Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do support this amendment. Let me say that when this bill was first introduced in the House, and in the Senate as well, I felt it was fatally flawed in several respects. It did, in its first form, propose to eliminate the regulatory role of the Environmental Protection Agency. It proposed to allow nondefense transuranic waste to go to WIPP, as well as defense-related transuranic waste. It needed the periodic recertification requirement by the Environmental Protection Agency. It deleted authority by EPA to issue criteria. All of those problems have been solved in the amendment that is now about to be voted on here in the Senate. I am very pleased to see the improvements that have been made. I have been in touch with the Under Secretary of Energy, Thomas Grumbly, to get his comments on this proposed amendment which we are now getting ready to vote on. He indicates that he and his staff have reviewed it in detail and support the amendment. I have been also in touch with Mary Nichols, the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation in the Environmental Protection Agency. She indicates that she is satisfied with this proposed amendment and believes it is something that we should enact. Mr. President, the foremost concern that I have had, and that I believe most Members have had, in this facility from the beginning has been whether or not we were adequately protecting the health and safety of our citizens as we went forward to design and develop this facility. I am persuaded we are still adequately protecting that health and safety, even under this language. For that reason, I will support it. I will make the point which needs to be crystal clear that transuranic waste can only be disposed of underground at this facility upon completion, by the Administrator of EPA, of a certification that final disposal regulations have been complied with. That essential safeguard is foremost in this amendment. I think that is very important for the people of New Mexico. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I am informed by the floor staff that I need to send a modification to the desk. It is a technical modification to make it clear as to which page and which line is being proposed for striking in this amendment. I send that modification to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment which I have offered on behalf of myself and the Senator from New Hampshire makes a series of changes in section 2371 of title 10, United States Code, that are designed to make this authority more useful to the military services and defense agencies. Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office submitted a report to the Armed Services Committee entitled ``DOD Research: Acquiring Research by Nontraditional Means.'' I was very encouraged by the findings of this very constructive report. The report concluded that cooperative agreements and other transactions carried out under the authority of section 2371 of title 10, United States Code, have provided DOD a tool to leverage the private sector's technological know-how and financial investment and have attracted firms that traditionally did not perform research for DOD to carrying out such research. Mr. President, in light of the significant declines projected in defense research spending and the continued rapid growth of private- sector research investments, Senator Smith and I believe that it is going to become even more important for DOD to leverage commercial research investments and attract commercial firms to working on service requirements. Innovative military leaders such as the Marine Corps Commandant, General Krulak, and the former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Owens, fully recognize this and are taking steps to insure the services leverage, and don't duplicate private sector efforts. However, the report also points out that DARPA has been the primary utilizer of this innovative transaction authority thus far and that there has been some confusion on the use of this instrument among the services. Since DOD is preparing new guidance on this matter, the Armed Services Committee in its report on the pending legislation sought to clarify several points. First, the committee intended in creating other transactions authority to maximize flexibility on intellectual property negotiations with private sector entities. In particular, the committee did not intend that such transactions be subject to the provisions of Public Law 96-517, as amended. The GAO report points out that this additional flexibility has been important in attracting commercial firms to carry out cost-shared research with the Pentagon. Second, the committee intended that the sunk cost of prior research efforts not count as cost-share on the part of the private sector firms. Only the additional resources provided by the private sector needed to carry out the specific project should be counted. Finally in the committee's hearings DOD officials testified that the reluctance of the services to use other transactions authority derived in part from the requirement that standard contract, grant or cooperative agreement first be found not feasible or appropriate for carrying out any given project. The committee did not intend that this requirement unduly restrict use of the other transactions instrument. DARPA has properly interpreted Congress' intent that if the goal of a research project is to leverage the capabilities of firms who will not accept a standard grant, contract or cooperative agreement to conduct defense research, then it is not feasible or appropriate to use such instruments and the use of other transactions authority is warranted. The committee intended that program managers in DARPA and the services be given the discretion to make these judgments within a framework provided by overall defense guidance. The committee urged that these issues be clarified by the Office of the Secretary of Defense as soon as possible so that the services can gain the benefits which the GAO report demonstrates DARPA has received from use of other transactions. Mr. President, since the committee's markup, Dr. Kaminski, the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology, has provided additional information to the committee about the changes which the Pentagon would like to see in the other transactions authority in order to spur its use by the military services. I ask unanimous consent that has written response to a question posed at our March hearing be printed at the end of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the language in this bill is an unsupportable effort to take away a fundamental, legal right from women in uniform and female military dependents overseas--the right to use their own funds to obtain a legal abortion. The amendment we are considering today is simply a return to previous DOD policy that stood for many, many years. It is, quite simply, about treating these women fairly and equitably, and giving them the same rights that women in this country have. These women are in service to their country--our country--overseas, protecting our fundamental freedoms. But this ban would deny them the same freedom that women in this country are granted--the right to safe, legal, and comprehensive reproductive services. I urge my colleagues to support the Murray-Snowe amendment, and strike this offensive language from the bill. We have no right to ask these women to sacrifice more than they already have in service to their country.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Our amendment makes the changes requested by Dr. Kaminski with one exception. We have preserved an annual report on the use of other transactions authority, but we have changed the entire tone of that reporting requirement. The reporting requirement in our amendment would essentially ask DOD to continue to update the GAO report on an annual basis so that we can judge how the services are doing in making use of this flexible authority to leverage the commercial sector to meet DOD's needs for dual-use technologies. Mr. President, I believe that it is important to give the Pentagon the authorities it needs to make the best use of its limited R&D resources. One of the great achievements of the past two Congresses and Secretary Perry's Pentagon is that we have really changed the Pentagon's acquisition system for the better. We have done this on a bipartisan basis, and I am glad to continue to work with the Chairman of the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee, Senator Smith, to bring about needed reforms in that system. Our amendment is a modest step in helping the Pentagon to leverage the private sector's $100 billion annual R&D investment and to broaden the industrial base that supports the Pentagon to include truly commercial firms. I urge my colleagues to support it. Exhibit 1 Excerpt From Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology Hearing on DOD Technology Base Programs, Wednesday, March 20, 1996 flexible instruments for science and technology First, I would like to mention that we are taking actions to encourage increased use of flexible instruments, which include cooperative agreements and ``transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements'' (commonly known as ``other transactions'' or OTs). Cooperative agreements, like OTs, can have provisions designed to involve commercial organizations that haven't traditionally received Government awards, thereby helping to increase DoD access to the portion of the U.S. technology and industrial base that serves the needs of the commercial marketplace. Both cooperative agreements and OTs therefore can be responsive to the policy intent of 10 U.S.C. 2371. To encourage increased use of flexible instruments, we are: Preparing to advise the Military Departments that the authority to use OTs should be delegated to at least the level of the major commands that have responsibility for making awards under DoD Science and Technology programs. In conjunction with that action, I have asked the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to issue updated guidance on when it is appropriate to use flexible instruments. Feedback that we've received indicates that improved guidance will help to increase comfort levels with the use of the instruments. Seeking to remove factors that may unnecessarily discourage potential users of the instruments from using them. For example, there is a requirement to report to Congress each OT, as well as any cooperative agreement that uses the funds- recovery authority in 10 U.S.C. 2371. It was suggested that this reporting requirement is a potential disincentive to use the instruments. Therefore, section 805 of the Administration-proposed, national defense authorization bill would repeal the requirement, and I ask that you give the proposal favorable consideration. It should be noted that use of flexible instruments already is increasing. In Fiscal Year 1994, the first year in which they used the instruments, the Military Departments entered into 19 cooperative agreements with provisions designed to involve commercial firms that hadn't traditionally received Government awards. The number of those flexible agreements increased to 41 in Fiscal Year 1995. With that experience as a foundation, I think that we can expect a continued increase in the use of such instruments in the future, because I don't believe that we've exhausted the areas of opportunity for flexible instruments to help us meet our objectives. Second, I want to provide an answer to the question about the provision in 10 U.S.C. 2371 that requires a judgment before using an ``other transaction,'' that standard grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts are not feasible or appropriate. 10 U.S.C. 2371 is a very powerful authority, but it should not be totally open-ended. Creative people in the DoD will continue to use the authority to invent different and improved types of agreements; we can't predict today what those innovations might be. In the context, this provision helps to provide assurance that the powerful authority will continue to be used in a disciplined manner. However, there are some indications that the provision may be impeding use of OTs, in situations where they are appropriate. The problem appears to be that some people have the impression that the provision sets a standard so high that it is almost unattainable. I think that one could revise the provision slightly to change its tone in a way that alleviates this problem, while retaining the benefits the clause provides. The provision currently says that the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that an OT is used for a research project only when the use of a standard contract, grant, or cooperative agreement for such project is not feasible or appropriate. With minor restructuring of the subsection that contains the provision, one could restate the condition without the severe term ``only.'' I think that would require thoughtful analysis before using an OT, but remove the impression of an unattainable standard. Paragraph (e) of 10 U.S.C. 2371 then would read as follows: ``(e) Conditions.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that-- ``(A) to the maximum extent practicable, no cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) and no transaction entered into under subsection (a) provides for research that duplicates research being conducted under existing programs carried out by the Department of Defense; and ``(B) to the extent that the Secretary determines practicable, the funds provided by the Government under a cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) or a transaction entered into under subsection (a) do not exceed the total amount provided by other parties to the cooperative agreement or other transaction. ``(2) A cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) or a transaction entered into under subsection (a) may be used for a research project when the use of a standard contract, grant, or cooperative agreement for such project is not feasible or appropriate.'' Third, I'd like to respond to your suggestion that Congress might amend section 2371 of title 10 of the U.S. Code, to clarify that the intent was to exempt agreements under that authority from the Bayh-Dole requirements (chapter 18 of 35 U.S.C.). There is no need to amend the law; the Bayh-Dole statutory requirements, by the terms of the statute, do not include OTs. Finally, I would like to mention one point about the need for maintaining good stewardship. The development and use of flexible instruments to involve firms that have not traditionally performed research for the Government has tremendous potential benefits, but it is not without risk. the goal is to find the right tradeoff or balance--one must develop approaches with sufficient oversight to ensure the appropriate use of federal funds but without excessively intrusive requirements that drive commercial firms away and deny DoD access to some of the best and most affordable technology. That is both the opportunity and the challenge.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to an additional 2 minutes, but I would like 2 minutes on my side.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just respond briefly. I do not think I will take the full 10 minutes. The Senator from New Hampshire says that this amendment that I have offered is an effort to kill the ASAT Program. That is clearly not true. There is nothing in the amendment that I have offered which in any way tries to delete or reduce or diminish funding for an ASAT Program. I made it very clear that I support that funding. The funding remains in the bill. The Senator from New Hampshire is saying that the Pentagon is trying to kill its own ASAT capability. I have real trouble understanding that logic or believing that that is a credible line of argument. The real question we are trying to pose here, Mr. President, is, should we allow the Pentagon to come forward with their own recommendation on what makes the most sense, what is the best option for an ASAT capability, or should we prejudge that? I remember a story that I heard when I was in school about how Henry Ford used to say, ``You can have any color of Model-T Ford that you want as long as it's black.'' What we are saying here in the existing bill to the Pentagon is, ``You can pursue any option you want to obtain ASAT capability as long as you take the one we want you to take.'' That is not a smart way for us to proceed. We do not have the technical capability here in the U.S. Senate to prejudge this study that the Pentagon is engaged in. My colleague from New Hampshire says that the military supports this kinetic energy ASAT capability; they want to go ahead and fund it. If that is true, then why do we have to mandate in the bill that they have to fund it? Why do we have to mandate in the bill that they cannot spend any money for these other purposes unless they fund it, unless they choose that option? I think clearly what the majority in the committee is trying to do in this bill is to take away the options of the Pentagon and say the Pentagon has to fight the way we say or else we will impose sanctions upon them. My colleague from New Hampshire says that anyone who would support this amendment, the amendment I have offered, is trying to put our forces at risk. Why is it putting our forces at risk to let the Pentagon decide what makes the most sense, what is the most effective for protecting our forces? I have real difficulty understanding that kind of logic. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered is not an effort to kill the ASAT Program. It is not an effort to reduce funding for the ASAT Program. There is nothing in the amendment that does either of those things. What it says is, let us give them the money, let us give them the ability to come back and recommend to us the proper use of that money to gain the greatest capability for protecting our own forces. To me that is common sense. I have great difficulty seeing why we even have to argue about it. I am reminded, as I hear the debate raging around here, that when I was practicing law, a more senior member of the bar early on in some of the trial practice I engaged in said there is a simple rule in trying a lawsuit. When the facts are on your side, pound away at the facts; when the law is on your side, pound away at the law; when neither are on your side, pound away at the table. That is what is happening here. Neither the facts nor the law nor common sense are on the side of those who put this provision in the bill. We clearly should delete this provision. Let the Pentagon make its own recommendations as to what option is best for our troops. That is what I favor doing. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no additional debate.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, again I will not take the full 7 minutes, but let me conclude by saying that I think there is clearly a failure to communicate here on this issue. My colleague from New Hampshire says that the Army wants this program. Looking at the facts: The administration asked for a fairly healthy defense budget; the Armed Services Committee, in the bill that is before the Senate here, added about over $12 billion to that-- something in that range. In order to come up with that additional money, we went to each of the services and said, ``What is on your wish list? Are there things you would like to have funded that we were not able to fund, or that the President did not request, or that the Pentagon did not request, the Secretary of Defense did not request?'' The Army gave us over $2 billion worth of those, more like $3 billion. I am not sure of the exact amount. Again, there was nothing in there for this ASAT capability. The argument that the Army wants this, they just never want us to give them any money for it, is a hard one for me to understand. I think, clearly, this is not a program I am trying to kill. We are not touching the money. The money has been added here, and we are saying, ``Fine, let's go ahead and spend the money for whichever option the Pentagon wants to pursue.'' But let the Pentagon make the judgment. Do not try to prejudge the right technology in order to develop this ASAT capability. That is all we are saying. The end of the amendment that I have offered, I think, makes it very clear that not later than April 1, 1997, the Secretary of Defense shall release to the kinetic energy antisatellite program manager any funds appropriated in 1997 for the Kinetic Energy Tactical Antisatellite Program pursuant to section 221(a) unless the space architect has by such date submitted a notification; or a report submitted by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (c) includes a recommendation not to pursue such a program. What I am trying to do in my amendment is to protect the ability of the Pentagon to use the money in the most effective way. We are not in favor of mandating a result in an ongoing study where they are trying to make a judgment as to what is the best use of this money to protect our own forces. I have confidence that the Pentagon will make a judgment based on their honest and expert opinion as to what makes sense for the country and for our own forces. I do not think we need to prejudge that. Accordingly, I hope very much that my amendment will be agreed to. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Bumpers be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I did want to conclude my debate.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, may I just make a unanimous-consent request before the Senator makes his statement? I ask unanimous consent that Linda Taylor, a fellow in my office, be given the privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 1745.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It proposes to delete two provisions that have been included in the bill. The effect of the provisions that are in the bill is that they would prejudge an ongoing study that the Pentagon is doing on space control and antisatellite weapons. These provisions that I am proposing to delete would impose on the Pentagon a kinetic energy antisatellite weapon which is generally referred to as KE-ASAT, which may well be one of the least attractive options available to the Pentagon for space control. My amendment instead sets up a process whereby the Pentagon can complete its analysis of the ongoing space control architecture study and fund the KE-ASAT, the kinetic energy ASAT, only if the Secretary of Defense decides that it is a desirable option. My amendment was defeated in the committee when I offered it by an 11-to-10 vote. I hope that we can succeed on the floor because we simply should not be imposing a technical solution to a complex problem on the Pentagon before they have told us what their space control architecture will be. Mr. President, this is a fairly esoteric subject. There is no doubt that our military forces deployed overseas will be made more vulnerable by the proliferation of foreign military commercial satellite imaging capabilities in the coming years. I have been among several here in Washington and around the country pointing to that threat and urging the administration to develop diplomatic and military options to deal with the threat. The Pentagon's own April 1996 report, ``Proliferation Threat and Responsibilities,'' pointed to the growing availability of satellite imaging and noted--and here is a quote from that report: Iraq, for example, might have used such capability to discover that coalition forces had shifted their positions prior to ground operations in Operation Desert Storm. Obviously, such a discovery by Iraq could have cost many allied lives. A future General Schwarzkopf may not have absolute dominance of the space above the battle area that the real General Schwarzkopf enjoyed during Desert Storm as a result of the U.N. sanctions on Iraq. To deal with this threat, a threat that the Pentagon does take seriously, the Pentagon has launched a space control architecture development effort under the Pentagon's space architect, Maj. Gen. Robert Dickman. The results of the study may be available as early as this fall, according to the testimony that was received in the Armed Services Committee. Unfortunately, instead of waiting for this study, section 212 of this bill, this defense authorization bill that we are considering today--section 212 of the bill takes all funding away from the space architect unless the Secretary of Defense includes the kinetic energy ASAT in the space control architecture being developed. Section 221(c) denies all funding for technical analysis, that is $35 million, denies all that funding to the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology unless the kinetic energy ASAT Program is pursued. Mr. President, this is, I believe, the first example I have seen of a sort of double mandate being put into law, where we are saying not only will we deny all funds to the space architect in the Department of Defense if they do not come to the conclusion we want in this study, but we will also deny this $35 million to the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology unless they decide to pursue this particular option. In my view we should not be using such a mandate to influence the outcome of an ongoing Pentagon study. The real reason for this mandatory language, I am afraid, is that many are concerned that the kinetic energy ASAT option will prove to be a very poor alternative in this ongoing study. Most previous studies of antisatellite capabilities have pointed toward directed energy options as preferable to the kinetic energy ASAT mandated by the bill. For example, the Air Force Science Board, in its ``New World Vistas'' study in air and space power for the 21st century earlier this year recommended both ground-based lasers and high-powered microwave systems over the kinetic energy ASAT systems. Here is a quote from that ``New World Vistas'' study. It says: Kinetic energy systems . . . are expensive. The vehicles are complex, and tracking and guidance must be precise. Most of the cost, however, is the result of maintaining readiness to launch within an acceptable time. Mr. President, I am not opposed to the Pentagon's developing antisatellite capabilities to deal with the proliferation of foreign high-resolution imaging satellites. But we have to understand that these capabilities will be in the hands of a limited number of nations for the next 10 to 15 years, nations such as France, Russia, Israel, China, possibly India, and Japan. Would we really use a kill capability--which is what the kinetic energy ASAT is? This kinetic energy ASAT capability would collide with the satellite which it is directed against at very high speed. Would we really use this ability against one of those nations which I just listed, simply because they were making imagery available to a potential foe, such as Saddam Hussein, during a regional confrontation? Would our national leadership not prefer a capability that would disable or jam such a satellite when it was over our deployed forces but which would not permanently damage it? The Air Force Science Board study to which I referred earlier points out that high power ``microwave systems could be attractive because they have the potential to produce electronic upset without damaging the structure of a threat satellite.'' Similarly, a mobile ground-based laser system might be developed that can only damage a threat satellite if its shutters were open, not if it were in a shutdown mode. Such systems would provide our military commanders a military option to ensure the dominance of space by this country above the battle area, which General Schwarzkopf enjoyed during Desert Storm, without resulting in the escalation of a regional conflict. The ideal space control capability is not one that destroys a foreign imaging satellite by colliding with it at high velocity and creating a diplomatic crisis that broadens a conflict as well as a cloud of space debris that will have adverse effects on peaceful space activities. Mr. President, if there are more cost effective and more diplomatically effective approaches to space control, should we not allow the Pentagon to pursue those? The amendment I am offering leaves the $75 million in the bill which is presently there for tactical ASAT technology, without specifying what technologies we might be using it for. It eliminates the mandate forcing the use of the kinetic energy ASAT by the Pentagon. The amendment instead directs that the kinetic energy ASAT option be explicitly evaluated by General Dickman for the space control architecture, but it leaves the choice of whether to fund that option to the Pentagon. The Pentagon must also give Congress the results of its space control study by March 31, 1997. This is the way in which we normally proceed when the Pentagon defines a threat, as they have in this case, and launches an effort to deal with that threat. We do not impose our solution to a highly complex problem before we have heard the Pentagon's own recommended solution. Mr. President, the only testimony which the Senate received this year on this whole issue was from Gil Decker, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Acquisition, who told the Armed Services Committee that this is not an Army priority. This funding did not appear on any service wish list. This is hardly the basis for imposing this kinetic energy ASAT system on the Pentagon. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. That concludes my statement in support of it and I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will try to talk for a few minutes here to alert my colleague and anybody watching about the importance of a Senate resolution which I submitted, along with Senators Daschle and Domenici and Pressler and Leahy. That is Senate Resolution 259. It was agreed to by unanimous consent. I call on the Secretary of Agriculture to give that resolution very serious consideration. The resolution simply states that it is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture should use the disaster reserve of grain, which is under his authority, to alleviate the distress of livestock producers. This should be done in the most efficient manner practicable, including cash payments from the sale of commodities that are in the disaster reserve. The disaster reserve currently has about 44 million bushels of grain. The Secretary of Agriculture has two choices, essentially, as to how to proceed in compliance with the resolution. He can transport the grain from the Midwest, where it is currently stored, to the southwest, where that grain is needed. Of course, this kind of an option would be time consuming; it would be inefficient. The other alternative, and that is what we urge in our resolution, is that he could sell the grain on the open market and use the proceeds from the sale as cash payments to livestock producers who are in the most distress. This action would provide significant relief to ranchers in New Mexico and in many other States. Mr. President, the resolution I have referred to represents one of several efforts that we have made to provide immediate assistance to livestock producers. Those in the livestock industry cannot wait for the normal period that it takes to pass legislation in this Congress. Many people have had to sell their cattle because they could not afford to feed those cattle. To bring a calf to market today, to get it up to the weight where you can bring it to market, a rancher is required to spend about $350 on grain. Under the present circumstances, he could be expected to sell that calf for $200 or less. That, of course, does not make sense. Many ranchers have had to sell their entire herds now, at this point, when the price of cattle is at a near all-time low. A rancher from Quay County in my State on the east side of New Mexico reported that semis loaded with cattle have had to wait up to 18 hours to be unloaded at the slaughterhouse in Hereford, TX. The cattle that remain on the range are in poor health. Twenty-two of the thirty-three New Mexico counties have been declared disaster drought areas. Farmers in these counties, in many cases, have had to plow their fields into large clods to keep the wind from blowing precious topsoil away. Without question, the current hardships affect the entire community. In certain areas of New Mexico, banks are having to let ranchers and farmers pay only interest on their loans. This drought has also started an early fire season with very devastating results in my State. As of May 5, fires had burned 162,000 acres of Federal land in the two States of Arizona and New Mexico. This figure is twice the area burned in the entire year of 1995. As a result, in our State, fireworks have been banned statewide. Part of my State did receive rain in the last 2 days. However, as welcome as that rain is, it is clearly not enough. We have talked to various extension offices around New Mexico, and the indications are that the amount of rain received was very sparse and widely distributed. In Chaves County, the extension office indicated that they received one-tenth of an inch of rain in areas that are usually farmed, and even less than that in grazing areas. The normal rainfall from January until the present time is about 2 inches. In Eddy County, in the southeast part of our State, they reported they had a few drops of rain a few days ago. Roosevelt County, on the east side of New Mexico, had one-half inch in the town of Portales, but less out in the county. Lincoln County indicated that there was some rain in Carrizozo, none out in the rest of the county. Mr. President, let me show a chart which I think makes the case much better than a description by me could make. This is the Palmer drought index, which is the primary way in which people in the weather predicting business and weather analysis business determine the extent of the drought that is being experienced. This is a map as of May 25 of this year. It is the most recent map. Though the map was made on June 4, it is valid for the period up through May 25. This shows that the blue, or turquoise areas on the map are those which are considered moist, by normal standards. The yellow areas--and you can see much of the Northeast is having a moist season so far this year--the yellow areas are normal. The tan areas are moderate. The reddish areas are severe drought. And then the purple areas are listed as extreme drought. You can see the very large area throughout the Southwest that is listed as experiencing extreme drought conditions under this map. Most of my State, most of Arizona, much of California, much of Nevada are listed in extreme drought conditions. Mr. President, this is not a modest problem; it is a very serious problem for the State. We have seen some measures taken to deal with this hardship, but they are not enough. The President has announced some actions, but I believe we must pursue all avenues available. For this reason, I continue to encourage the Senate to take up and to pass a bill that I introduced on May 13, S. 1743, the Temporary Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1996. We requested the Secretary of Agriculture to give us his comments on that bill, and I have a letter from him, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me read two or three sentences from that. The Secretary of Agriculture, in this letter dated the 12th of June, says: The Department of Agriculture supports the concept and intent of the proposed legislation as a means to provide some form of assistance to livestock producers who cannot receive assistance under either crop insurance or the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, as the administration proposed in legislation submitted to Congress last year in formulating the 1996 farm bill. He goes on to say: The extension proposed in S. 1743 could be operated through the current LFP policy and procedure with very limited changes. Therefore, if the legislation were enacted, it could be implemented in a very short timeframe. Under the bill, Mr. President, the producers who have suffered at least a 40-percent loss of feed production would be able to apply for assistance through their local farm service agency. The livestock eligible would be cattle, sheep and goats. The old program was funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation. This bill changes that funding mechanism. S. 1743 targets $18 million from the Cottonseed and Sunflower Seed Oil Export Assistance Program. If market conditions remain the same, we are informed that these funds will go unspent this year unless we use them for the purpose that we have designated in S. 1743. Mr. President, we now have 16 cosponsors for this legislation. It is a very impressive bipartisan group of cosponsors: Senators Daschle, Domenici, Baucus, Gramm, Dorgan, Grassley, Exon, Hatch, Harkin, Inhofe, Johnston, Kyl, Feinstein, Pressler, Hutchison, and Kassebaum are all cosponsors of the legislation with me. I urge other Senators to join us in this legislation. This bipartisan bill will give immediate relief to the livestock industry. I know there are some in this body who hesitate to resurrect a program that was eliminated in the recently enacted farm bill, but let me point out that S. 1743 addresses many of the reasons that the program was eliminated and corrects the problems. Several provisions have been placed into the bill to guard against some of the abuses that had been pointed out in the program previously. For example, a rancher must have owned or leased the livestock covered in our proposed legislation for at least 180 days. If the rancher has not owned or leased the livestock for the required time, there are certain exceptions that the Secretary would have to approve. This will ensure that additional livestock are not purchased for the sole purpose of benefiting from this program. Also there is language that allows the Secretary to determine the quantities of forage sufficient to maintain livestock based on the normal carrying capacity of the land. The language is intended to discourage anyone from overstocking the land above the carrying capacity and receiving assistance for that effort. Further, S. 1743 would not revive the program indefinitely. This bill proposes to allow the program to exist only through 1996. That year, of course, is essentially half over. The practical effect of S. 1743 is that it would provide short-term assistance for the livestock industry until adequate rain does come. S. 1743 differs significantly from the livestock feed program in regard to how it is funded. We have identified $18 million that will go unspent this fiscal year. The old program was funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation. We do not upset any of the funding mechanisms created in the newly enacted farm bill. Instead we spend money that otherwise would be returned to the Treasury. As I have stated, Mr. President, the livestock industry in my State and in much of the Southwest needs immediate relief. Until the livestock industry receives some immediate assistance, I ask the Senate to continue moving ahead with Senate bill 1743. Given the choice of whether this $18 million is to be used for drought emergency or returned to the Treasury, I believe the choice is clear, given the crisis that we face. Mr. President, as I indicated a week or so ago speaking on the floor on this same subject, we cannot legislate rain. But we can legislate some measure of relief during this time of crisis. We should do so. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing so. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC, June 12, 1996. Hon. Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building, Washington, DC. Dear Jeff: This is in response to your request for comments regarding S. 1743, a bill ``To provide temporary emergency livestock feed assistance for certain producers, and for other purposes.'' S. 1743, basically mirrors the Livestock Feed Program (LFP) that was suspended, for crop years 1996 through 2002, by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, signed on April 4, 1996, with two exceptions: (1) eligible livestock, which the proposed legislation limits to cattle, sheep, and goats; and (2) funding. Funds for the expired program originated in the Commodity Credit Corporation, whereas the proposed legislation specifies that the Secretary of Agriculture shall use not more than $18 million that otherwise would have been made available to carry out the cottonseed oil and sunflowerseed oil export assistance programs established under section 301(b) of the Disaster Assistance Act of 1988. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) supports the concept and intent of the proposed legislation as a means to provide some form of assistance to livestock producers who cannot receive assistance under either crop insurance or the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), as the Administration proposed in legislation submitted to Congress last year in formulating the 1996 Farm Bill. The extension proposed in S. 1743 could be operated through the current LFP policy and procedure with very limited changes. Therefore, if the legislation were enacted, it could be implemented in a very short timeframe. The long-term Palmer Index, as of May 11, 1996, indicates that extreme drought currently is occurring in parts of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, and Utah. The Palmer Index also shows that severe drought is occurring in parts of Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah. USDA would support S. 1743 if it were modified so that benefits under the proposed legislation would be made available only to those producers who are not eligible to receive assistance under NAP or crop insurance. If careful consideration is not given to eligibility criteria, the $18 million funding provided for the legislation will be inadequate. NAP assistance on privately-owned land is available for seeded forage and for native forage. On Federal or State-owned lands, NAP assistance is available only for seeded forage. Vegetation occurring naturally without seeding is considered native forage. Seeded forage is defined as acreage which is mechanically seeded with grasses or other vegetation at regular intervals, at least every 7 years, in accordance with good farming practices. Because LFP benefits may fluctuate frequently during the feeding period, it would be advisable to provide for a 30-day sign-up period in order to make an early determination of potential expenditures and to issue advance payments accordingly. The requirements in section 6, of the proposed bill, Report on Use of Disaster Reserve for Livestock Assistance, are extraneous, and need not be included. the Administration is quickly developing a mechanism for distributing the Disaster Reserve stocks and will announce it very soon. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, Dan Glickman, Secretary. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes here to bring the Senate up to date on the severe drought that we are experiencing in all of the Southwest, but particularly in my home State of New Mexico, and also to urge action on a bill that I introduced with 14 cosponsors recently--the Temporary Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1996. Last week, in Roswell, NM, the newspaper called the Roswell Daily Record contained a joke of sorts. It said that a rancher placed five calves in a pen because he could not afford to feed them. He knew that they would not fetch much if he tried to sell them. He put a sign on there saying ``free calves.'' He came back the next day and found 20 calves in the pen. This a joke, but unfortunately, in New Mexico, the drought is no laughing matter. The precipitation levels in my State, through the end of May of this year, are 60 to 80 percent below normal. In the Albuquerque Journal on May 26, it profiled a ranch owned by Shirley Porter. One of the lines of the story summed up the circumstances that she faces and says, ``She does not need to worry about gates anymore. There is nothing here to get loose. Shirley Porter, who is a rancher in San Jon, on the east side of New Mexico, sold every last one of her 139 cows, calves, and bulls at a livestock auction in Clayton, NM. She was given a total of $30,204.63 for all of her livestock. She had come to this ranch as a bride right after high school. And now, at the age of 67, she was forced to liquidate. She was quoted as saying, ``I am not going to grieve for them''--that is, the livestock--``because if I had kept them, they would have starved to death.'' Every part of New Mexico is affected by this drought, and much of the rest of the Southwest as well. In one part of New Mexico, farmers are predicting that they will obtain about 1 bushel per acre of wheat. Usually the yield is about 45 bushels per acre. To keep the livestock alive, ranchers are forced in some cases to burn the thorns off prickly pear cacti to give their cattle a little food. Ranchers are having to sell off cattle just to pay the interest on the loans that they have, and, of course, the cattle market is flooded. Calves that would have sold for $125 a year ago now are selling for $10 to $20. Fireworks in my State have been banned by our State Corporation Commission statewide from now through the 18th of the month. I think they are going to consider extending that ban assuming no rain is forthcoming; 22 of 33 counties have been declared disaster drought areas. Let me refer to some charts that I have here, Mr. President, to make the point even more graphically. I think these are hard for anyone to see from a distance, but perhaps the coloration of the charts will make the point. As I understand, the Weather Service's main indicator for drought areas--severe drought--is the so-called Palmer Index. When you look at the Palmer Index for the country as a whole--this is valid through the end of March 1996--you can see that much of my State or the majority of my State even by the end of March was listed in a severe or extreme drought condition. Here again is the drought severity index. This is the long-term Palmer Index, which shows the bright red area, which shows most of my State and, of course, most of the Presiding Officer's State of Arizona listed again as severe or extreme drought. Much of Nevada and California as well as much of the Southwestern part of the country is affected. On U.S. precipitation rankings, again from the Weather Bureau, you can see that extremely dry is the bright orange area through the entire State of New Mexico and much of the rest of the Southwest as well. This final chart is one which tries to show the severity of the fire danger. As of May 3, 1996, again it shows virtually all of New Mexico and all of Arizona and much of Texas, Colorado, Utah, California, and Nevada. So this is a serious problem, Mr. President. What I have proposed and what many have joined me in proposing is Senate bill 1743, the Temporary Emergency Livestock Feed Assistant Act of 1996. The bill would give immediate assistance to ranchers if passed. We now have 14 cosponsors of that legislation as of last count. We would be putting the livestock feed program back into effect with this legislation for a 1-year period. The program was suspended in the recently enacted farm bill. This proposed legislation would extend the program through 1996. Under the bill, producers who have suffered at least a 40-percent loss of feed production would be able to apply for assistance through their local farm service agencies. The livestock eligible would be cattle, sheep, and goats. The old program was funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation. We do not propose to do that again. S. 1743 targets $18 million from the Cottonseed and Sunflower Seed Oil Export Assistance Program. I am informed that this is money which is not expected to be used this current year. It is money that was appropriated but will not be used for that purpose because the need is not there. In addition, the Department of Agriculture has a stockpile of grain. The stockpile, of course, is referred to as the Commodity Reserve Program. I was encouraged to see that there is a resolution that now has passed the House and which is expected to be considered here in the Senate very shortly to urge the Secretary of Agriculture and the President to go forward with use of that Commodity Reserve Program. That is another part of the legislation that we introduced calling on the Secretary of Agriculture to report back as to what portion of those commodities could appropriately be used to provide assistance to these ranchers. Mr. President, this is a serious problem. It is not one that has been short-lived. We have been living with the drought now for many months in the Southwest. Unfortunately, the situation seems to continue. Each of my calls back to New Mexico, regardless of what subject I call to discuss with people there, begins with a discussion about the drought and the lack of rainfall. I hope very much that the Senate and the Congress as a whole will go ahead and act on this Temporary Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act. I have talked to the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee and asked them to give attention to this, and hopefully we can take action on this in the next few weeks before we adjourn for the Fourth of July recess. This is the kind of constructive act that I think would encourage people in their view of the Congress. There is, of course, a tremendous amount of politics being played in Washington these days on all sides. Everyone knows that. We are looking for things that we can agree upon and constructively pursue. In my view, enactment of this Senate bill 1743 should be one of those actions that we could take on a bipartisan basis which would help the people that we are sent here to represent. Mr. President, I urge consideration of this. I encourage any of the other Senators or their staffers who may be watching or hearing the discussion today who would like to cosponsor the legislation to do so. Let me read off a short list of 14 cosponsors before I conclude my remarks. On the Democratic side, Senators Daschle, Baucus, Dorgan, Exon, and Harkin are cosponsors; on the Republican side, my colleague, Senator Domenici, Senator Gramm of Texas, Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, Senator Inhofe, Senator Kyl, Senator Pressler, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Kassebaum are cosponsors. I think this is clearly a bipartisan effort to deal with a very real- life, immediate situation. I hope very much we can take action on this in the next week or two so that relief of some sort at least can be provided before the July 4 recess. I will be looking for opportunities to move this legislation forward. We cannot legislate rain, but we can legislate relief to assist those who are suffering because of the drought. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the recipients of the New Mexico Small Business Week Award winners. As you may know, each of the past 33 years, the President has issued a proclamation for the celebration of Small Business Week. This year, Floyd R. Correa, president and owner of Correa Enterprises, Inc. located in Albuquerque, NM, has been named New Mexico Small Business Person of the Year for 1996 by the U.S. Small Business Administration [SBA]. Floyd Correa is among 53 top small business persons, one from each State, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands and Guam, who are being honored by the SBA at the national ceremonies this week in Washington. A ``New Mexico Small Business Week Celebration'' to honor the New Mexico Small Business Person of the Year Award Winner is also taking place in Albuquerque this week, the Advocate Award Winners, the Regional Small Subcontractor of the Year, and the New Mexico recipients of the procurement award, the SBA's Administrator's Award of Excellence will also be awarded. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the other award winners. One of the New Mexico Advocate winners is Judith A. Framan who was named the 1996 National Women in Business Advocate of the Year. She will also be honored at the national SBA ceremonies. Ms. Framan is also the 1996 New Mexico Women in Business Advocate of the Year as well as the 1996 Region VI Women in Business Advocate of the Year. Ms. Framan is the owner of Judith Framan Associates located in Corrales, NM. A second New Mexico Advocate winner is Anne Haines Yatskowitz, who was named the 1996 New Mexico Financial Services Advocate of the Year. Ms. Yatskowitz is the executive director of ACCION of New Mexico located in Albuquerque. The 1996 New Mexico Accountant Advocate of the Year Award recipient is Virginia M.K. Stanley, who is president of Stanley and Associates, Certified Public Accountants, P.C. located in Albuquerque. Ms. Stanley's efforts and commitment on behalf of small business in New Mexico have been substantial, both on a professional and volunteer basis. The recipient of the 1996 New Mexico Minority Small Business Advocate of the Year is Vangie V. Gabaldon. Ms. Gabaldon is the executive director of the New Mexico Community Development Loan Fund Program located in Albuquerque. In this capacity, she has compiled a remarkable record of commitment to small business throughout the State. The 1996 New Mexico Media Advocate of the Year Award recipient is Barbara M. Chavez. Ms. Chavez is a business staff writer/reporter with the Albuquerque Journal located in Albuquerque. And finally, the 1996 Regional Subcontractor of the Year recipient is Mr. Adelmo Archuleta, CEO of Molzen-Corbin & Associates located in Albuquerque. Mr. President, one important key to New Mexico's future economic progress is the health and growth of our small business sector. Our economy has produced more than 9.4 million new jobs in the last 3 years, and the lion's share of these have been generated by small businesses. We have much to do to provide a richer and less burdensome economic environment, as the June 1995 White House Conference on Small Business concluded. Business and Government are communicating on how best to address the central concerns expressed by the small business sector, and New Mexico's delegation to the White House Conference has been particularly active in the implementation of the conference's proposals. Supporting our Nation's entrepreneurs and small business owners and highlighting the achievements of our Nation's most competent champions of economic growth should be one of our highest priorities, and it is my pleasure to thank these awardees for their important contributions.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. So, Mr. President, the threat of a rogue nation really cannot and should not be the justification for this bill and the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars. But let us also look at the technical side of national missile defense. As the senior Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn, has said many times on this floor, we do not today know how to do this, whatever a contractor may claim. With ICBM's we are talking about bullets intercepting bullets with closing velocities of up to 10 miles per second. The President and Secretary Perry propose to continue research in this area at the rate of half a billion dollars per year to see if we can solve the technical problems. That is an adequate amount in my judgment, given how little has been delivered thus far after the expenditure of many tens of billions of dollars. I am from Missouri like Harry Truman when I hear any promises about how close we are to solving the technical problems of national missile defense. Someone is going to have to show me with real test results. I have heard such promises before. The American people have heard such promises before. Mr. President, if the threat from rogue states is remote and capable of being handled by other means, as I believe it is, if we have no technical solution in hand, if we risk undermining the benefits of START I and the START II Treaty as well, then why on Earth should we move ahead to pass this bill? The proponents threaten us with some variation of the astrodome 30-second political spot. They feel the American people will be outraged that we do not have a national missile defense system. But it is much more likely that the American people will see this legislation for what it is, a fiscally, technically, and strategically unsound bill that will damage both our Treasury and our security. Mr. President, I believe it would be folly for us to proceed to enact it and the American people will not be fooled into believing otherwise. I appreciate the time and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Harrisburg (PA) Patriot & Evening News, May 13, 1996] Offense Is Best Missile Defense america needs a system to protect deployed troops, but should take out attack capability of rogue nation Should the United States develop and deploy a system to destroy incoming missiles fired by a rogue state, such as Iran or North Korea? That is the issue in what the House leadership has dubbed ``Defend America Week,'' as it considers legislation that would deploy a missile defense system by the year 2003. At stake, Republicans argue, is the nation's security in a world where all sorts of nations are equipping themselves with or seeking weapons of mass destruction. Also at stake are billions of dollars, and perhaps the ability of our military forces to carry out more conventional missions, for the defense pot isn't likely to get much bigger even if Congress votes for deployment of expensive defensive missiles. Is such a deployment necessary? The Clinton administration proposes to spend $600 million annually for five years to develop a system, but not deploy it unless a clear threat emerges. No nation that might pose such a threat has the capability to launch a missile that can reach American shores. And the best intelligence estimate is that such capability is at least 15 years away. It should be noted that the administration does propose to fund the development and deployment of a theater anti-missile system to protect American military forces overseas from attacks such as those by Scud missiles we saw during the Persian Gulf War. Not only is there no immediate threat that would require deployment of a national missile-defense system, the so- called ``Defend America Act'' doesn't even define the type of system that would be developed or deployed. That suggests a considerable gap between the idea and an actual system capable of picking off a missile before it inflicts harm on this country. Indeed, one of the arguments against early deployment is that the pace of technology could well render such a system obsolete in the estimated three years required for it to become operational. The costs are not inconsequential. Deployment of even a modest, single site, ground-based system could amount to $5 billion, though it would be of doubtful worth. A more ambitious system would cost on the order of $25 billion. A multi-site system could run $44 billion or more, but would also violate the ABM treaty with Russia, which limits each country to one ABM site. More to the point, if a nation hostile to the United States should acquire the capability to send a missile our way, dare we wait until it is fired and see if our missile defense system actually works? Or would we in fact use other military means to go in and put it out of commission before it was fired? The answer surely is that you do not place the fate of thousands of American lives on unproven technology of uncertain proficiency. You eliminate the threat before it eliminates you, a strategy that would make deployment of a missile defense system pointless and redundant.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also rise in opposition to the motion to proceed on this bill, this so-called Defend America Act. The bill is bad policy for many reasons. Several of my colleagues have already mentioned some of those. First, the bill would undermine Russia's ratification of the START II Treaty, and undermine the implementation of the START I Treaty. These treaties will destroy vastly more Russian nuclear weapons than any missile defense program that is being proposed in this legislation. A second reason the bill is bad policy is that the bill would mandate the premature deployment of a national missile defense that we do not know today how to deploy, whatever the proponents of the bill may argue. A third very significant reason why this bill is bad public policy is that it would divert many billions of dollars--the estimate is about $60 billion--from higher Pentagon priorities, particularly around the turn of the century when the Republican defense budgets fall below the President's defense budgets. I do think we need to ask where the money is coming from. As the Senator from North Dakota said a few moments ago, it is ironic that the effort is being made to move ahead on this legislation the same week the Senate is being asked to once again vote on whether or not to embrace a balanced budget constitutional amendment. We also need to ask at what expense to our other defense capabilities would we be adopting this kind of legislation. The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe those other defense capabilities are more important. We need to heed their advice on this. The proponents of this bill do not know what system they are demanding to deploy. They do not know what it will cost. They seem at best indifferent to the reaction that we would find in Russia, and at worst they seem to rush to embrace the demise of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as a welcome consequence of this bill. We need to ask ourselves why is this not the position of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Why do the Joint Chiefs put higher priority on preserving START I and going forward with START II and on developing other defense capabilities, including theater missile defenses? The proponents of this legislation have no answers to those questions. Let me spend a few minutes talking about some of the reasons I am deeply skeptical of our ability to develop highly effective national missile defenses, as called for in this bill, in the timeframe that is set out and required by this bill. I have followed this debate fairly closely since March 1983, shortly after I came to the Senate and President Reagan gave his famous star wars speech. We now know, many years later, that President Reagan had essentially been sold a bill of goods by the proponents of star wars. He was told that an x-ray laser, driven by a nuclear explosion in space, could wipe out a whole swarm of attacking Soviet ICBM's. But the x-ray laser proved to be neither technically sound nor politically viable. The nuclear component of the SDI program was gone within a couple of years. Instead, the goal became a nonnuclear national missile defense composed of a wide range of kinetic-kill and directed-energy weapons coupled with advanced space and ground sensors that could provide some sort of astrodome-like, leak-proof protection for the American people against all ballistic missile attacks. Mr. President, there was almost no one in the technical community at the time who thought that it was possible to develop what I just described. I distinctly remember being briefed at Sandia National Laboratories in the mid-1980's on their red team analyses of the various proposals being put forward as part of the strategic defense initiative [SDI] by contractors. The red team always won. Nevertheless, we spent billions of dollars in pursuit of this goal that not even the proponents of this bill support today. It was not until Senator Shelby and I offered an amendment in 1989 that Congress even tried to look at the component parts of the SDI Program and put some priority on those that made sense, at the same time scaling back those that did not. That amendment, which was debated on the eve of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, put first priority on developing theater missile defenses, and it called for sharp cutbacks in the more exotic space-based SDI systems, such as the system that was then known as Brilliant Pebbles. The Persian Gulf war heightened the consensus that our first priority should be theater defenses, if we could come up with some type of theater defenses that, in fact, were effective. The Patriot interceptor clearly had been ineffective against the Iraqi Scud attacks during the war, as the Senator from Arizona noted yesterday. So in 1990, under Senator Nunn's amendment, priority was once again given to theater defenses. Why has it been so hard for us to come up with effective theater missile defense systems? Since 1989, we have spent over $10 billion on developing theater missile defenses. The President proposed another $2 billion in fiscal year 1997, the budget that we are still working on. Some of these systems, such as THAAD, are now entering testing, but, thus far, they have not had great success in the way of hitting targets. Why is that, Mr. President? It is true because hitting a bullet with a bullet is a very, very difficult thing to accomplish. A theater ballistic missile will be moving at up to 5 kilometers per second or 3 miles per second as it approaches its target. Think about that. Three miles per second. An interceptor missile sent up to intercept it travels at approximately the same speed and it has to maneuver so that it ends up in the same breadbasket-sized space at precisely the right moment as the two missiles approach each other at up to 6 miles per second. That is a pretty good trick. The Congress has been calling for highly effective theater missile defenses for at least 7 years now. We have been supporting research for far longer. And yet, as I said, we have not hit very much. We all hope that our investments in THAAD and Navy Lower Tier and improved Patriot and MEADS and Navy Upper Tier will eventually result in a reasonably effective theater defense capability. We know that that is a capability our military commanders want because finding and destroying small truck-mounted Scud-sized missiles before they were launched proved very difficult in the Persian Gulf war. However, after 7 years, in which Congress consistently approved the requests for theater missile defense system funding--in fact, added funds during several of those years--we still do not have a highly effective theater missile defense, although we, hopefully, have some promising candidates. Anyone who told us that theater missile defenses would be easy back in the 1980's should have conceded their mistake by now. Anyone who promised astrodomes for national missile defense should have lost credibility with Congress and the American people a long time ago. Yet, it is that same crowd who is pushing this legislation. They are much more careful about promising astrodomes now. Instead, this bill calls for deployment ``by the end of 2003'' of ``a National Missile Defense system that-- (1) Is capable of providing a highly-effective defense of the territory of the United States against limited, unauthorized or accidental ballistic missile attacks; and (2) Will be augmented over time to provide a layered defense against larger and more sophisticated ballistic missile threats as they emerge.'' Seven years from now, according to this bill, we are supposed to have solved a harder problem than theater defenses, namely national missile defense, and deployed a system. The proponents totally disregard the lessons of how hard it has been to develop theater defenses over the past 7 years. These technological developments can-not be made on a congressionally mandated time schedule. We also need to ask what the threat is that is conjured up to justify spending this $60 billion contemplated in this bill. Is it a real threat like the mobile Scuds that our troops faced in the Persian Gulf? The intelligence community does not think so. Yet, the threat you hear the most about from the proponents of this bill is the potential threat that North Korea could develop a missile, the Taepo Dong II, capable of attacking the Aleutian Islands sometime soon. The proponents attack the intelligence community for not leaping to the conclusion that this threat justifies deployment of a national missile defense now. Let me put a few facts on the table about this potential threat. North Korea's total gross national product is about $25 billion. That is less than one-third of 1 percent of the U.S. gross national product. In fact, that country is bankrupt, Mr. President. Its people are malnourished, if not starving. Its total defense budget is less than $6 billion, which is approximately one-fortieth of our own, and yet those who want to pursue a crash national missile defense system criticize the intelligence community for unanimously judging that it might be difficult for North Korea to develop a long-range missile in the next 15 years. If North Korea's Taepo Dong II--a missile that does not today exist-- is the justification for this bill, it is a pretty thin justification indeed. But let us take this argument further. Let us give the proponents of this bill the benefit of the doubt. Let us say that this bankrupt country actually started building such an intercontinental ballistic missile tomorrow. Are we a pitiful helpless giant incapable of responding? Does our $267 billion defense budget provide our President and our military leaders no options to deal with this threat? Should we sue for peace? Of course not. The Taepo Dong II, if it ever exists, would be a large immobile missile. We would know about its development immediately through our intelligence capabilities. And we would be able to destroy it by a preemptive strike long before it was ready to be launched, just as Israel once dealt with the Iraqi nuclear complex. If the threat is a rogue nation, like North Korea, Iraq, Iran, or Libya, developing an ICBM, then clearly preemption with our existing military capabilities would clearly handle such a threat with very high confidence. It is a far higher confidence level than we are ever likely to achieve with a national missile defense system. The American people would support such a preemptive strike, just as they support today the threat of preemption which Secretary Perry has made to the underground Libyan complex should it begin to manufacture chemical weapons. There is an editorial, which I want to cite on this point, that was in the May 13, 1996 edition of the Patriot & Evening News out of Harrisburg, PA. This is an article called ``Offense is Best Missile Defense.'' The author makes the obvious point about the threat from rogue states. He says: If a nation hostile to the United States should acquire the capability to send a missile our way, dare we wait until it is fired to see if our missile defense system actually works? Or would we in fact use other military means to go in and put it out of commission before it was fired? The answer surely is that you do not place the fate of thousands of American lives on unproven technology of uncertain proficiency. You eliminate the threat before it eliminates you, a strategy that would make deployment of a missile defense system pointless and redundant. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this article appear at the end of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I intend to vote against the Republican Federal budget proposal. This budget is nearly the same as the one proposed last year by Republicans, and I feel that the interests of the Nation continue to be poorly served by the guidelines specified in this sort of ideologically driven legislation. Both last year's Republican budget proposal and the one we are voting on today represent a misguided set of priorities for the next century by cutting resources for education, job training, the environment, and Medicaid in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and unneeded defense programs. Over 7 years, the Republican proposal slashes Medicare by $226.8 billion, a number only slightly different from their proposal last year to cut Medicare by $228.2 billion. Reductions in the earned income tax credit will result in increasing taxes on lower income working families by $21 billion over 7 years, compared to the $20-billion tax increase proposed last year. I am also very concerned about proposals in this legislation that would allow States to make significant cuts in their own contributions to Medicaid in the rules governing block grants from the Federal to State governments. These policies threaten guarantees of coverage for children, people with disabilities, and older Americans. This series of proposals represents an alarming trend away from providing the most rudimentary safety net for those in need toward further enriching those who are the most prosperous in our country. The President's budget proposal as well as a centrist alternative budget crafted primarily by Senators Breaux and Chafee do a far better job of balancing the needs of the most disadvantaged in our society with the objective of reaching a balanced budget by 2002. The President's budget secures the integrity of the Medicare trust fund through 2005, and it does so without ravaging this important program. In contrast, the Republican budget cuts Medicare by $50 billion more than the President's plan. Education and job training--Head Start, Basic Education Assistance-- title 1--School-to-Work, and Job Training for Dislocated Workers-- remain high priorities of our Government, as they should be, in the President's budget. In contrast, the Republicans slash more than $60 billion from these programs. The President does not raise taxes on low-income working Americans. In contrast, the Republicans, by cutting EITC by $21 billion over the next 7 years, intend to raise taxes for between 6 to 10 million Americans. I think it is possible to balance the budget by 2002 without abandoning America's priorities--and without abandoning those most in need. We can clearly preserve paycheck security, health security and retirement security for America's working families without abandoning our commitment to a balanced budget. Mr. President, I must also add that I am impressed with the efforts of Senator John Breaux and Senator John Chafee in leading the way on yet another alternative budget to that proposed by the Republican majority. This 7-year bipartisan alternative budget proposal, which I have voted to support, is a conscientious, bipartisan effort that does a much better job of maintaining the right priorities for our country. I do have concerns about whether cutting the CPI by \1/2\ percent is the best approach to dealing with the question of getting a better, more accurate inflation indicator, and I think that any adjustment in our cost growth measure must be progressive in its application. While the Breaux-Chafee alternative does not contain everything I would want in a budget, the process of bringing both Democrats and Republicans together to seriously confront the problem of achieving a fair yet balanced budget is much better than what we ended up with-- namely, the Republicans trying to force the same old budget down our throats.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, on the historic plaza in Santa Fe, New Mexico, the United States Postal Service will unveil the Georgia O'Keeffe ``Red Poppy'' Commemorative Stamp. This stamp is a culmination of the work of many people to bring special recognition to the artist who is considered one of the foremost American artists of the 20th Century. Although a native of Wisconsin, Miss O'Keeffe has been closely identified with New Mexico for nearly 70 years through her life and work. We are exceptionally proud of the fact that her love of our landscape was so wonderfully realized in her paintings. Miss O'Keeffe found endless fascination in the bleached bones that dot the New Mexico deserts. The intense colors of common flowers, the vastness of the sky and the shape of the hills all were sources of profound inspiration. Her art expressed her vision. Because of her work, we can have a glimpse of what she saw. When Georgia O'Keeffe died in Santa Fe on March 6, 1986, her work remained as a lasting testament to her talent and grace. She, like her work, was an American original, and I am very glad that the U.S. Postal Service has chosen to honor her in this way.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has adopted my amendment on the Economic Development Administration. This amendment calls for the EDA to place high priority on maintaining field-based economic development representatives and requests reconsideration of those staff and offices that are now slated to be terminated and closed as part of the EDA's recent reduction in force. Mr. President, I support the Economic Development Administration's efforts over the last 30 years in New Mexico. Recently, New Mexico has moved from 48th to 47th place in the Nation in terms of per capita personal income. New Mexico, in terms of export sector growth, has been first in the Nation for the last 5 years. While I don't wish to imply that the EDA has directly caused all of these changes, I do believe that the EDA has played a vital role in helping to nurture economic activity in areas of New Mexico that might not otherwise have made the sort of efforts that are now underway. The Economic Development Administration is not designed to help urban areas further develop. Rather, EDA's mission is to nurture economic competence and help seed economic activity in nonurban regions of the Nation, particularly in economically disadvantaged communities. The EDA does a great many things that have been important in New Mexico and around the Nation including the promotion of industrial park development, business incubators, water and sewer system improvements, vocational and technical training facilities, technical assistance and capacity building for local governments, economic adjustment strategies, revolving loan funds and other projects which the private sector has nor generated or will not generate without some assistance from the Government. The Economic Development Administration maintains six regional offices which oversee staff that are designated field-based representatives. These regional offices are located in the urban areas of Austin, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Chicago, but most of the field representatives are located in the States that they cover. The budget that Congress finally approved for the EDA in 1996 capped salaries and expenses at $20 million, which represents a 37-percent reduction from fiscal year 1995 levels. The new Assistant Secretary of Economic Development, Dr. Phillip Singerman, has certainly had very difficult staffing decisions to make in leading a reduction-in-force process to bring the staffing level down to what the budget would allow. I know that this has been a painful, difficult process, and I appreciate the letter from Dr. Singerman on May 6 announcing the termination of our New Mexico-based economic development representative in which he wrote that New Mexico would continue to get his personal attention. My problem today is not with Dr. Singerman's intent. I know that he has tried to cut staff from all parts of EDA--including approximately 18 positions from the Washington headquarters. My concern is that while Dr. Singerman and the EDA might have every intent of covering New Mexico, they will not be on the ground working on a regular basis with communities that do need and have benefited from contact with a field- based economic development representative. The Washington headquarters of EDA is about 2,000 miles from New Mexico, and the Austin regional office which oversees New Mexico is approximately 700 miles from Santa Fe. There is no doubt that the communities of New Mexico that have been pulling themselves together and generating much needed economic infrastructure are losing a very important resource because of the EDA's decision to shut down our local office. The States that are losing field representative coverage include New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Among these, New Mexico ranks 47th in per capita personal income in the Nation. Oklahoma ranks 46th. Mississippi is about 49th. North Dakota is 42d, Arizona 35th, Maine 34th, and North Carolina 33d. In Dr. Singerman's letter to me, as well as to some of my other Senate colleagues, he stated that the decision to cut these positions or to not replace retiring personnel was based on such criteria as ``local need.'' The States I have mentioned certainly rank high in the need category. While the EDA was closing down the New Mexico EDA office, it was bolstering the Austin Regional Office with personnel from Washington, DC. To make matters worse, Texas is one of the few States in the Nation with two field-based representatives, both of whom work out of the Austin office, and neither of these positions was cut. Oklahoma and New Mexico both lost their field representatives in this process, and I think that this just runs counter to Economic Development Administration's mission. Many of the most recognizable places in New Mexico, and many of our most ambitious efforts to improve our economy have been brought to life through the efforts of Jim Swearingen and the Santa Fe EDA office. During the 30 years of EDA operation in New Mexico, the EDA office has provided millions of dollars of Federal assistance toward economic development projects including Albuquerque's KIMO Theater, the Sweeney Convention Center in Santa Fe, the Mesilla Plaza, the Taos Plaza, the UNM Technology Commercialization Center, the Carlsbad Advanced Manufacturing Training Center, the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, and numerous other projects. So far this year, EDA has provided $400,000 for infrastructure supporting Fort Sumner's Cheese Factory Project, $1 million for a business incubator in Farmington, and $4.5 million for the Crownpoint Institute of Technology in Crownpoint. Jim Swearingen has served New Mexico for 24 years--and is a person widely respected in my State. He has made a great difference. I strongly believe that the EDA needs to keep its field representatives out with the people and communities it serves. I am pleased that there was strong bipartisan agreement in the Senate that the EDA should reconsider the nature of its current reduction-in-force and should make field representation one of its highest priorities.