Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in 1989, 6 years ago, President Bush and the Nation's Governors recognized the critical need to raise education standards in this country. They sought to raise standards that we hold our students to and that we try to adhere to in our schools throughout the country. They met in Charlottesville, VA, in the first education summit in our Nation's history. They set ambitious goals to improve education by the year 2000. They agreed to measure their progress and to report their success to the American people every year. In 1995, last year, we reached the halfway point. The 1995 annual ``National Education Goals Report,'' which came out last November, told us what had improved and also what got worse. Some things were better: 4th and 8th grade math achievement had improved; preschoolers were read to and told stories more than they used to be; according to the statistics we have, threats and injuries to students in schools had declined somewhat. Some things, however, had become worse. For example, 12th grade reading achievement had declined; fewer teachers had degrees in the subjects they were teaching; student drug use and the sale of drugs in our schools had increased. The overall conclusion of that report last year was--this is a quote from the report--it says: On the whole, our progress toward the National Education Goals has been modest. Even in areas where we have made significant progress from where we started, our current rate of progress simply will not be sufficient to reach the ambitious levels specified in the National Education Goals * * * [Therefore, we need] to pull together as communities and states to provide our children with an education that is truly world-class. Mr. President, 13 years ago, early in President Reagan's term, in April 1983, President Reagan's Commission on Excellence in Education issued a famous report, a report that has become famous, entitled ``A Nation at Risk.'' The commissioners wrote that: * * * the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people. They went on to say: [That the commission] deeply believes that the problems we have discerned in American education can be both understood and corrected if the people of our country, together with those that have public responsibility in the matter, care enough and are courageous enough to do what is required. Mr. President, the responsibility to improve education in this country is a joint responsibility. We in Congress are among those who have a public responsibility in this matter. Every year since the goals were set, we in Congress supported progress toward reaching those goals by providing some increased level of funding each year until fiscal year 1996. Mr. President, let me just call my colleagues' attention to this chart to make the point I have been trying to make. This is entitled ``A Break With Bipartisan Support for Education.'' It shows fiscal year 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, and in each year it shows some level of increase, in billions of dollars--some absolute increase in the total dollars the Federal Government has been willing to provide to assist States and local school districts with education. Last year, in 1996, for the first time since the summit in Charlottesville with President Bush, we saw an actual decrease proposed for funding in education. Now, I am proud to say that before the final chapter was written on the appropriations for 1996, most of that funding was restored. I do think the President deserves great credit for having insisted that we do better by education than was proposed in last year's budget bill. Now we are faced with a very similar circumstance, Mr. President. The amendment that is offered by Senator Kerry and Senator Murray would allow us to once again get on with bipartisan support for education. This amendment restores essential education funds. It restores $56 billion in funding over 6 years for the function 500 in the Federal deficit--that is the education and training function. That is the amount needed to get to the level that the President requested. These funds are essential if we are to both maintain important, ongoing educational programs such as Head Start and title I, and also help schools enter the information age by buying computers, connecting those computers to the Internet, training teachers, and developing and purchasing sound instructional software. The Republican budget, if this amendment is not adopted, would have the effect of either cutting existing education programs or postponing any significant funding increase for technology until the year 2002. In my view, schools cannot wait until the year 2002 to train their students to be computer literate. The Republican budget proposal over 6 years would cut spending for education and training by $25 billion below the level spent in fiscal year 1995. The effective cut will be even greater because the level of funding provides no money for either inflation or the rising enrollments now occurring in the schools. The $56 billion proposed to be added back in this amendment is essential in order to maintain current program services, to accommodate inflation, to accommodate the increased numbers of students who are arriving at our schools, and who will be arriving at our schools during these 6 years, and to provide a modest investment in priority areas where we do have bipartisan support such as increased access to educational technology. Mr. President, let me talk a little bit about educational technology as it applies to my home State of New Mexico. In a State like New Mexico, this Federal support for better use and more access to educational technology will be crucial. We have some small rural schools in New Mexico that are already doing a good job of integrating the use of technology into the way they teach their students. One example is an elementary school in Tusuque, NM, where every classroom has four computers that are both connected to each other by a local area network, and are connected to the Internet. In Cuba, NM, there is a fiber network connection to every school in the district. But most New Mexico schools are not connected to the Internet. Most schools are not able to train their students to be computer literate today. A 1995 Office of Technology Assessment report identified New Mexico as one of the four most deficient States as far as the availability of educational technology is concerned. My State ranked 49th in the country in the availability of connections for technology use in schools. Our Department of Education in New Mexico has estimated the costs of investing in the simple steps that are needed to put a computer in each classroom. Their estimates give one a sense of the size of the problem that is faced in a State like mine. Their estimate is that something in the range of $53 million would be needed to put one workstation in every classroom and principal's office throughout our State. Mr. President, $87 million would be needed to include a workstation for each administrator and classroom projection system, $156 million would be needed to connect the computers and give them software and printers, as well as $22 million annually thereafter for the ongoing costs of phone lines and maintaining their connection to the Internet. Of course, even more would be required to train the teachers to use this equipment. The reality is this year our State legislature appropriated $3.5 million for equipment and professional development combined. That is a step in the right direction but it is far, far less than our schools need. This amendment that Senator Kerry and Senator Murray are offering is essential if we are to install educational technology now rather than waiting until the year 2002. The Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure a basic level of equity in our schools and in our students' access to the new tools for learning. Technology can be a great equalizer. It can also be a great divider. If we allow our schools to be organized in such a way that many of our students do not have access to that technology, then we are allowing technology to divide us rather than to bring us together. The workplace will demand some level of computer literacy from its workers. Students from poor schools and poor districts should not be put at risk because their schools could not afford to train them to use computers. This amendment is needed to allow a modest increase in the national investment in technology. The President's Technology Literacy Program would increase the funds available to schools for educational technology very substantially this next year. Without such help, richer States will supply their students with computer access to this computer literacy, but States like mine, States like New Mexico, will not be able to do so. Mr. President, I am persuaded that technology does hold real and realistic promise for leveling the playing field between rich and poor schools, between rich and poor States, as far as education is concerned. But to realize this promise we need to create a budget and pass a budget resolution that permits us to both maintain essential educational programs which we all support, such as Head Start and title I, and also to invest in some of these new needs such as educational technology. This amendment is needed to make our children computer literate for the 21st century, to connect them to the information highway. I urge adoption of the Kerry-Murray amendment when it comes to a vote this next Tuesday. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on amendment 3991 offered by Senators Kerry and Murray?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for up to 10 minutes off of the time allotted for that amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, my home State of New Mexico is currently experiencing a very severe drought, as is much of the Southwest. As with any drought, many of my State's citizens are experiencing severe hardships. Saturday, 2 days ago, I saw what fire had done to the Carson National Forest in my State. This is one of several major fires that New Mexico has experienced this year. The fire in the Carson National Forest was designated the Hondo fire. To date, over 20,000 acres have burned in our State. People have been burned out of their homes, Bandelier National Monument, Questa, Red River, NM, have all had their existence threatened, and the community of La Lama in northern New Mexico has been utterly destroyed. The size of these fires can be directly attributed to the lack of rain in our State for a very long period of time. And if the current weather conditions continue and no relief is in sight, the rest of this year will be tense and dangerous. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about another danger that is posed by this same lack of rain, and it is a threat to the finances and the livelihood of those who depend on the rain to make the grass that feeds their herds. The bill that I am introducing today along with my cosponsors, Senator Domenici and Senator Daschle, is entitled the ``Temporary Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1996.'' It is intended to help those ranchers who otherwise cannot afford to feed their cattle during this time of drought. With terrible range conditions, the options available to a rancher have become very limited. The rancher can either buy feed or he can sell the livestock that he owns at market prices. Neither option is very desirable at this time. Feed prices are extremely high, and cattle prices are the lowest that they have been for over a decade. The situation places the rancher in dire straits. In Lea County in southeastern New Mexico, ranchers usually budget about $125 to raise a cow. Now the cost has risen to about $250 to $300 per head because of the high cost of feed. In Curry County on the eastern side of New Mexico, the local paper reported that winter wheat crop faces an 80 to 90 percent loss. That crop is usually about 2.5 million bushels that are harvested. All parts of New Mexico are suffering. For the third year in a row, we have had less than our average rainfall in the northwest part of the State. Near Window Rock, AZ, we had 2.1 inches of precipitation during the period from October to March, the driest for that period since the year 1904. In the western part of our State, in Quay County, we have reported much less than average amounts of rainfall. In the south, Las Cruces usually receives about 8.5 inches a year, which I know would be a drought for most parts of the country even if we were to receive that, but for the past 3 years Las Cruces has consistently received less than that amount. This bill, this Temporary Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1996, is not meant to be a permanent solution to the current problem. The bill revives the livestock feed program for a 1-year period. That is 1996. The program was suspended in the recently enacted farm bill. Under the provisions of this act, those who raise cattle or sheep or goats would be eligible for assistance. Funding for the old program was through the Commodity Credit Corporation, and this bill changes that funding mechanism. It restricts the program to $18 million, specifically identifies a fund that already has 1996 appropriations dedicated to it. If market conditions remain, the funds that are targeted for use by this particular bill we are introducing today will otherwise remain unspent at the end of the fiscal year. So given the current crisis, it is clear to me that this money will be best utilized in helping the ranchers to survive the situation they face. Several provisions have been placed into the bill to ensure against abuses of the program. For example, a rancher will have to have owned or leased the livestock 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 of Agriculture will have to approve. This will ensure that additional livestock are not purchased for the sole purpose of benefiting from this program we are proposing to enact. 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. This language is intended to discourage a person from overstocking the land above the carrying capacity and receiving assistance for that effort. This will help to ensure that long-term damage to the land does not occur. Another important provision concerns the commodities reserve program. The bill asks the Secretary to examine using the Department's millions of bushels of stored grain for the emergency that we now face. The Secretary is asked to report back to Congress within 30 days of enactment of this bill. If the reserve can be used, the ranchers will be able to receive grain at lower than market prices. After examining the facts, I am confident that my colleagues here in Congress will agree that the current emergency situation demands immediate action. This legislation extends the program--for only 1 year--that was suspended permanently by the farm bill. Consistently in times of need, the rancher has turned to this program. Clearly, ranchers are in need of this program one more time. The reintroduction of this program will not dramatically alter the budget that was agreed upon in the farm bill. Instead, this legislation will spend funds that have already been appropriated for fiscal year 1996 and in all likelihood will go unspent this year if this bill is not enacted. Mr. President, a former Member of this Senate and a former President, Harry Truman, used to state that the facts should determine the conclusion that we reach. In this matter, the severe conditions of the drought warrant immediate action by Congress. I urge serious consideration of this legislation and expeditious passage of this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, my home State of New Mexico is currently experiencing a very severe drought, as is much of the Southwest. As with any drought, many of my State's citizens are experiencing severe hardships. Saturday, 2 days ago, I saw what fire had done to the Carson National Forest in my State. This is one of several major fires that New Mexico has experienced this year. The fire in the Carson National Forest was designated the Hondo fire. To date, over 20,000 acres have burned in our State. People have been burned out of their homes, Bandelier National Monument, Questa, Red River, NM, have all had their existence threatened, and the community of La Lama in northern New Mexico has been utterly destroyed. The size of these fires can be directly attributed to the lack of rain in our State for a very long period of time. And if the current weather conditions continue and no relief is in sight, the rest of this year will be tense and dangerous. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about another danger that is posed by this same lack of rain, and it is a threat to the finances and the livelihood of those who depend on the rain to make the grass that feeds their herds. The bill that I am introducing today along with my cosponsors, Senator Domenici and Senator Daschle, is entitled the ``Temporary Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1996.'' It is intended to help those ranchers who otherwise cannot afford to feed their cattle during this time of drought. With terrible range conditions, the options available to a rancher have become very limited. The rancher can either buy feed or he can sell the livestock that he owns at market prices. Neither option is very desirable at this time. Feed prices are extremely high, and cattle prices are the lowest that they have been for over a decade. The situation places the rancher in dire straits. In Lea County in southeastern New Mexico, ranchers usually budget about $125 to raise a cow. Now the cost has risen to about $250 to $300 per head because of the high cost of feed. In Curry County on the eastern side of New Mexico, the local paper reported that winter wheat crop faces an 80 to 90 percent loss. That crop is usually about 2.5 million bushels that are harvested. All parts of New Mexico are suffering. For the third year in a row, we have had less than our average rainfall in the northwest part of the State. Near Window Rock, AZ, we had 2.1 inches of precipitation during the period from October to March, the driest for that period since the year 1904. In the western part of our State, in Quay County, we have reported much less than average amounts of rainfall. In the south, Las Cruces usually receives about 8.5 inches a year, which I know would be a drought for most parts of the country even if we were to receive that, but for the past 3 years Las Cruces has consistently received less than that amount. This bill, this Temporary Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1996, is not meant to be a permanent solution to the current problem. The bill revives the livestock feed program for a 1-year period. That is 1996. The program was suspended in the recently enacted farm bill. Under the provisions of this act, those who raise cattle or sheep or goats would be eligible for assistance. Funding for the old program was through the Commodity Credit Corporation, and this bill changes that funding mechanism. It restricts the program to $18 million, specifically identifies a fund that already has 1996 appropriations dedicated to it. If market conditions remain, the funds that are targeted for use by this particular bill we are introducing today will otherwise remain unspent at the end of the fiscal year. So given the current crisis, it is clear to me that this money will be best utilized in helping the ranchers to survive the situation they face. Several provisions have been placed into the bill to ensure against abuses of the program. For example, a rancher will have to have owned or leased the livestock 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 of Agriculture will have to approve. This will ensure that additional livestock are not purchased for the sole purpose of benefiting from this program we are proposing to enact. 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. This language is intended to discourage a person from overstocking the land above the carrying capacity and receiving assistance for that effort. This will help to ensure that long-term damage to the land does not occur. Another important provision concerns the commodities reserve program. The bill asks the Secretary to examine using the Department's millions of bushels of stored grain for the emergency that we now face. The Secretary is asked to report back to Congress within 30 days of enactment of this bill. If the reserve can be used, the ranchers will be able to receive grain at lower than market prices. After examining the facts, I am confident that my colleagues here in Congress will agree that the current emergency situation demands immediate action. This legislation extends the program--for only 1 year--that was suspended permanently by the farm bill. Consistently in times of need, the rancher has turned to this program. Clearly, ranchers are in need of this program one more time. The reintroduction of this program will not dramatically alter the budget that was agreed upon in the farm bill. Instead, this legislation will spend funds that have already been appropriated for fiscal year 1996 and in all likelihood will go unspent this year if this bill is not enacted. Mr. President, a former Member of this Senate and a former President, Harry Truman, used to state that the facts should determine the conclusion that we reach. In this matter, the severe conditions of the drought warrant immediate action by Congress. I urge serious consideration of this legislation and expeditious passage of this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the courtesy. I did want to make a brief statement. I do not think I will take a full 8 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there was an item in the morning paper that caused me to come to the Senate floor to speak briefly and alert my colleagues to a serious concern which I have. The article was entitled ``Armey: Cheap Fuel Via Education Cuts.'' ``House Leader Suggests Way To Offset Cost of Gasoline Tax Repeal.'' The first three short paragraphs say: House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey, Republican from Texas, yesterday suggested that the revenue lost from a repeal of the 1993 gasoline tax could be offset by cutting spending on education. ``Maybe we ought to take another look at the amount of money we are spending on education,'' Armey said on the NBC's ``Meet the Press:'' ``There is a place where we are getting a declining value for an increased dollar. It's in education. If in fact we can get some discipline in the use of our education dollar, I think we can make up the difference,'' Armey said. Mr. President, my reaction to this article when I read it was, ``Here they go again.'' We spent much of last year in this Congress trying to hold off proposed cuts in the education budget. The budget resolution as first presented here called for $18.6 billion being cut from student aid over a 7-year period, and $26 billion being cut from K through 12 levels of education over that 7-year period. There was a proposal to zero out funding for direct student loans, and proposals to zero out funding for School to Work, for Goals 2000, and for national service. Mr. President, those fights are now behind us. But unfortunately, even today, we see that to some extent the efforts to cut back on education have succeeded. In the final appropriations bill that was signed into law 10 days ago by the President, there are still cuts in education. There is a 6-percent cut in the Goals 2000 funding. There is a 9- percent cut in telecommunications for math funding. There is an 8- percent cut in library construction funding. There is a 15-percent cut in the funds for magnet schools, a 27-percent cut in technical assistance center funding, a 7-percent cut in adult education budgets. In Perkins loans there is a 41-percent cut, and in State student incentive grants there is a 50-percent cut. Mr. President, my own view is that this is a very, very mistaken set of priorities that this Congress and that the majority leader in the House, Richard Armey, are talking about when the first place they look to try to make up revenue is to further cut education. I think in the long term our country is only as strong as the next generation, and we are only as smart as the next generation. If we cut out the funds needed to educate that next generation, I am persuaded that we are going against the will of the American people, we are going against our own best interests, and we are showing very serious shortsightedness, which I think we will come to regret. Mr. President, I contrast this article, which, as I say, was in this morning's paper here in Washington, with an article that came out a little over a week ago, on April 27, also in the Washington Post. It was entitled, ``Latinos Want D.C. School To Stay Open.'' Let me just read a little bit of that article for my colleagues. It said: About 400 people picketed the District of Columbia Board of Education offices yesterday, protesting a recommendation by School Superintendent Franklin L. Smith to close the Carlos Rosario Adult Education Center. The demonstrators circled the block in front of the Presidential building . . . chanting ``We want to learn English!'' Some held bullhorns, others carried signs asking drivers to honk in support of the program. ``We see it as an issue of discrimination against Latin immigrants,'' said Arnoldo Ramos, Director of the Council of Latino Agencies. ``This is the only adult education center serving Latinos. By closing this program, they are sending a message that Latinos don't matter and that we should continue serving tables, continue picking up garbage and having the lowest positions in society.'' Several students said that without Rosario, it would be difficult to continue to learn English, which they say is their only ticket to a better life. Mr. President, this article should bring home to us the importance that education has for the average people of this country. Education is not only their only ticket to a better life; it is the ticket that our children have to a better life as well. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject the recommendation of the House majority leader in looking first at education as a place to further cut the Federal budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am pleased to yield to my friend for any statement he has and take my 5 minutes after that.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 8 minutes.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Pell that I believe is a small, yet a very important step in reforming the campaign system that has led to widespread mistrust of the political process and mistrust of those who seek public office. Mr. President, the legislation that I am offering today is simple and straightforward. First of all, it would amend the new Telecommunications Act to provide that all legally qualified candidates for Federal elective office who refer directly or indirectly to another candidate for that office in a campaign advertisement must make the reference in person. If the candidate voluntarily chooses not to make the reference himself or herself, he or she would not be eligible for the lowest unit rate provided to candidates under section 315(b) of the Communications Act for the remainder of the 45-day period preceding the primary or the primary runoff election, or the 60-day period presiding the date of the general or special election. The candidate would, however, of course, continue to have access to the broadcast station at the same charge made for comparable use of the station by commercial users. Second, the bill requires that broadcasters who allow an individual or group to air advertisements in support of, or in opposition to, a particular candidate for Federal office, allow the candidate's opponent the same amount of time without charge on the broadcast station during the same period of the day. Mr. President, these are not new concepts. In the 99th Congress, Senator Danforth offered S. 1310, which would have required a broadcast station that allowed a candidate to present an ad that referred to her opponent without presenting the ad herself, to provide free rebuttal time to the other candidate. Since then, other variations of what have become known as talking heads legislation have been incorporated in overall campaign finance reform bills and introduced as free standing bills. Mr. President, I became interested in this issue last year when I read an editorial in the Washington Post by David Broder entitled, ``Dirty Work for Dirty Campaigns.'' Mr. Broder referred to an issue of Campaigns and Elections which is a magazine for campaign consultants. The July 1995 issue contained an article about negative attack ads and quoted several campaign consultants. What the consultants admitted about campaigning today should shock the conscience of everyone in the Senate. Consultants are quoted as saying in reference to developing negative, attack ad, ``Welcome to the world of attack mail * * * It's a world of taunts, jeers, jabs, pointed fingers, and mudslinging.'' The consultants go on to write, ``Excite the emotions. It's much easier and more effective to persuade with the heart than with the head alone. Fear, anger, envy, indignation and shame are powerful emotions in the political arena.'' And, Mr. President, in what is perhaps the most revealing revelation about these consultants' campaign strategy, they write that the candidate should never take personal responsibility for attacking the opponent but, and I quote, ``It's always best to have someone else deliver the negative message, even if it's a third-person, unsigned piece. Keep your candidate at a dignified distance.'' Mr. President, I see nothing dignified about such a strategy. While the consultants were commenting on attack mail, I don't think it requires too much of a stretch to realize that the same rules apply to many of today 's television advertisements. Mr. President, a little over a year ago, I went through a costly, and negative campaign. right now, many of our colleagues are preparing to go through the same process and I say with all sincerity, that I do not envy my colleagues whether they are Republican or Democrat because I know that they will soon be subjected to many of the same negative, attack ads that I had to face in my race. Many of those ads will contain misrepresentations, distortions, and outright untruths. Perhaps an image will appear but it won't be the candidate's either. Instead, it will be the candidate hiding behind the message. And if it is not the candidate himself or herself who is orchestrating the attack ad, it will be some special interest group that is not subject to even the minimal restraints on spending and other restrictions that candidates are subject to. Mr. President, we hear that politicians are held in only slightly higher esteem by the public than lawyers and journalists. While that may be true, I know that my colleagues, regardless of their political affiliation, are honorable men and women who care about their respective States and our Nation. Unfortunately, the negative perception persists. I believe that one of the reasons for that is the trend in today's campaigns to attack, attack and attack--to go negative early and stay negative until the votes are counted. As Senator Danforth noted, legislation requiring the candidate herself to present ads that reference her opponent would serve the purpose, ``* * * to open up speech, open up the ability to respond, the ability to defend oneself. In the case of a candidate making a negative attack, we try to improve the sense of responsibility and accountability by making it clear that the candidate who makes the attack should appear with his own face, with his own voice.'' I believe that the legislation I am introducing today will begin the process of restoring the confidence of the American people in public service as an honorable endeavor. I also believe that it passes first amendment scrutiny because it sets up a system of voluntary participation in receiving the benefits of section 315 of the Communications Act. A candidate's access rights to the airwaves in this instance are statutory, rather than constitutional. Congress established the requirements for candidates to be eligible for the lowest unit rate and Congress has the right to modify those requirements so long as the modifications reasonably balance the interest of candidates, broadcast licensees, and the public. Participation in this context is voluntary. Nothing in this legislation would prohibit a candidate from offering an ad that references her opponent without making the reference in person. A candidate could offer her ad in any format and no penalty, either civil or criminal, would attach for deciding not to following the strictures of this legislation. Broadcasters would not be burdened by this bill because it does not require them to provide any additional benefits to particular candidates. Instead, it leaves the choice of whether or not to participate in the system whereby the candidate receives a lowest unit rate charge to the candidate herself. And, finally, the public is not harmed by this bill. In fact, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would argue that the public would be harmed by requiring candidates to take responsibility for their statements. More openness, more honesty and more responsibility in campaign advertising would benefit all. Mr. President, last year the majority leader included campaign finance reform in the list of legislation that should be considered by the 104th Congress, and I commend him for that. In addition, our colleagues from Arizona and Wisconsin, Senators McCain and Feingold introduced a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill that has received a positive response in many corners. Unfortunately, I fear that, as the majority leader has noted, the differences between the two parties on comprehensive campaign finance reform could all to easily prevent the Congress from enacting comprehensive campaign finance reform. My legislation, on the other hand, is not a Republican or Democratic issue. If the elections of 1992 and 1994 demonstrated anything, it was that neither Republicans nor Democrats have a patent on the art of negative campaigning. Both sides have resorted to these types of ads and both sides have been the victims of them. My legislation, unlike the larger issues of campaign finance reform, should attract bipartisan support. Mr. President, we are about to enter the height of the American political season. It is no doubt just a matter of time before the negative advertisements begin to air across the country. By enacting the legislation we are introducing today, I believe that the Senate will take a major first step in bringing fresh air into the area of campaign reform and a major step toward restoring dignity and confidence in our political process. I urge my colleagues to act on this matter at the earliest possible time.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe will effectively increase voter registration among college and university students and will positively change the voting patterns of this Nation. Mr. President, currently there are over 15 million college students across this country who are eligible to vote. This highly concentrated group of individuals, when allowed increased access to voter registration, can be a very powerful and influential political voice. The legislation I am introducing today provides colleges and universities the mechanisms and the opportunities to increase voter registration among college students so that they can be an active and visible political force within our country. College and university students are one of the most highly mobile constituent groups in this country and our voter registration systems have not been entirely effective in empowering our Nation's college students to register and to vote. It is estimated that college students in America move on an average of twice a year. To continue to vote, college students must re-register to vote or change their address every year. No other constituent group in America faces such a significant barrier. My legislation will empower college and university students to overcome this barrier. Mr. President, this bill, which may be cited as the Student Voter Registration Act of 1996, will amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It will require all colleges and universities that receive Federal funds, have 2-year or 4-year programs of instructions and confer associate, baccalaureate or graduate degrees, to provide voter registration opportunities and forms, including absentee ballots, to students at the time of class registration. Although the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 has made significant advances in the voter registration arena, this legislation will reach out and assist an additional constituency group. According to a recent study prepared by the Harwood Group for the Kettering Foundation, students feel alienated from the current political process and pessimistic about the prospects for change. This same study challenged America's students ``to be more aware of the power and possibility that lie(s) in their own innate capacity for common action.'' The legislation allows students to overcome the political barriers currently placed before them by a system that has not fully recognized their needs and their power. If you look at youth participation compared to all eligible voters in Presidential elections from 1972 to 1992, you can see the red column shows that 64 percent of eligible voters voted in the 1992 election, and 43 percent of those in the age group 18 to 24, went to the polls in 1992 to express their political views. When you look at the same comparison of eligible voters to this age group 18 to 24 in midterm elections, from 1974 to 1994, the disparity is even greater. Among all eligible voters the percentage is 45 percent. Among this age group it is 20 percent. We need to take action to deal with that. The legislation I am introducing today would amend the law to provide that voter registration opportunities exist in much larger numbers for this age group. I think it is important legislation for us to enact and to do so, hopefully, before we get too much further into this election year. As these charts behind me show, for the past 24 years, 18 to 24-year- olds have had a significantly lower voter participation rate as compared to all eligible voters. For example, in the 1992 Presidential election, of young people in the 18 to 24-year-old age category eligible to vote, only 53 percent had registered to vote and only 43 percent of eligible young people actually voted. During the last midterm election, 40 percent of young people age 18 to 24 were registered to vote and only half of them voted. That is less than 20 percent Mr. President. These numbers are staggering when compared to the numbers of all eligible voters who turned out to vote. In 1994's midterm election, 45 percent of eligible voters went to the polls to express their political views. In the last Presidential election over 60 percent of eligible voters went to the polls to vote. Mr. President, in 1992, youth participation reached its highest level--43 percent-- since 1972, the first year that 18 to 24-year-olds were eligible to vote. We need to continue this upward trend. The bill I am bringing to the Senate floor is a solid mechanism for this. Mr. President, this is not a partisan issue. I do not stand here in the Senate today in an effort to increase registration for my party, but instead I hope this legislation will increase registration and political involvement among students regardless of party affiliation. Mr. President, anyone who believes that this is a partisan issue needs to just look at this final chart that I have here. It is clear that when you look at this age group, in this case 18- to 29-year-olds, the numbers, in terms of party affiliation for Democrats versus Republicans is almost identical. Again, this is not a partisan issue. This is not a way to get more Democrats registered at the expense of the Republicans, or vice versa. It is a way to get more young Americans registered and to get them participating in our political system. What is important is that students have every opportunity to register--not what party they align themselves with and not how they chose to vote. This bill gives college and university students the opportunity to register and provides accessibility to registration forms. As the American people look ahead to the 1996 election, it is important that we began to establish the foundation for an effective dialogue regarding the electoral process. For many college students this may be the first general election they participate in and it is critical that they do participate. It is also critical, that we here in Congress accept the challenge of energizing America's college students and presenting them the opportunity to be an influential part of the development and the continuation of this great democracy. I commend this legislation to my colleagues, and I will file it with the clerk today and ask that it be appropriately referred. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe will effectively increase voter registration among college and university students and will positively change the voting patterns of this Nation. Mr. President, currently there are over 15 million college students across this country who are eligible to vote. This highly concentrated group of individuals, when allowed increased access to voter registration, can be a very powerful and influential political voice. The legislation I am introducing today provides colleges and universities the mechanisms and the opportunities to increase voter registration among college students so that they can be an active and visible political force within our country. College and university students are one of the most highly mobile constituent groups in this country and our voter registration systems have not been entirely effective in empowering our Nation's college students to register and to vote. It is estimated that college students in America move on an average of twice a year. To continue to vote, college students must re-register to vote or change their address every year. No other constituent group in America faces such a significant barrier. My legislation will empower college and university students to overcome this barrier. Mr. President, this bill, which may be cited as the Student Voter Registration Act of 1996, will amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It will require all colleges and universities that receive Federal funds, have 2-year or 4-year programs of instructions and confer associate, baccalaureate or graduate degrees, to provide voter registration opportunities and forms, including absentee ballots, to students at the time of class registration. Although the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 has made significant advances in the voter registration arena, this legislation will reach out and assist an additional constituency group. According to a recent study prepared by the Harwood Group for the Kettering Foundation, students feel alienated from the current political process and pessimistic about the prospects for change. This same study challenged America's students ``to be more aware of the power and possibility that lie(s) in their own innate capacity for common action.'' The legislation allows students to overcome the political barriers currently placed before them by a system that has not fully recognized their needs and their power. If you look at youth participation compared to all eligible voters in Presidential elections from 1972 to 1992, you can see the red column shows that 64 percent of eligible voters voted in the 1992 election, and 43 percent of those in the age group 18 to 24, went to the polls in 1992 to express their political views. When you look at the same comparison of eligible voters to this age group 18 to 24 in midterm elections, from 1974 to 1994, the disparity is even greater. Among all eligible voters the percentage is 45 percent. Among this age group it is 20 percent. We need to take action to deal with that. The legislation I am introducing today would amend the law to provide that voter registration opportunities exist in much larger numbers for this age group. I think it is important legislation for us to enact and to do so, hopefully, before we get too much further into this election year. As these charts behind me show, for the past 24 years, 18 to 24-year- olds have had a significantly lower voter participation rate as compared to all eligible voters. For example, in the 1992 Presidential election, of young people in the 18 to 24-year-old age category eligible to vote, only 53 percent had registered to vote and only 43 percent of eligible young people actually voted. During the last midterm election, 40 percent of young people age 18 to 24 were registered to vote and only half of them voted. That is less than 20 percent Mr. President. These numbers are staggering when compared to the numbers of all eligible voters who turned out to vote. In 1994's midterm election, 45 percent of eligible voters went to the polls to express their political views. In the last Presidential election over 60 percent of eligible voters went to the polls to vote. Mr. President, in 1992, youth participation reached its highest level--43 percent-- since 1972, the first year that 18 to 24-year-olds were eligible to vote. We need to continue this upward trend. The bill I am bringing to the Senate floor is a solid mechanism for this. Mr. President, this is not a partisan issue. I do not stand here in the Senate today in an effort to increase registration for my party, but instead I hope this legislation will increase registration and political involvement among students regardless of party affiliation. Mr. President, anyone who believes that this is a partisan issue needs to just look at this final chart that I have here. It is clear that when you look at this age group, in this case 18- to 29-year-olds, the numbers, in terms of party affiliation for Democrats versus Republicans is almost identical. Again, this is not a partisan issue. This is not a way to get more Democrats registered at the expense of the Republicans, or vice versa. It is a way to get more young Americans registered and to get them participating in our political system. What is important is that students have every opportunity to register--not what party they align themselves with and not how they chose to vote. This bill gives college and university students the opportunity to register and provides accessibility to registration forms. As the American people look ahead to the 1996 election, it is important that we began to establish the foundation for an effective dialogue regarding the electoral process. For many college students this may be the first general election they participate in and it is critical that they do participate. It is also critical, that we here in Congress accept the challenge of energizing America's college students and presenting them the opportunity to be an influential part of the development and the continuation of this great democracy. I commend this legislation to my colleagues, and I will file it with the clerk today and ask that it be appropriately referred. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 1697 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation on behalf of the distinguished Minority leader and myself that amends the independent counsel statute. In my opinion recent events have made clear that Congress should review the statute providing for the appointment of an independent counsel. The specific problem that concerns me, and which my bill will address, is the perception that an independent counsel who continues to practice law and represent clients while serving as independent counsel opens himself or herself to charges of conflict of interest resulting from continued representation of private clients. The bill I am introducing today amends the independent counsel statute to eliminate the possibility that such a conflict of interest will arise by requiring that, upon assuming the duties of independent counsel, an attorney refrain from representing clients until her duties as independent counsel have been completed. Additionally, my bill requires that the independent counsel not receive any compensation for affiliating with or being employed by an entity that provides professional legal services during the time of their service as independent counsel. This bill would not apply to the current independent counsel investigating the Whitewater matter. It would only apply to independent counsels appointed after the effective date of this legislation. Mr. President, as my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor pointed out yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the current independent counsel, Mr. Starr, has retained the services of Sam Dash, former chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee and a noted scholar on issues relating to legal ethics to advise Mr. Starr on matters stemming from his continued affiliation with his law firm and continued representation of clients. Setting aside for a moment the fact that Mr. Starr has seen fit to retain Mr. Dash on a part-time basis at a cost to the taxpayers of over $166,000, it strikes many as a little odd, Mr. President, that an independent counsel has for the first time hired someone to advise him on what is ethical and what is not. It is my understanding from published reports in the Washington Post, the New Yorker, and other sources, that the primary ``ethical'' concern that Mr. Dash is advising the Whitewater independent counsel on, is related to issues that have arisen as a result of Mr. Starr's continued private practice of law and his continued representation of clients who, at the very least, have agendas that are diametrically opposed to one of the primary targets of the Whitewater investigation--the Clinton administration. Commenting on the issues that have been raised by Mr. Starr's involvement with the Bradley Foundation, a conservative foundation that gives money to many virulent critics of the Clinton administration, Ellen Miller, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics said, ``But you don't have to scratch far beneath the surface to find not just one but many, many, many conflicts of interest.'' Mr. President, I am not here to judge the numerous allegations of conflicts of interests that have been brought against the current Whitewater independent counsel. Those issues need to be addressed by the special panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which appointed Mr. Starr. However, I do think that the Congress has an opportunity and indeed the obligation to ensure that the current troubles plaguing Mr. Starr do not plague future independent counsels. Mr. President, I think that too often we search for complicated solutions to simple problems. We devise complex mechanisms to deal with rather straightforward issues. I believe that we can and should avoid doing that in this case. My legislation addresses a serious concern with a simple and straightforward response. Potential conflicts of interest resulting from continued, outside employment by a law firm and from representation of outside clients can be avoided by simply requiring that the independent counsel devote her fulltime attention to the duties of the independent counsel's office. No one will argue, Mr. President, that the office of independent counsel has not served an important function since the days of Watergate. The integrity and impartiality of the office is far too important to its proper functioning to risk under circumstances like those swirling around the current Whitewater independent counsel. That is why I offer this legislation. I am trying by this pro-active legislation to eliminate the need for other independent counsel to hire Mr. Dash or anyone else to advise them on potential conflicts of interest they might have. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in December 1994, Congress received the National Cave and Karst Research Institute Study from the National Park Service. The report studied the feasibility of creating a National Cave and Karst Research Institute in the vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, NM, as directed by Public Law 101-578. Today, I am here to introduce a bill which follows the guidelines of that report and which will establish the National Cave and Karst Research Institute in Carlsbad, NM. While other nations have recognized the importance of cave resource management information and have sponsored cave and karst research, the United States has failed, until recently, to appreciate or work to understand cave and karst systems and their importance. As we approach the 21st century, the protection and management of our water resources has been identified as one of the major issues facing the world. In America, the majority of the Nation's freshwater is ground water--of which 25 percent is located in cave and karst regions. Recent studies have also indicated that caves contain valuable information related to global climate change, waste disposal, ground water supply and contamination, petroleum recovery, and biomedical investigations. Caves provide a unique understanding of the historic events of humankind. Further they are considered sacred and have religious significance for American Indians and other native Americans. According to the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act, karst is defined as a landform characterized by sinkholes, caves, dry valleys, fluted rocks, enclosed depressions, underground streamways and spring resurgences. As a whole, 20 percent of the United States is karst. In fact, east of central Oklahoma, 40 percent of the country is karst. Our National Park System manages 58 units with caves and karst features, yet academic programs on these systems are virtually nonexistent. Most research is conducted with little or no funding and the resulting data is scattered and often hard to locate. The few cave and karst organizations and programs which do exist, have substantially different missions, locations, and funding sources and there is no centralized program to analyze data or determine future research needs. In 1988, Congress directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide an inventory of caves on Federal lands and to provide for the management and dissemination of information about the caves. That directive has served only to make Federal land management agencies more aware of the need for a cave research program and a repository for cave and karst resources. In 1990, Congress further directed the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the National Park Service, to establish and administer a cave research program and prepare a proposal for Congress on the feasibility of a centralized National Cave and Karst Research Institute. The National Cave and Karst Research Institute study report to Congress was released in December 1994 and not only supports establishing the institute, but lists several serious threats to continued uninformed management practices. Threats such as: alterations in the surface waterflow patterns in karst regions, alterations in or pollution of water infiltration routes, inappropriately placed toxic waste repositories, and poorly managed or designed sewage systems and landfills. The findings of the report conclude that it is only through a better understanding of cave resources that we can prevent detrimental impacts to America's natural resources and cave ecosystems. The goals of the National Cave and Karst Research Institute, as outlined in the report, would be to further the science of speleology, to centralize speleological information, to further interdisciplinary cooperation in cave and karst research programs, and to promote environmentally sound, sustainable resource management practices. These goals would work hand in hand with the proposed objectives of the institute to establish a comprehensive cave and karst library and information data base, to sponsor national and international cave and karst symposiums, to develop longterm research studies, to produce cave-related educational publications and to develop cooperative agreements with all Federal agencies having cave management responsibilities. The vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park is ideal due to the community support which already exists for the establishment of the institute and the diverse cave and karst resources which are found throughout the region. Carlsbad, NM has grown from a small railroad stop on what is now the Santa Fe Railroad to a growing city with a population of over 170,000 in the tricounty area. It continues to attract new businesses, small manufacturers, retirees, and research facilities, including the U.S. Department of Energy's Carlsbad area office. In addition, Carlsbad Caverns National Park attracts over 700,000 visitors per year. The National Cave and Karst Research Institute would be jointly administered by the National Park Service and another public or private agency, organization or institution as determined by the Secretary. The Carlsbad Department of Development [CDOD], after reviewing the National Cave and Karst Research Institute study report, has developed proposals to obtain financial support from available and supportive organizational resources--including personnel, facilities, equipment, and volunteers. They further believe that they can obtain serious financial support from the private sector and would seek a matching grant from the State of New Mexico equal to the available Federal funds. Carlsbad already has in place many of the needed cooperative institutions, facilities, and volunteers that will work toward the success of the National Cave and Karst Institute. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation to increase our understanding of cave and karst systems. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in December 1994, Congress received the National Cave and Karst Research Institute study from the National Park Service. The report studied the feasibility of creating a National Cave and Karst Research Institute in the vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, NM, as directed by Public Law 101-578. Today, I am here to introduce a bill which follows the guidelines of that report and which will establish the National Cave and Karst Research Institute in Carlsbad, NM. While other Nations have recognized the importance of cave resource management information and have sponsored cave and karst research, the United States has failed, until recently, to appreciate or work to understand cave and karst systems and their importance. As we approach the 21st century, the protection and management of our water resources has been identified as one of the major issues facing the world. In America, the majority of the Nation's fresh water is ground water--of which 25 percent is located in cave and karst regions. Recent studies have also indicated that caves contain valuable information related to global climate change, waste disposal, ground water supply and contamination, petroleum recovery, and biomedical investigations. Caves provide a unique understanding of the historic events of humankind. Further they are considered sacred and have religious significance for American Indians and other Native Americans. According to the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act, karst is defined as a landform characterized by sinkholes, caves, dry valleys, fluted rocks, enclosed depressions, underground streamways and spring resurgences. As a whole, 20 percent of the United States is karst. In fact, east of central Oklahoma, 40 percent of the country is karst. Our National Park System manages 58 units with caves and karst features, yet academic programs on these systems are virtually nonexistent. Most research is conducted with little or no funding and the resulting data is scattered and often hard to locate. The few cave and karst organizations and programs which do exist, have substantially different missions, locations and funding sources and there is no centralized program to analyze data or determine future research needs. In 1988 Congress directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide an inventory of caves on Federal lands and to provide for the management and dissemination of information about the caves. That directive has served only to make Federal land management agencies more aware of the need for a cave research program and a repository for cave and karst resources. In 1990, Congress further directed the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the National Park Service, to establish and administer a Cave Research Program and prepare a proposal for Congress on the feasibility of a centralized National Cave and Karst Research Institute. The National Cave and Karst Research Institute Study Report to Congress was released in December 1994 and not only supports establishing the Institute, but lists several serious threats to continued uninformed management practices. Threats such as: alterations in the surface water flow patterns in karst regions, alterations in or pollution of water infiltration routes, inappropriately placed toxic waste repositories and poorly managed or designed sewage systems and landfiles. The findings of the report conclude that it is only through a better understanding of cave resources that we can prevent detrimental impacts to America's natural resources and cave ecosystems. The goals of the National Cave and Karst Research Institute, as outlined in the report, would be to further the science of speleology, to centralize speleological information, to further interdisciplinary cooperation in cave and karst research programs, and to promote environmentally sound, sustainable resource management practices. These goals would work hand in hand with the proposed objectives of the Institute to establish a comprehensive cave and karst library and information data base, to sponsor national and international cave and karst symposiums, to develop long term research studies, to produce cave-related educational publications and to develop cooperative agreements with all Federal agencies having cave management responsibilities. The vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park is ideal due to the community support which already exists for the establishment of the institute and the diverse cave and karst resources which are found throughout the region. Carlsbad, NM, has grown from a small railroad stop on what is now the Santa Fe Railroad to a growing city with a population of over 170,000 in the tri-county area. It continues to attract new businesses, small manufacturers, retirees and research facilities, including the U.S. Department of Energy's Carlsbad area office. In addition, Carlsbad Caverns National Park attracts over 700,000 visitors per year. The National Cave and Karst Research Institute would be jointly administered by the National Park Service and another public or private agency, organization, or institution as determined by the Secretary. The Carlsbad Department of Development [CDOD], after reviewing the National Cave and Karst Research Institute study report, has developed proposals to obtain financial support from available and supportive organizational resources, including personnel, facilities, equipment and volunteers. They further believe that they can obtain serious financial support from the private sector and would seek a matching grant from the State of New Mexico equal to the available Federal funds. Carlsbad already has in place many of the needed cooperative institutions, facilities and volunteers that will work toward the success of the National Cave and Karst Institute. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation to increase our understanding of cave and karst systems.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in December 1994, Congress received the National Cave and Karst Research Institute Study from the National Park Service. The report studied the feasibility of creating a National Cave and Karst Research Institute in the vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, NM, as directed by Public Law 101-578. Today, I am here to introduce a bill which follows the guidelines of that report and which will establish the National Cave and Karst Research Institute in Carlsbad, NM. While other nations have recognized the importance of cave resource management information and have sponsored cave and karst research, the United States has failed, until recently, to appreciate or work to understand cave and karst systems and their importance. As we approach the 21st century, the protection and management of our water resources has been identified as one of the major issues facing the world. In America, the majority of the Nation's freshwater is ground water--of which 25 percent is located in cave and karst regions. Recent studies have also indicated that caves contain valuable information related to global climate change, waste disposal, ground water supply and contamination, petroleum recovery, and biomedical investigations. Caves provide a unique understanding of the historic events of humankind. Further they are considered sacred and have religious significance for American Indians and other native Americans. According to the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act, karst is defined as a landform characterized by sinkholes, caves, dry valleys, fluted rocks, enclosed depressions, underground streamways and spring resurgences. As a whole, 20 percent of the United States is karst. In fact, east of central Oklahoma, 40 percent of the country is karst. Our National Park System manages 58 units with caves and karst features, yet academic programs on these systems are virtually nonexistent. Most research is conducted with little or no funding and the resulting data is scattered and often hard to locate. The few cave and karst organizations and programs which do exist, have substantially different missions, locations, and funding sources and there is no centralized program to analyze data or determine future research needs. In 1988, Congress directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide an inventory of caves on Federal lands and to provide for the management and dissemination of information about the caves. That directive has served only to make Federal land management agencies more aware of the need for a cave research program and a repository for cave and karst resources. In 1990, Congress further directed the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the National Park Service, to establish and administer a cave research program and prepare a proposal for Congress on the feasibility of a centralized National Cave and Karst Research Institute. The National Cave and Karst Research Institute study report to Congress was released in December 1994 and not only supports establishing the institute, but lists several serious threats to continued uninformed management practices. Threats such as: alterations in the surface waterflow patterns in karst regions, alterations in or pollution of water infiltration routes, inappropriately placed toxic waste repositories, and poorly managed or designed sewage systems and landfills. The findings of the report conclude that it is only through a better understanding of cave resources that we can prevent detrimental impacts to America's natural resources and cave ecosystems. The goals of the National Cave and Karst Research Institute, as outlined in the report, would be to further the science of speleology, to centralize speleological information, to further interdisciplinary cooperation in cave and karst research programs, and to promote environmentally sound, sustainable resource management practices. These goals would work hand in hand with the proposed objectives of the institute to establish a comprehensive cave and karst library and information data base, to sponsor national and international cave and karst symposiums, to develop longterm research studies, to produce cave-related educational publications and to develop cooperative agreements with all Federal agencies having cave management responsibilities. The vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park is ideal due to the community support which already exists for the establishment of the institute and the diverse cave and karst resources which are found throughout the region. Carlsbad, NM has grown from a small railroad stop on what is now the Santa Fe Railroad to a growing city with a population of over 170,000 in the tricounty area. It continues to attract new businesses, small manufacturers, retirees, and research facilities, including the U.S. Department of Energy's Carlsbad area office. In addition, Carlsbad Caverns National Park attracts over 700,000 visitors per year. The National Cave and Karst Research Institute would be jointly administered by the National Park Service and another public or private agency, organization or institution as determined by the Secretary. The Carlsbad Department of Development [CDOD], after reviewing the National Cave and Karst Research Institute study report, has developed proposals to obtain financial support from available and supportive organizational resources--including personnel, facilities, equipment, and volunteers. They further believe that they can obtain serious financial support from the private sector and would seek a matching grant from the State of New Mexico equal to the available Federal funds. Carlsbad already has in place many of the needed cooperative institutions, facilities, and volunteers that will work toward the success of the National Cave and Karst Institute. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation to increase our understanding of cave and karst systems. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation on behalf of the distinguished Minority leader and myself that amends the independent counsel statute. In my opinion recent events have made clear that Congress should review the statute providing for the appointment of an independent counsel. The specific problem that concerns me, and which my bill will address, is the perception that an independent counsel who continues to practice law and represent clients while serving as independent counsel opens himself or herself to charges of conflict of interest resulting from continued representation of private clients. The bill I am introducing today amends the independent counsel statute to eliminate the possibility that such a conflict of interest will arise by requiring that, upon assuming the duties of independent counsel, an attorney refrain from representing clients until her duties as independent counsel have been completed. Additionally, my bill requires that the independent counsel not receive any compensation for affiliating with or being employed by an entity that provides professional legal services during the time of their service as independent counsel. This bill would not apply to the current independent counsel investigating the Whitewater matter. It would only apply to independent counsels appointed after the effective date of this legislation. Mr. President, as my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor pointed out yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the current independent counsel, Mr. Starr, has retained the services of Sam Dash, former chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee and a noted scholar on issues relating to legal ethics to advise Mr. Starr on matters stemming from his continued affiliation with his law firm and continued representation of clients. Setting aside for a moment the fact that Mr. Starr has seen fit to retain Mr. Dash on a part-time basis at a cost to the taxpayers of over $166,000, it strikes many as a little odd, Mr. President, that an independent counsel has for the first time hired someone to advise him on what is ethical and what is not. It is my understanding from published reports in the Washington Post, the New Yorker, and other sources, that the primary ``ethical'' concern that Mr. Dash is advising the Whitewater independent counsel on, is related to issues that have arisen as a result of Mr. Starr's continued private practice of law and his continued representation of clients who, at the very least, have agendas that are diametrically opposed to one of the primary targets of the Whitewater investigation--the Clinton administration. Commenting on the issues that have been raised by Mr. Starr's involvement with the Bradley Foundation, a conservative foundation that gives money to many virulent critics of the Clinton administration, Ellen Miller, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics said, ``But you don't have to scratch far beneath the surface to find not just one but many, many, many conflicts of interest.'' Mr. President, I am not here to judge the numerous allegations of conflicts of interests that have been brought against the current Whitewater independent counsel. Those issues need to be addressed by the special panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which appointed Mr. Starr. However, I do think that the Congress has an opportunity and indeed the obligation to ensure that the current troubles plaguing Mr. Starr do not plague future independent counsels. Mr. President, I think that too often we search for complicated solutions to simple problems. We devise complex mechanisms to deal with rather straightforward issues. I believe that we can and should avoid doing that in this case. My legislation addresses a serious concern with a simple and straightforward response. Potential conflicts of interest resulting from continued, outside employment by a law firm and from representation of outside clients can be avoided by simply requiring that the independent counsel devote her fulltime attention to the duties of the independent counsel's office. No one will argue, Mr. President, that the office of independent counsel has not served an important function since the days of Watergate. The integrity and impartiality of the office is far too important to its proper functioning to risk under circumstances like those swirling around the current Whitewater independent counsel. That is why I offer this legislation. I am trying by this pro-active legislation to eliminate the need for other independent counsel to hire Mr. Dash or anyone else to advise them on potential conflicts of interest they might have. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the students and coach of the Highland High School Academic Decathlon Team. This team, comprising of 15 New Mexico students, is the New Mexico representative to the 1996 National Academic Decathlon competition in Atlanta, GA. The academic decathlon is a unique program that encourages academically well rounded students to compete in a variety of events. The decathlon encourages students to develop a greater respect for knowledge, promotes wholesome competition in academic areas of study and interest, stimulates intellectual growth and achievement, and encourages public interest and awareness of outstanding programs in our schools. This valuable program challenges students to strive for goals and to work hard academically. Mr. President, these 15 students and their coach have worked extremely hard since early fall to prepare themselves for this event. Through their hard work and their extensive efforts, they have been able to overcome obstacles and achieve very high goals. Too often, Mr. President, we reward students for their athletic prowess instead of their academic abilities. Today, I want to highlight the achievements of these students. Our students can be champions in the classroom as well as on the athletic field. Mr. President, for their outstanding accomplishments, and their sincere commitment to academics, I commend the members of the Highland High School Decathlon team. I believe that I speak for all New Mexicans when I wish them the best of luck and congratulate them on their success.