can honestly say there is probably something in here for every State in the Union. This is a catch-all piece of legislation which is intended to make necessary boundary adjustments and to make necessary provisions for the protection of our public lands in a great many areas. These are noncontroversial provisions. This is a summary I refer to here, a summary of the legislation that has already passed the House of Representatives. I wish, Mr. President, we could call this legislation up and pass it in the Senate. Today would be a good time to do that while we still have enough Senators here to get a quorum. I could go through and will indicate the various titles. The first title relates to the Presidio of San Francisco which, of course, has been the reason that the package was designated the Presidio package. The second title is on boundary adjustments and conveyances. The next title is on rivers and trails and exchanges of lands, then historic areas, and it goes on to describe the various administrative and management provisions including the National Coal Heritage Area, the Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area, the Augusta Canal National Heritage Area, Steel Industry Heritage Project, Essex Heritage Area, South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership, the Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor, the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area. Mr. President, to my knowledge, all of these are meritorious provisions and ones which we should enact before we leave town. I think it would be a great shame if we were not able to do that. This is of particular interest in my home State for several provisions, but particularly there has been a longstanding problem of great concern to the Taos Pueblo which we are proposing to resolve in this legislation. The Taos Pueblo land transfer provision would transfer 764 acres in northern New Mexico which is now located in the Wheeler Peak Wilderness of the Carson National Forest to the Taos Pueblo, adjacent to the Taos Pueblo. The area has spiritual significance to the people in the Taos Pueblo. The bottleneck area continues to be used by the Taos Pueblo Indians for religious pilgrimages. The sacred Path of Life Trail, connecting the Pueblo with Blue Lake, runs through this bottleneck. The Blue Lake Wilderness has been a source of spiritual strength to the Taos Pueblo for over 1,000 years. The bill pending before the Senate today is intended to complete the full transfer of the Blue Lake territory to the Taos Pueblo, a transfer that Senator Anderson pursued diligently while he was here representing our State. The bottleneck tract will be returned to its rightful owners under this legislation. I would hate to see the legislation fail to pass because of a disagreement over some totally unrelated provisions. Again, I urge my colleagues to allow this land transfer in my home State and the many other important provisions in the Presidio package to become law. It is the right thing to do for the people of Taos Pueblo. I hope very much we can take that responsible action before we adjourn this session for this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, with Senator Domenici, I am introducing the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative Systems Act of 1996. The Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute [SIPI] is a first class community college in Albuquerque, NM. It offers vocational and academic courses to Indian students from across the country and from all tribes. SIPI has recently celebrated its 25th anniversary, and has developed a long-term plan for expansion of its physical plant and its instructional program. SIPI is currently operating as a BIA-funded organization governed by the personnel rules of a Federal agency. These rules are not appropriate for an academic institute. For the last year and a half I have been working with the Committee on Indian Affairs to find a way to give the president and board of regents of SIPI control over their own personnel policies. The purpose of this act is to enhance the authority of the president and board at SIPI to hire and promote faculty appropriately, allowing them to function more like other academic institutions. I applaud Senator Kassebaum for the excellent work she has done to develop similar legislation for Haskell Indian Nations University, offering Haskell the same kind of improvements in their personnel policies. Senator Domenici and I hope to work with her and Senator Inouye and others to ensure that both of these institutions are provided administrative authority to operate their personnel policies well and appropriately. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, with Senator Domenici, I am introducing the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative Systems Act of 1996. The Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute [SIPI] is a first class community college in Albuquerque, NM. It offers vocational and academic courses to Indian students from across the country and from all tribes. SIPI has recently celebrated its 25th anniversary, and has developed a long-term plan for expansion of its physical plant and its instructional program. SIPI is currently operating as a BIA-funded organization governed by the personnel rules of a Federal agency. These rules are not appropriate for an academic institute. For the last year and a half I have been working with the Committee on Indian Affairs to find a way to give the president and board of regents of SIPI control over their own personnel policies. The purpose of this act is to enhance the authority of the president and board at SIPI to hire and promote faculty appropriately, allowing them to function more like other academic institutions. I applaud Senator Kassebaum for the excellent work she has done to develop similar legislation for Haskell Indian Nations University, offering Haskell the same kind of improvements in their personnel policies. Senator Domenici and I hope to work with her and Senator Inouye and others to ensure that both of these institutions are provided administrative authority to operate their personnel policies well and appropriately. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when the Senate convenes in January, lots of familiar faces will be gone for one reason or another, and those of us returning will take up our work without the company and help of so many who are important to us and to this institution. Because the Senate acted so quickly and responsibly on one matter before the August recess, one of my staff members is already gone, off to what is sure to be another outstanding period in an already distinguished career. Late in August, Ed McGaffigan was sworn in as a Commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Many of my colleagues and their staffs are well acquainted with Ed, and hold him in high regard, as do all of us in my office who have valued his company and counsel over the years. Ed was among the first people I hired when I came to the Senate in 1983. Recommended to me by Joe Nye, Ed was then the assistant director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Prior to his work in the White House, he had been in the Foreign Service for 7 years, 2 of which were spent as science attache at the American Embassy in Moscow. From February 1983 until August 1996, Ed handled defense, national security, technology, and foreign policy issues in my office, as well as nonproliferation and export control policy, and personnel and acquisition reform. Early on, he was recognized by staff and constituents alike as a high-minded individual of bedrock honesty and great intelligence. I once heard our former colleague, Lloyd Bentsen, say that there is a special bond forged between a new Senator and the people who help him or her get started. Setting up an office, sorting out the priorities, and learning to say ``yes'' or ``no'' at the proper time on this floor take a certain devotion and effort of will on the part of all concerned. Ed McGaffigan was one of those who helped me get started here, and I could not have guessed that how valuable this intense, brilliant man would become to me, the people of New Mexico, and, indeed, the people of this country because of his service to the Senate. I could not have known how much we would all come to depend on his intellect, his great curiosity, and his unswerving commitment to truth. Emerson, who was a student at the Boston Latin School more than 100 years ahead of Ed, anticipated him and knew his value in his essay on ``Power,'' when he wrote: ``Concentration is the secret strength in politics, in war, in trade in short in all management of human affairs * * *. A man who has that presence of mind which can bring to him on the instant all he knows, is worth for action a dozen men who know as much but can only bring it to light slowly.'' Mr. President, Ed McGaffigan has concentrated his career on public service. We are fortunate that this is so, and fortunate, too, that we have in him not just a superb public official, but a true friend.