Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chairman. By taking these short steps, we will gain some success in demonstrating the effectiveness of these outside financing mechanisms, while identifying legitimate institutional barriers with the intention of addressing those in the future and expanding use of ESPC and ECM to other Federal agencies. emergency rehabilitation of the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge

Mr. BINGAMAN. It has been nearly 4 years since Federal agencies were authorized to undertake ESPC and ECM at Federal facilities. In the meantime, very few of these agreements have come to pass. I believe that this is due to both institutional resistance and inertia. Mr. Chairman, I have worked very hard during this year and last to provide some legislatively directed incentive for agencies to more aggressively undertake these energy-saving methods, and have met with significant resistance. Mr. President, I believe it's time we stop looking on idly, hoping that one day agencies will rise to this challenge. I would like to ask that the six agencies which use the most energy enter into a specific number of ESPC or ECM contracts during fiscal year 1997. The numbers themselves represent a reasonable expectation for response, but ones which will result in a significant step forward for the use of ESPC and ECM inside the Federal Government. They are: Department of Defense, 10 contracts; General Services Administration, U.S. Postal Service, and Department of Energy, 8 contracts each; Department of Transportation and the Veterans Administration, 5 contracts each. If we are to move this forward we should also ask that the agencies issue a short report to us within 90 days of enactment, as well as quarterly through the year to detail their progress in meeting these targets.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from Alabama, the distinguished chairman of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Subcommittee in a colloquy relating to saving energy in Federal facilities. In light of falling appropriations for undertaking energy efficiency projects at Federal facilities, is it the opinion of the committee that Federal agencies should be utilizing private sector financing mechanisms such as energy saving performance contracting [ESPC] utility sponsored energy conservation measures [ECM] to achieve their legislatively mandated targets for energy reduction?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me speak briefly about a bill entitled the ``Highway Funding Fairness Act'' that Senator Baucus is introducing today, and which several of us are cosponsoring, to correct a serious problem in the calculation of fiscal year 1997 Federal-aid highway fund apportionments and allocations. It is our intention to use whatever vehicles are available, including the omnibus appropriations bill, to try to correct an error that exists in the transportation appropriations bill that was earlier passed in this body and sent to the President. Senator Baucus will describe in more detail the technical mistake that was made by the Department of Treasury in 1994, which resulted in faulty projections for this fiscal year. It is my understanding that the Department of Transportation has previously been instructed and empowered by the Office of Management and Budget to apportion highway funds on the basis of this error being corrected. And, in fact, baseline budget projections for the Department of Transportation reflect this agreement. Somewhere between then and now, signals have changed and States are about to get either unfairly rewarded or unfairly punished because of a flawed apportionment formula. Many of us in this Chamber thought that the problem had been fixed when we passed Senator Baucus' amendment as part of the fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations bill. This amendment, like the bill we are introducing today, would have corrected the accounting error. When the conference report emerged, however, the amendment that would have fixed the problem had been dropped. Unfortunately, when we voted on this issue last Wednesday night, very few Senators were adequately informed that the correcting amendment which Senator Baucus had previously offered was no longer included and that many of their States would be taking serious, unexpected cuts in spending authority for highway projects. I have asked the President, as have many other Senators, to try to fix this by working with the Department of Transportation to apportion funds based on their original baseline projections, as understood by the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, or if the President determines that is not possible, to then veto the legislation and return it to the Congress so we can fix the problem. I believe our States are not well-served by this legislation. We must use all opportunities available to call attention to this error and correct it before the Congress adjourns. What is even more disturbing in assessing the impact of the error is that overall highway spending will increase in fiscal year 1997 to $18 billion, $455 million over current levels, the highest amount in history. It is not reasonable for States like my own, New Mexico, to be taking a $20 million reduction in highway funds when the overall accounts are being increased to their highest levels. It is not acceptable to me or to the residents of my State of New Mexico to accept outcomes that are the result of accounting errors. Let me list the funding reductions that 28 States are about to receive in fiscal year 1997 highway fund distributions unless we are able to correct this problem before we leave town. The States that are losers under the bill as it now stands would be: Alaska, $22 million less than the current year; Colorado, $1.2 million less; Connecticut, $37 million less; Delaware, $8 million less; Hawaii, $13 million less; Idaho, $7 million less; Illinois, $71 million less; Iowa, $21 million less; Kansas, $22 million less; Maine, $7 million less; Maryland, $3 million less; Massachusetts, $73 million less; Minnesota, $32 million less; Montana, $21 million less; Nebraska, $15 million less; New Hampshire, $9 million; New Jersey, $44 million; my own State, as I have indicated, $20 million less; New York, $111 million less than current year funding; North Dakota, $11 million less; Ohio, $19 million less; Rhode Island, $14 million less; South Dakota, $12 million less; Utah, $4 million less; Vermont, $8 million less; Washington State, $33 million less; West Virginia, $17 million less; and Wyoming, $12 million less. Madam President, in contrast, there are some very large winners because of this accounting error. Texas, for example, is receiving a $183 million increase in next year's funding, which is about a 19 percent increase over the current year. Arizona, which borders my home State of New Mexico, will receive a 24 percent increase. California will receive an additional $122 million over current year funding. My home State's total highway funds will be cut by 12 percent unless we can correct the error that the amendment of Senator Baucus seeks to correct. In our State, we have six highway department districts that will have to shoulder the burden of these cuts, resulting in each of those districts receiving something around $3 or $4 million less than in the current year. Albuquerque, and that portion of my State, will be hit harder than other regions because it generally receives more Federal highway funds than other regions. Our State and Federal funding contributions now hardly extend far enough to manage maintenance and upgrade of existing highways, not to mention initiate new projects. This impact will most likely mean that few, if any, such new projects will be initiated. My real concern, Madam President--and I will conclude with this--my real concern is that the impact of this accounting error is that my State of New Mexico will proceed, as will all the other States I have mentioned, into the debates on the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) legislation in a disadvantaged position. There are going to be lots of discussions, debate, and back and forth negotiations about highway funding formulas. This is going to severely harm the 28 States that are going to have to enter those discussions with a lower baseline of funding, a baseline of funding that should not have ever occurred. The bottom line in all of this is that we are allowing an accounting error to drive our legislative outcome, rather than the collective intent of the Senate. This is unacceptable. I strongly urge my colleagues to work with us in correcting this problem and to support Senator Baucus' lead on this. We have time before we leave town to legislatively address the issue, particularly when we have the opportunity to amend the omnibus appropriations bill, which will be coming to the floor in the next few days. Madam President, we were not sent here to legislate based on accounting errors. I hope we can correct this one. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, first let me compliment my colleague, the Senator from West Virginia, on the eloquent statements he has made with regard to our colleagues here. He speaks with great eloquence and feeling about both Senator Pell and Senator Simon. Obviously, I join him in the accolades that he is heaping upon both of those Senators. They are certainly deserving. (The remarks of Mr. Baucus and Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 2123 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me speak briefly about a bill entitled the ``Highway Funding Fairness Act'' that Senator Baucus is introducing today, and which several of us are cosponsoring, to correct a serious problem in the calculation of fiscal year 1997 Federal-aid highway fund apportionments and allocations. It is our intention to use whatever vehicles are available, including the omnibus appropriations bill, to try to correct an error that exists in the transportation appropriations bill that was earlier passed in this body and sent to the President. Senator Baucus will describe in more detail the technical mistake that was made by the Department of Treasury in 1994, which resulted in faulty projections for this fiscal year. It is my understanding that the Department of Transportation has previously been instructed and empowered by the Office of Management and Budget to apportion highway funds on the basis of this error being corrected. And, in fact, baseline budget projections for the Department of Transportation reflect this agreement. Somewhere between then and now, signals have changed and States are about to get either unfairly rewarded or unfairly punished because of a flawed apportionment formula. Many of us in this Chamber thought that the problem had been fixed when we passed Senator Baucus' amendment as part of the fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations bill. This amendment, like the bill we are introducing today, would have corrected the accounting error. When the conference report emerged, however, the amendment that would have fixed the problem had been dropped. Unfortunately, when we voted on this issue last Wednesday night, very few Senators were adequately informed that the correcting amendment which Senator Baucus had previously offered was no longer included and that many of their States would be taking serious, unexpected cuts in spending authority for highway projects. I have asked the President, as have many other Senators, to try to fix this by working with the Department of Transportation to apportion funds based on their original baseline projections, as understood by the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, or if the President determines that is not possible, to then veto the legislation and return it to the Congress so we can fix the problem. I believe our States are not well-served by this legislation. We must use all opportunities available to call attention to this error and correct it before the Congress adjourns. What is even more disturbing in assessing the impact of the error is that overall highway spending will increase in fiscal year 1997 to $18 billion, $455 million over current levels, the highest amount in history. It is not reasonable for States like my own, New Mexico, to be taking a $20 million reduction in highway funds when the overall accounts are being increased to their highest levels. It is not acceptable to me or to the residents of my State of New Mexico to accept outcomes that are the result of accounting errors. Let me list the funding reductions that 28 States are about to receive in fiscal year 1997 highway fund distributions unless we are able to correct this problem before we leave town. The States that are losers under the bill as it now stands would be: Alaska, $22 million less than the current year; Colorado, $1.2 million less; Connecticut, $37 million less; Delaware, $8 million less; Hawaii, $13 million less; Idaho, $7 million less; Illinois, $71 million less; Iowa, $21 million less; Kansas, $22 million less; Maine, $7 million less; Maryland, $3 million less; Massachusetts, $73 million less; Minnesota, $32 million less; Montana, $21 million less; Nebraska, $15 million less; New Hampshire, $9 million; New Jersey, $44 million; my own State, as I have indicated, $20 million less; New York, $111 million less than current year funding; North Dakota, $11 million less; Ohio, $19 million less; Rhode Island, $14 million less; South Dakota, $12 million less; Utah, $4 million less; Vermont, $8 million less; Washington State, $33 million less; West Virginia, $17 million less; and Wyoming, $12 million less. Madam President, in contrast, there are some very large winners because of this accounting error. Texas, for example, is receiving a $183 million increase in next year's funding, which is about a 19 percent increase over the current year. Arizona, which borders my home State of New Mexico, will receive a 24 percent increase. California will receive an additional $122 million over current year funding. My home State's total highway funds will be cut by 12 percent unless we can correct the error that the amendment of Senator Baucus seeks to correct. In our State, we have six highway department districts that will have to shoulder the burden of these cuts, resulting in each of those districts receiving something around $3 or $4 million less than in the current year. Albuquerque, and that portion of my State, will be hit harder than other regions because it generally receives more Federal highway funds than other regions. Our State and Federal funding contributions now hardly extend far enough to manage maintenance and upgrade of existing highways, not to mention initiate new projects. This impact will most likely mean that few, if any, such new projects will be initiated. My real concern, Madam President--and I will conclude with this--my real concern is that the impact of this accounting error is that my State of New Mexico will proceed, as will all the other States I have mentioned, into the debates on the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) legislation in a disadvantaged position. There are going to be lots of discussions, debate, and back and forth negotiations about highway funding formulas. This is going to severely harm the 28 States that are going to have to enter those discussions with a lower baseline of funding, a baseline of funding that should not have ever occurred. The bottom line in all of this is that we are allowing an accounting error to drive our legislative outcome, rather than the collective intent of the Senate. This is unacceptable. I strongly urge my colleagues to work with us in correcting this problem and to support Senator Baucus' lead on this. We have time before we leave town to legislatively address the issue, particularly when we have the opportunity to amend the omnibus appropriations bill, which will be coming to the floor in the next few days. Madam President, we were not sent here to legislate based on accounting errors. I hope we can correct this one. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to call attention to a very encouraging development that was announced in Mexico City, yesterday. For 35 years, the conflict in Guatemala between the insurgents there and the government has produced more than 100,000 deaths, many millions have been maimed and seriously injured, and there has been scant hope that the guerrilla warfare in that country might end. Yesterday, in the offices of the Mexican Foreign Ministry, Gustavo Porras Catejon, who is the head of the Guatemalan Government delegation, broke into a bear hug with the senior commander of the Guatemalan rebels, Rolando Moran. Although no cease-fire was signed yesterday, the warring parties--which have produced the longest conflict in this hemisphere--reached a historic agreement that finally holds out hope for a more hopeful future and a return of civil society to Guatemala. According to the New York Times this morning, Guatemalan military leaders agreed to reduce their 46,000 troops by one-third next year. They agreed to cut the military's budget by one-third by the year 1999. Military leaders also consented to an alteration of their mission from one that did include domestic security control enforcement--that is, security threats within Guatemala--to a mission limited to dealing with external threats, from outside Guatemala. In 35 years of fighting, this is the most significant action we have seen that could lead to long-term peace. There are still many risks ahead, particularly how to reincorporate insurgents into the Guatemalan society. The progress made yesterday, however, lays important groundwork so that progress can be made in future weeks. I commend the U.N. negotiators who helped to mediate between the Guatemalan Government and the rebel leaders. Yesterday's accord is the fifth that has emerged from these United Nations-mediated talks. The other agreements dealt with human rights, Indian rights, poverty and land tenure, and also to set up a commission to review some of the crimes committed during the war. The military's agreement to downsize its forces and its budget and its mission was coupled with a commitment by the government to create a new police force with new recruits and retrain former officers to take over the army's domestic security functions. Mr. President, there certainly will be skeptics who will not believe the military will carry through with these commitments. I, too, have concerns about how this transition may occur, but this is, nevertheless, an important turning point in Guatemalan history, given the long history and troubling encounters that our own Government has had with the Guatemalan Government. American interests need to be encouraged with this move away from the extreme undue influence the military has previously exerted in affairs of state in that country. I do welcome this news. I want my colleagues to know about it. I wish both sides of this negotiation well in carrying out the agreement that they announced in Mexico City yesterday. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to address for just a few minutes the issue I spoke about yesterday, and that is the level of support we are providing in this Congress to education. I wanted to do it by showing some charts that I was shown yesterday which I think are particularly instructive. Let me just put them up for the benefit of my colleagues so that they can see what we are talking about. There are really two items on this first chart. The first is projected enrollment. You see here, starting in 1996, we have 52 million students enrolled and by the year 2002 that goes up to 70 million. We are seeing that kind of increase and even more of a percentage increase in my State, in States like New Mexico, where there is substantial growth in population. This chart also shows the funding proposal which was in the budget resolution that was adopted last year during the Congress, and that is to go from $39.5 billion in 1995 down to $35 billion, an absolute cut of over $4 billion in that period. This is an issue about which I think there is some confusion. As I travel around my State, people say, well, there is really not a cut in education being considered; it is only a cut in the level of increase. That is not accurate. This is a cut. When you go from $39.5 billion in 1995 to $35 billion in 2002, that is a cut that is not a cut in the rate of increase. Mr. President, this second chart makes the same point. That is, each year up until the last few years, we had seen an increase in education. Some years it was a modest increase, some years it was a more significant increase, but there was always some increase and there was bipartisan agreement to do that. Beginning in fiscal year 1995 this Congress for the first time saw a $3.7 billion cut and, of course, we are trying to reduce the level of that cut this year. Another chart which makes the same point, Mr. President, is this one which says ``Education Is Cut $3.2 Billion From the Original FY 1995 Program Level Spending.'' This shows in 1995 through rescissions of spending in that year we eliminated $600 million; in the fiscal year 1996 appropriations, it was a cumulative $1.1 billion cut; the 1997 House appropriation was a $1.5 billion cut and the total funding loss from the original 1995 level is $3.2 billion. Mr. President, let me just show this final chart here which I think makes the obvious point that I think all Americans would understand, and that is that our ``Unmet Education Needs'' are large and growing. This shows that in the school year 1994 through 1995, there were 10 million students eligible for title I funding--that is, they attended schools where the income level was such that they should have been receiving title I funding. Only 6.5 million of them actually received it. There were 3.5 million students in that school year who were not able to receive the funding because of funding levels. When you combine this chart with the first of the charts that I showed, which is the increase in enrollment that our schools are experiencing, you can see the problem is growing worse, and that is the only point I am trying to make here. In this last 2 weeks of the session, I hope very much we can get back to the 1995 funding level for education. It is a small request to make. I think it is one that is certainly justified. I appreciate the chance to point out these charts to my colleagues. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when we passed the fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations bill in this Chamber, it passed with an important amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, Senator Baucus. The Baucus amendment would have corrected an accounting error made by the Treasury Department with regard to the State distribution formula for highway trust fund obligation authority. When the Transportation appropriations bill went to conference, the conferees refused to accept the Baucus amendment, which would have empowered the Federal Highway Administration to remedy this error and would have given Congress the time needed to adjust this formulaic distribution issue next year when we consider ISTEA's reauthorization. The bottom line result in this conference report is that 28 States are losing money for general road repair, construction, maintenance, and service in a year in which the overall obligation ceiling for these expenditures is rising to its highest level in history. This conference report increases overall highway spending authority to $18 billion, a full $450 million higher than the current year's level. Thus, in a year in which we are pumping half a billion dollars into this program, 28 States are getting hit with reductions, some of which are very serious. In contrast, there are some big winners because of this accounting error. Texas is receiving a $183 million increase, which is about 19 percent greater than last year. Arizona, which also borders New Mexico, is receiving a 24 percent increase; and California is receiving a 9 percent increase. Clearly, in a year in which we are raising the level of expenditures for highways, some States will naturally see an increase in spending authority. But I do not feel that there is any justification for the serious cuts that many States are now facing because of this conference report. My own State of New Mexico received approximately $169 million from the Federal Highway Administration during the last fiscal year. New Mexico would have received roughly the same level of spending authority if the conference report had followed the Senate bill recommendation. But as we can now see, New Mexico is getting a real decrease of about 12 percent, amounting to a $20 million reduction from last year's levels. New Mexico's total obligation limitation from Federal Highway Administration funds is $149 million. I can't accept this. I had intended to support this year's Transportation Appropriations Conference Report. I was pleased that the Albuquerque, NM-based Urban/ Rural Intelligent Corridor Application [URICA] project had been funded at a level of $2 million. The Alliance for Transportation Research, a consortia of Sandia National Laboratory, the city of Albuquerque, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the University of New Mexico, has been at the forefront of many important innovative transportation initiatives. New Mexico has been well-positioned in advanced efforts in transportation system problem solving. The goal of this URICA project is to implement a system that helps integrate the transportation needs of physically challenged citizens with fixed transportation systems in both rural and urban regions. This conference report also encourages cities and regions in the United States to consult with Los Alamos National Laboratory on the problem of transportation and air emissions. Los Alamos has also worked within the New Mexico-based Alliance for Transportation Research to tie together technologies from this important national laboratory with air quality monitoring programs and remediation efforts. This report also provided ongoing essential air service funding, which is critically important to three regions in my State which are Clovis, Alamogordo, and Silver City. And I also endorse the $1 million appropriation included in this bill that would be provided to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California for increased Mexican border law enforcement activities. I did want to support this conference report, but unfortunately, without much warning and little fanfare, 28 States will be seeing less highway funding authority next year while 22 States will be reaping increases, some of which are very large increases. Mr. President, I regret that I must vote against this Transportation Appropriations Conference Report, and if asked by the President about my opposition, I will recommend that he veto this legislation from the Congress. We were not sent here to protect and defend the results of accounting errors. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference result as well. I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair, Madam President.

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 that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Eight minutes I was planning to speak.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I want to speak for a few minutes on the issue of education funding, which is of vital importance to most Americans and certainly is to the people in my State. First of all, I think we need to put the issue into context. When I go around my State of New Mexico, I talk to people at townhall meetings and I ask, what percentage of the Federal budget do you believe is committed to improving education? Usually I start by saying, ``How many of you think 15 percent of the Federal budget is committed to education?'' Quite a few hands go up in the audience. Then I say, ``How about 10 percent?'' and even more hands go up. I say, ``Five percent?'' and not that many hands. So the consensus in my State is that perhaps we are spending about 10 percent of our Federal budget on education. Madam President, the truth is, we are spending 1.4 percent, less than 2 percent, of our Federal budget on education. It is in this context that we need to consider the proposals which have come forward in this Congress to actually cut back on Federal support for education. At the same time, as baby boomers' children enter the schools, as enrollment grows in my State, as it is growing in many States around this country, we are seeing Federal support for education dropping in absolute terms. I had a chance to visit Las Cruces, NM, with a group of experts on education who were looking at the problem of Hispanic students who are dropping out of our schools in very large numbers in my State and throughout the country. We were having lunch in a restaurant, an excellent restaurant named Roberto's in Las Cruces. I recommend it to anybody. But we were having lunch there, and a woman recognized me and came over to introduce herself. She said that she was a seventh grade teacher. She taught math in the seventh grade. So I suggested she sit down with this group of experts and talk to them about what needs she saw in education. The first thing she raised was, ``We would certainly appreciate anything that you can do to get us more money for supplies.'' And I said, ``What do you mean, `supplies?' '' She said, ``We get an allocation. I, as a seventh grade teacher, get an allocation of $50 a year for supplies for my entire class, and that includes the cost of copying materials that I want to pass out to my students. So we wind up either with me not providing the materials or with me paying for it out of my pocket or having bake sales or depending upon charity of some kind to cover this cost.'' Madam President, it is in that context that we are talking about cutting funds for education here at the national level. It is also in the context of a defense bill which is pending or will be pending soon here in the Senate that goes $9.4 billion over what the Pentagon requested this year. So we are cutting back on education funds and adding over $9 billion to what the Defense Department requested, and I think the American people believe that our priorities are out of whack. The priorities of this Congress are not the priorities of the American people. The American people would like us to spend more than 1.4 percent of the Federal budget on education. I also want to say that this issue about whether the Federal Government should help or whether it is none of the Federal Government's business is really an inside-the-beltway kind of an issue, as far as I can tell. When I go home and talk to teachers and parents, they are not particularly concerned about which level of government is providing the support. What they want is to see the local school district and the State and the Federal Government working together to solve the real problems of providing quality education. This is a real issue here. Today, as I understand it, some Members on the House side announced yet another proposal to repeal Goals 2000. They did so by making a statement about how this is a first step toward eliminating Federal involvement in education. Madam President, this is not the burning issue, this issue of eliminating Federal involvement. It is not the burning issue in my State. The issue is how do we get the resources and the support to educate our children in the way we believe they should be educated. In a State like mine, which is growing, student enrollment is also growing. It is estimated by the year 2002 we will have 20,000 additional students in my State. These are students who we are not presently planning funding to support. We need technology in our schools. I think everybody here, the Presiding Officer, has been a leader in trying to assist schools in obtaining technology to improve education. We need to put our money where our mouth is on this issue of technology for education, and begin here at the Federal level to support local school districts and States in their efforts to obtain technology and upgrade the quality of education through the use of technology. We simply have to do more than the House has proposed to do. In my view, I am encouraged that there have been negotiations. I am encouraged there seems to be a bipartisan consensus to restore funds to a previous level in most areas. Frankly, Madam President, I believe we need to do better than this bipartisan discussion seems to be taking us. As I understand it, the majority leader has an amendment he will offer in this area. It should be praised in several respects. It is strong in such areas as special education grants to the States and title I funding and several smaller student aid programs. However, as I understand the amendment, it would be at a level of $2.3 billion, which is still substantially less than the $3.1 billion that Senator Harkin would propose in his alternative amendment. By cutting away at some of those funds that Senator Harkin would provide, it keeps us from addressing some key areas. In particular, as I understand it, the Lott amendment provides no additional funds for key programs such as the Goals 2000 Program, for bilingual education, for school-to-work, for teacher training, for the TRIO Program, nor does the Lott amendment provide $68 million in additional funds the Department needs to continue its very successful direct lending program. This amendment also fails to increase education technology programs to the same extent that the Harkin amendment would. In addition, the Lott amendment would appear to not include any additional funding for Head Start or job training programs. As I understand the Harkin amendment, in contrast, it increases spending levels for key programs well beyond the previous year's level in the committee bill or in the Lott amendment. There is $136 million more for Goals 2000, $77 million for bilingual and immigrant education, $227 million more for education technology programs. Clearly, those are very important to us as we approach the new century. Cutting, freezing, or even reluctantly supporting minor increases in education funding is simply the wrong way to go, in my opinion. We need some restructuring in our schools. All of the problems in our schools cannot be solved by additional resources. That is clear. We need smaller schools. We need better trained teachers. We need to have classrooms that are better equipped. Clearly, funding is part of the solution. Just as funding is part of the solution to improving and modernizing our defense capability, adequate resources are part of the solution to improving and upgrading the quality of education for our students. I hope very much, Madam President, before the Congress adjourns, we can get a chance here on the floor of the Senate to vote for a level of funding which is equal to what the President requested in education. I do not think his request was in any way excessive. It still keeps us at about 1.5 percent of the official budget. It is a very modest increase by any measure. I believe that is consistent with what the American people would like to see in the area of education. I hope, very much, that we will have a chance to vote on that level which is represented by the Harkin amendment. I urge my colleagues to support that. I know it is consistent with the people I speak to in my home State. I believe it is consistent with the majority view throughout this country. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this Nation has had a very severe fire season this year. So far almost 6 million acres have burned. The average amount burned over the last 6 years is a little over 2 million acres per year. Airplanes, known as airtankers, play a critical role in fighting wildfires. Airtankers are used in the initial attack of wildfires in support of firefighters on the ground and, on large wildfires, to aid in the protection of lives and structures from rapidly advancing fires. Today, I and my colleagues, Senators Kempthorne and Craig, are introducing legislation that will help ensure that Federal firefighters continue to have access to airtanker services. The Wildfire Suppression Aircraft Transfer Act of 1996 will help facilitate the sale of former military aircraft to contractors who provide firefighting services to the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. The existing fleet of available airtankers is aging rapidly and fleet modernization is critical to the continued success of the firefighting program. Currently, legislative authority does not exist for the transfer or sale of excess turbine-powered military aircraft, suitable for conversion to airtankers, to private operators. This greatly hampers efforts to modernize the airtanker fleet. This bill will require that the aircraft be used only for firefighting activities. Time is very short, but it is critical that this bill become law in this Congress. If we fail to pass this law, airtanker operators will not have access to the planes they need to update the aging airtanker fleet. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to ensure that Federal firefighters have the resources they need to protect the public and their property from the threat of wildfires.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this Nation has had a very severe fire season this year. So far almost 6 million acres have burned. The average amount burned over the last 6 years is a little over 2 million acres per year. Airplanes, known as airtankers, play a critical role in fighting wildfires. Airtankers are used in the initial attack of wildfires in support of firefighters on the ground and, on large wildfires, to aid in the protection of lives and structures from rapidly advancing fires. Today, I and my colleagues, Senators Kempthorne and Craig, are introducing legislation that will help ensure that Federal firefighters continue to have access to airtanker services. The Wildfire Suppression Aircraft Transfer Act of 1996 will help facilitate the sale of former military aircraft to contractors who provide firefighting services to the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. The existing fleet of available airtankers is aging rapidly and fleet modernization is critical to the continued success of the firefighting program. Currently, legislative authority does not exist for the transfer or sale of excess turbine-powered military aircraft, suitable for conversion to airtankers, to private operators. This greatly hampers efforts to modernize the airtanker fleet. This bill will require that the aircraft be used only for firefighting activities. Time is very short, but it is critical that this bill become law in this Congress. If we fail to pass this law, airtanker operators will not have access to the planes they need to update the aging airtanker fleet. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to ensure that Federal firefighters have the resources they need to protect the public and their property from the threat of wildfires.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will vote for the fiscal year 1997 National Defense Authorization Act. I signed the conference report on this bill insofar as it pertains to bill language. I did not, however, sign the conference report's report language because I do not agree with the report language on the missile defense provisions, all of which were dropped from the bill. Several of my Democratic colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee took a similar position on the conference report's ballistic missile defense report language. I will vote for the national defense authorization bill because, unlike last year, the vast majority of provisions in the bill are the result of bipartisan drafting and have full bipartisan support. I commend Senator Thurmond and Senator Nunn for their efforts to improve the process of the Senate Armed Services Committee during this legislative session. I would also like to commend Senator Smith for fostering a cooperative working relationship on the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee. Mr. President, let me briefly talk about the report language on arms control and ballistic missile defense. In order to get this bill signed by the President, the majority agreed very late in the conference to drop all of the provisions regarding multilateraliza- tion of the ABM treaty and theater missile defense demarcation, which the President's advisers had objected to. If these provisions had not been dropped, I would not be supporting this bill, nor would the President be prepared to sign this bill. However, having given up the bill language, the majority attempted in this report language to revive what they had given up. As a matter of law I would urge the President to treat this report language as totally nonbinding and certainly not representing the views of this conferee, and perhaps not even representing the views of the majority of conferees. This report language was first presented to the minority in the middle of the last night of conference, and we had no opportunity to discuss it at member level. I felt compelled to make my very strong views known, that this language is unacceptable to me and as I just said should be treated by the administration as not in any way having the force of law. The provisions dropped by the conferees raised serious legal and constitutional issues and would have infringed upon the President's prerogative to make foreign policy. What could not be achieved in bill language cannot be revived through report language. That is the strongly held view of at least this Senator. Mr. President, that having been said, there is much that is good in this bill. While I do not believe that all of the additional funding included in this bill is warranted, there are many provisions that I worked to have included and that will strengthen our national security. These provisions include the extension of flexible section 845 authority to carry out advanced research projects to the services; the clarification of the section 2371, other transactions authority, to spur broader use by the services; a fair compromise with the administration with regard to dual-use technology programs; the reduction in the total amount allocated for the renovation of the Pentagon by $100,000,000; very strong support for the Department of Energy's stockpile stewardship program; very strong support for the Nunn-Lugar program and the Department of Energy's nonproliferation efforts. I also strongly supported the additional funds for the tactical high-energy laser program with Israel, and cosponsored an amendment with Senator Kyl to restrict remote sensing over Israel. I supported a pay raise and an increase in the basic allowance for quarters for our troops, which I believe is well deserved. The bill also includes a provision supported by the Environmental Protection Agency that could speed the process for opening the waste isolation pilot plant while retaining EPA's clear authority on health and safety matters. I have previously stated that we are entering a period of military- technical transformation. I believe that by maintaining a strong lead in advanced technologies, and using these technologies as a force multiplier, we can meet our national security requirements with a smaller force structure and at reduced costs. I believe many of us on the Senate Armed Services Committee will be looking hard at the implications of these changes for our military during the coming years. I would like to address one issue that has raised some questions from my constituents in New Mexico. The House National Security Committee inserted a provision, sponsored by Congressman Thornberry, which allows certain Department of Energy sites, including the Pantex plant in Congressman Thornberry's district, to report directly to the headquarters office in Washington, DC, rather than through the Albuquerque Operations Office. The provision adds no value to the performance or reporting authorities for the Department of Energy. Indeed, if carried out, it would likely lead to balkanization within the weapons program. I am working with Senator Domenici to block this provision in the energy and water appropriations bill. If this attempt fails, I will pursue this issue in the next Congress to have the provision repealed. Despite my concerns regarding the excessive funds which have been allocated for missile defense, I will vote for the National Defense Authorization Act. The effort to prepare this legislation was significantly improved since last year, resulting in a bill which contains many provisions which I can wholeheartedly support. Despite some differences on emphasis or funding amounts, I believe we have struck a reasonable balance. I would again like to commend Senator Thurmond and Senator Nunn on their leadership on this defense authorization bill. I would also like to acknowledge that we are losing several valued members of the Senate Armed Services Committee at the end of this legislative year. Senator Nunn, Senator Exon, and Senator Cohen will all be retiring and moving on to new challenges. Senator Nunn, of course, is the ranking member and former chairman, and has dedicated countless hours over the past 24 years to the Armed Services Committee work. His expertise and strong leadership are widely recognized and will certainly be missed. Senator Exon has been our leader on strategic issues for the past 10 years. His contributions both there and in tying our committee's work to the Budget Committee will be sorely missed. Senator Cohen has been one of the most productive members of the committee, a leader on issues ranging from acquisition reform to arms control matters and one of the members of the majority who has most frequently reached out to the minority to formulate truly bipartisan policies. We have all benefited from their participation and membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee. They will be sorely missed by this Senator. I would also like to thank the many Senate Armed Services Committee staff members who work so diligently on this complex and lengthy legislation and support us so well. I want to particularly thank Bill Hoene, who, this year, took on supporting the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee, as well as supporting the Strategic Forces, and John Etherton, who has supported the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee for many years. They were an effective team.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to change the Nation's welfare system. While I hope these changes will make people's lives better, I greatly fear that these changes will do far more harm than good. Let me say I believe the country needs welfare reform, and I strongly support some portions of this bill. I support requiring all able-bodied recipients to work, turning welfare offices into employment offices, providing adequate child care and requiring strong child support enforcement. This bill achieves some of these goals, but I am deeply concerned that it will push more people into poverty instead of lifting them out. I am encouraged by the President's commitment to pursue these concerns and come back next year to propose changes to this legislation. In fact, I wish we had incorporated those changes in this bill. I have been hopeful that this Congress would achieve real welfare reform. A good bill would encourage adults to work without threatening the well-being of children or legal immigrants or the States that need welfare assistance most. I originally voted for welfare reform legislation in the Senate with hopes of ultimately achieving this goal. Unfortunately, this has not happened. In the highly politicized environment in which we find ourselves, I fear that we are trading an admittedly imperfect system for one that may prove to be far worse for our Nation's children and poor. That is why I am voting against the conference report before us. I have been persuaded that this bill will hurt New Mexico. While under this bill, States may have substantial discretion on how they administer welfare benefits, it is equally clear that they will have substantially less money with which to administer those benefits. I believe this bill will increase the number of children living in poverty in our State. Relative to other States, low per capita income states like New Mexico will suffer. According to the New Mexico Human Services Department, the number of families on welfare is increasing in New Mexico--from an 18,400 caseload in 1989 to 34,000 cases per month in 1996. New Mexico cannot easily absorb funding cuts when the caseload is growing and the State budget is not. This bill requires progressively more hours of work, from a greater percent of each State's caseload every year, with States losing cumulatively more funding each year they fail to hit their targets. While I am a strong proponent of work requirements as an integral part of welfare reform, I am skeptical of this approach. Currently, unemployment in New Mexico is 6.8 percent, higher than the national average of 5.3 percent. While we have experienced a recent period of high job creation, many of those new jobs are concentrated in our urban centers and are not likely to be accessible to those who live in rural areas. And what will happen to New Mexico in the event of an economic downturn, when rates of job creation are not so high? This bill provides a penalty of a 5 percent cut in Federal funds for the State's block grant that will be increased to a maximum of 21 percent cut should targets be missed in consecutive years. The National Governors' Association [NGA] shares the concern that many States will have difficulty in meeting the work requirements. This will leave States with the choice of using State and local funds for education, training, and child care, or throwing more people off the rolls so it will be easier to hit their work targets, or cutting far back on benefits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that, over 6 years, this bill falls $12 billion short of the funding needed to meet the work requirements of this legislation, and about $2.4 billion short in child care resources. Currently, the caseload in New Mexico is growing. Who will be forced to pick up the shortfall? State and local governments will. Last year in New Mexico, 239,000 recipients in 87,000 households relied on food stamps. About $28 billion in savings realized by this bill will be in food stamps. Such cuts to funding benefits erode the integrity of the safety net for those who need it most. I say again that we are trading in an imperfect system for one that may prove much worse. Our common goal is to eliminate public assistance as a way of life while preserving temporary protections for those truly in need. We can do this without denying the basic needs of innocent children and without driving State and local governments further into debt. I look forward to voting for the necessary amendments to this legislation in the next Congress.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, during the consideration of the foreign operations appropriations bill, I want to address the issue of microenterprise finance as a tool for sustainable development in developing countries. I realize that Third World development efforts have received much criticism in this body, but here is an emerging theory and technique for offering financial services to the poor that is similar to those found in any financial system. I understand that the microenterprise program is based on the concept that giving poor people access to financial services can allow them to participate in the private sector, rely on their entrepreneurial spirit, and be given a chance to rise out of poverty. The microenterprise program has gained increasing recognition as a creative and successful way to provide foreign aid to developing countries. Traditionally, most Western aid programs emphasize increasing credit to the poor at subsidized interest rates. But Mr. President, creating and maintaining such distortions in Third World economies does not benefit the poor; in fact, most of such subsidized credit serves those already established in the private and public sectors. Instead, if you can reach the poorest of the poor and enable them to become self- employed or create micro-business, then at least they face the possibility of emerging from poverty. In addition, poor people and especially women, face barriers to credit that are often based on a set of constraints including a lack of collateral and being perceived as a bad credit risk. There are many examples where these misperceptions have been proven wrong. The Grameen Bank, for example, has become an international success story when talking about microenterprise finance. It is an organization for the poor and has accessed 2 million poor in the past 15 years. It has 1,050 offices and serves 35,000 villages, 94 percent being women. The customers, who are also part owners, obtain small loans for self- employment from which they generate income to repay the loans and support their families. Grameen extends credit without collateral but only has a 2 percent default rate, equivalent to that of any Western bank. To qualify for a loan, a client must join a 5-member group and a 40- member center and attend weekly meetings. The client must assume responsibility for the loan of the group's members because it is the group and not the bank that evaluates loan proposals. If all five in the group repay their loan promptly, they are guaranteed credit for the rest of their lives. But the bank also follows borrowers to save money and never forgives a loan, although they may restructure. Grameen helps their clients attain their entrepreneurial potentials and encourages a culture of self-help and self-reliance. The Grameen model is now being followed by many established nongovernmental organizations. In fact, many are developing new and innovative approaches that are showing enormous ingenuity and success. I strongly support this more creative and productive approach to providing foreign aid to developing countries, and am appreciative of the efforts of the committee chairman and ranking member, Senators McConnell and Leahy, for the report language of the foreign operations appropriation bill that A.I.D. maintain last year's level of funding microenterprise programs. Microenterprise loans average less than $140, but the impact this small amount of money has on the loan recipients is enormous. At least half of the microenterprise resources are identified to make loans of less than $300 to those in the poorest half of the poverty line. This guarantees that microenterprise funds are directed toward those who need it the most. The funds go to individuals, not to governments. Microenterprise loans give people a way to transform their lives. These funds provide a way to become self-sufficient, and allows people to begin to meet their own needs in the areas of health, educating their children, and improving their living environment. Most important, the microenterprise program gives people hope for the future. Microenterprise foreign aid money is recycled. As money is paid back it is used for new loans to others. Eventually the microenterprise programs get linked into the formal financial system, and the effect is expanded even more. The microenterprise program will help millions of families. My colleagues in this Chamber have given strong and sustained support to the microenterprise program. I commend them for recognizing this project's utility and worth. This program effectively promotes economic health in poor countries, and should receive the highest possible commitment from A.I.D. Zimbabwe

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 2 days ago I voted against the so called welfare reform bill which passed the Senate. I wish to explain my reasons for that vote. The time has come to change the Nation's welfare system. We should enact much-needed, workable reforms, such as requiring all able-bodied recipients to work, turning welfare offices into employment offices, providing adequate child care and requiring strong child support enforcement. While the bill just passed by the Senate achieves some of these goals, it does so in a way that I believe will ultimately end up doing more harm than good. And the damage will be done not only to innocent children but to State and local governments and to taxpayers, who may end up bearing even more of the burden than they currently do. Last fall, I voted for welfare reform legislation in the expectation that we could develop a better bill. A good bill would encourage adults to work without threatening the well-being of children or unduly burdening the States that need welfare assistance most. It would enable flexible planning at the State and local levels, without dismantling the social safety net. Unfortunately, the highly political environment in which we find ourselves has not permitted the development of such a bill. The forces of reaction in our country have persuaded many that the main cause of our problems is welfare cheats and the current election campaign has spawned a competition between politicians to prove their machismo by getting tough. The conference report that emerged on HR4 last fall was a worse bill than what the Senate had previously passed. I joined over a quarter of the Senate who voted for the Senate welfare reform bill but rejected the changes made in the conference report. I said then that we should not trade in an admittedly imperfect system for one that is certainly not better, and perhaps may prove much worse. The same is true today. I have been persuaded by the process of debate and projections on the likely impact of this bill on my State that this welfare bill will do far more harm than good. It will cause hardship to State and local governments, throw more than a million more children into poverty and hurt rather than help the Nation's efforts at true welfare reform. The bill will clearly increase the burden on States and local governments. Poor States will, as always, be particularly hard hit. For example, the bill requires progressively more hours of work, from a greater percent of each State's case load every year, with States losing cumulatively more funding each year they fail to hit their targets. While I am a strong proponent of work requirements as an integral part of welfare reform, I am skeptical of this approach. And I am not alone. The National Governors' Association [NGA] feels it will be very hard to meet these targets, especially because the bill allows few exemptions for those who will have the hardest time finding work. And if a State fails to meet these difficult targets they lose funding for the next year's program. The irony of this penalty is that the punishment assures that the violation will occur again and again, as a State has less and less Federal money each year to try and meet their employment targets. This leaves states with two choices--use state and local funds for education, training, and child care, or throw more people off the roles so it will be easier to hit their percentage targets. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that, over 6 years, this bill falls $12 billion short of the funding needed to meet the work requirements of this legislation, and about $2.4 billion short in child care resources. New Mexico is particularly at risk if this bill does not live up to its promise. It is one of the few States in which the welfare caseload is currently increasing, even though the benefits paid are below the national average. Who will be forced to pick up the shortfall? State and local governments will. Further, last year in New Mexico, 239,000 recipients in 87,000 households relied on food stamps. About $28 billion in savings realized by this bill will be in food stamps. Such cuts to funding benefits erode the integrity of the safety net. I say again that we are trading in an imperfect system for one that may prove much worse. Legal immigrants are clearly among those who will be hurt by passage of this bill. I support the immigration bill now in Congress and its effort to make immigrants and their sponsors responsible for immigrants' welfare. But this bill goes far beyond those provisions. There are over 3,000 aged or disabled legal immigrants receiving SSI benefits in New Mexico who may abruptly be cut off if this bill becomes law, and thousands more immigrants who have no sponsor for any number of reasons who may also lose benefits under this bill. In the course of this debate, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have permitted States to use funds from their Federal block grant to offer vouchers to maintain basic non-cash benefits such as food, clothing, and shelter for children if their parents' benefits expire after 5 years. The refusal of the Senate to allow States to provide such vouchers will hurt New Mexico, where one third of the children less than 6 years old--almost 50,000--live in families with incomes below the poverty level. Ours is a great Nation, enjoying low unemployment and real prosperity. Our common goal is to ensure that all Americans willing to work hard have the opportunity to share that prosperity. We all want to eliminate public assistance as a way of life while preserving temporary protections for those truly in need of help. But we must figure out a way to do this without denying the basic needs of innocent children for food, clothing, and shelter, and without driving State and local governments further into debt.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to just speak very briefly about the amendment that was earlier agreed to here in the Senate. It is an amendment cosponsored by Senator Kassebaum, Senator Simon, and Senator Feingold. The purpose of it was to express the sense of the Senate in opposition to the military overthrow of the Government of Burundi, to encourage the swift and prompt end of the current crisis, and for other purposes. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the current situation in Burundi and the growing evidence that the international community may soon face a disaster similar to that which occurred in Rwanda in 1994 and to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution condemning the reported coup that is occurring today in Burundi. Just this past Saturday, 300 people, the majority of whom were women and children, were slaughtered as part of the continuing violence between the Hutu and Tutsi in Burundi. Survivor accounts revealed that many of those killed had their hands and feet tied before being shot in the back of the head. The rest were hacked to death with machetes. Mr. President, those 300 join the estimated 150,000 who have been murdered over the 2\1/2\ years in this small African nation. Those 150,000 join the estimated 500,000 to 800,000 who died in the horrible killing between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda in less than 2 months in 1994. Together, almost the equivalent of the population of my home State of New Mexico have died in this troubled part of the world. Mr. President, I am concerned about the apathy we see regarding the current situation. I am also concerned about the lack of a concerted international effort to prevent another situation like that which occurred in Rwanda in this region. On Tuesday, the headline in the Washington Post read, Killings Elicit Shock, but No U.N. Action. The article noted that this weekend's massacre of 300 women and children elicited expressions of horror from the members of the Security Council but that none of the member nations, including the United States, gave any sign that the United Nations might take action to halt the killing. Yesterday it was reported that the President of Burundi had taken refuge in the U.S. Ambassador's residence. This take place amid reports of the massive deportation of Hutu refugees from northern Burundi. Just this morning, Reuters is reporting that the army has seized power, outlawed political parties and closed the airport and land borders. To even a casual viewer it seems clear that Burundi is now on a fast slide down the precipice that its neighbor, Rwanda, slid down in 1994. As Pope John Paul said yesterday, ``Burundi continues to sink into an abyss of violence whose victims are drawn from among the weakest in society--children, women and the old. I cannot but state my horror.'' Mr. President, in 1994, after the plane carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi was shot down, the world stood silent while Rwanda exploded in almost unspeakable violence. While I commend the administration for the diplomatic initiatives it has undertaken prior to this week's events, in particular the appointment of former Congressman Howard Wolpe to the position of special negotiator for Burundi and Rwanda, those efforts have not been enough. The administration's attention must now be refocused on this crisis. And while there have been those in Congress like my friends and colleagues, Senators Kassebaum, Feingold, and Simon, who have spoken about Burundi and Rwanda, it is now crucial that others begin to stand, and speak, with them as well. Mr. President, some of the steps we should be supporting include: Denouncing any extra constitutional seizure of power and making clear that the United States condemns any attempt to take power by illegal means and will not recognize or support any illegal government. Clearly communicating to the President of Zaire that his support of Hutu rebels who are using Zaire as a springboard into Burundi where they commit unspeakable atrocities will not be tolerated by the United States. Immediately increasing our diplomatic efforts and conducting those at a sufficiently high level to make clear that the United States is willing to be engaged in any serious effort at halting the current crisis. Focusing our diplomatic efforts on moving the Organization of African Unity and the international community to begin assembling the regional rapid reaction force that the former President of Tanzania has negotiated with the Government of Burundi. If the OAU is unable to organize such a force we should be prepared to support other efforts by the U.N. to develop an appropriate response to this crisis. While I do not believe we should send U.S. ground forces to Burundi, I do believe that the United States should be ready to provide support to a rapid reaction force in the form of logistical, organizational and communications resources. Strongly urging President Clinton to speak out once again against the violence in Burundi and make clear to the world that the United States has an interest in preventing another genocide. Mr. President, we need not undertake another Somalia type mission to make a difference in Burundi. It does not require ground troops nor will it require large expenditures. What America can and should provide, however, is leadership and a strong, unwavering voice against the current situation. The Pope spoke yesterday about the evil that is the ethnic hatred in Burundi and Rwanda. Today, the U.N. Under Secretary General for peacekeeping missions, Kofi Annan, said: We have to move very quickly before everything blows up in our faces. As it is, history will judge us rather severely for Rwanda. I don't think we can repeat that experience in Burundi. What we need and what we are seeking now is the political will to act. Mr. President, I agree and I think passage of this resolution will put the Senate on record as supporting peace in this troubled region. This resolution puts the Senate on record urging action by our Government at the highest possible diplomatic levels to bring international attention to this problem, and try to bring peace to the situation there before the situation in Burundi deteriorates into the very kind of tragedy we saw in Rwanda in that same region this last year. Finally, I thank my colleagues for all agreeing to the resolution that we earlier sent to the desk and had approved. I do think it is important that the Senate speak on this important issue as part of this foreign operations bill. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Kentucky in allowing me to speak at this time. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 5018

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we go into morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes each.