Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as I said at the outset, it would be tragic if the Senate did not give its consent to the ratification of the START II Treaty before we adjourn in December or late November of this year. It will reflect very badly upon the leadership of this Senate. It will play into the hands of those in the Duma in Moscow, who want to torpedo the treaty. It is incredible to me that we can find time to debate all manner of secondary foreign policy matters on this Senate floor, such as the Helms-Burton Cuba bill and Jerusalem Embassy bill. One newspaper headline referred to this as the ``Majority Leader's World Tour.'' But we do not seem to be able to find time for the START II Treaty. We have had plenty of days around here recently where we were marking time in morning business, and today is one of those days. We will likely have more of them in the weeks to come. We need to use at least one of those days--the sooner the better--to provide our consent to ratification of a treaty that is so clearly in our national interest. We need to stop the brinkmanship, at least when it comes to matters beyond our shores, on which there is bipartisan consensus. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment to H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 1996 offered by my good friend from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, and my good friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy. Mr. President, international population growth is a significant issue for foreign policy for the United States. It is a significant issue for domestic policy, for that matter. Of all the challenges facing our Nation and the world, none compares to that of increasing population growth. Our efforts to protect the environment, to promote economic development around the world, and to raise the status of women, will be futile if we do not first address the staggering rate of global population growth. How can we expect underdeveloped countries to pull themselves up when the world's population is growing at a rate of more than 10,000 people per hour? Today, there are more than 5.7 billion people on this Earth. We simply must address these issues. We must acknowledge that we cannot talk about population growth without talking about the very real and very tragic effects of overpopulation: First, the destruction of our environment; and Second, the destruction of people--mostly women and young children who live in poverty and die from malnutrition, starvation, lack of access to basic health care, and botched illegal abortions. We need to be working to address these issues instead of spending countless hours debating our philosophical differences on abortion. We have been over that issue more times than any of us care to count. Mr. President, I believe direct, substantial, and long-term benefits flow to American families from our national investment in sustainable development and population efforts. Today, as we approach the 21st century, we are facing a world that will be more economically competitive and more challenging than ever before. This is not the time to be weakening our role as the world leader in these areas. Instead, I believe it is in the best interest of America's children and families for the Congress to reaffirm and solidify our commitment to population stabilization, reproductive choice, and other critical health and sustainable development programs. For the past 12 years or so, I have spent a lot of my time here in the Senate focussing on the domestic and international high-technology industries. I have worked to develop strategies to strengthen the technology and manufacturing bases in this country and to secure higher wage jobs for Americans. I have focussed on these issues because of my concern for the long- term economic viability of our Nation. I believe that to secure our economic future, the United States must be fully equipped to compete long term with Japan and other highly developed countries. But at the same time, I believe we cannot have a successful economic strategy in this country if we do not devote serious attention to the economies of the developing world. Over the past 10 years or so, growth in U.S. exports to the developing world has exploded; and today, developing countries account for about 40 percent of a growing U.S. export market. In fact, trade with the developing world is growing at a rate that far exceeds the growth rate of U.S. exports to developed countries. [[Page S 16486]] I believe a significant factor in this growth has been the modest U.S. commitment to development and population assistance in the developing countries. Mr. President, funding for efforts such as those of the U.N. Population Fund and the UNFPA, are critical to addressing these issues which are among the most serious the world faces and is why I rise in strong support of the Kassebaum-Leahy amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill and hope that we will once again send a strong message to the House that this funding must, and will, be preserved.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express serious concern about the cuts made to civilian energy research and development programs in the energy and water appropriations conference report that will be adopted by the Senate today. While some level of reduction to Government programs may be expected in order to reduce and eventually eliminate the deficit, the drastic cuts in our civilian R&D programs, not just in this bill, but across the civilian research agencies--with the possible exception of the National Institutes of Health--are shortsighted. Overall, this budget proposes a 17-percent reduction in our civilian energy R&D from the level requested in the President's budget. An ever larger percentage--35 percent--is cut from solar and renewable energy R&D. A chart comparing budget request levels versus the decisions contained in the conference report, which I ask unanimous consent be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, shows the magnitude of the cuts in the energy and water appropriations bill. Cuts that will start us down a path that will ultimately and inevitably harm our Nation's economy and energy security.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there is one more important point I want to make about this bill. I understand language regarding the Animas-La Plata project was considered which would have read, ``In order to ensure the timely implementation of the Colorado-Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, and notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to proceed without further delay with construction of those facilities approved for construction in the Final Biological Opinion for the Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado and New Mexico, dated October 25, 1991.'' I understand this language including the phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' was rejected. The conferees adopted substitute language which says, ``In order to ensure the timely implementation of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to proceed without delay with construction of those facilities in conformance with the final Biological Opinion for the Animas-La Plata project, Colorado and New Mexico, dated October 25, 1991.'' I understand conferees adopted the language they did because they are frustrated with the pace of the work to comply with existing law before the Secretary can legally proceed to implement the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. Efforts to finalize numerous steps required to begin construction of the project, including completion of a satisfactory supplemental environmental impact statement demonstrating compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act have taken several years. Based on assurances from members of the administration and the conference committee, the amendment is intended to provide clear direction to the Bureau of Reclamation to complete the work necessary to move forward by complying expeditiously with these and other provisions of law. The House added $5 million to the administration's budget request for the project for fiscal year 1996, and the Senate concurred, to assist the Bureau in its effort to comply with the directions of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The Republican budget resolution adopted in June will reduce our civilian R&D budget to a four decade low as a percentage of our economy by the year 2002. These cuts will not be made up by the private sector, who are showing, through deep cuts being made in their own research budgets, an ever narrower focus and an unwillingness to invest in long- term research projects. So our research dollars will be shrinking while those of our economic rivals, Germany and Japan for example, continue to rise. Recognizing the importance of civilian research investments, they and other industrialized countries around the world are seeking to emulate the successful American model of the last half century, just as we seem to be abandoning it. In the energy arena, our investments have paid off in terms of lowering energy costs and creating new technical advancements in photovoltaic, wind energy, solar thermal, biofuels, and geothermal systems. These developments are positioning the United States as a world leader in new technologies. This has been confirmed by a recently completed report of the Yergin Task Force on Strategic Energy R&D which found that ``DOE energy R&D has resulted in billions of dollars' worth of annual consumer energy savings and new business opportunities.'' In addition, the Yergin report concluded that technological R&D advancements from both the public and private sectors are imperative in order for our Nation to meet its future energy needs. With all of the significant accomplishments these R&D efforts have yielded, with huge potential in energy products and services markets over the next 25 years, and with the serious trade deficit we now face, I ask my colleagues, how do these cuts make sense? Well, Mr. President, in my opinion, they do not. I plan to vote for the energy and water conference report today. Given where many Republicans started several months ago on the defense side of this bill, the conference report we are voting on today is not as bad as it could have been. Essentially the bill preserves the President's initiatives for stockpile stewardship and arms control verification and nonproliferation technologies, vital programs for our long-term national security. However, the details that have emerged on the DOE civilian research budget present a very bleak story--one I fear will put our Nation's well-being and prosperity at considerable risk in the long run. I urge the President to continue to fight for adequate investments in energy research even if he reluctantly signs the bill into law. Exhibit 1

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of Senator Simon's amendment to strike a provision ending favorable consideration for banks providing loans to employee stock ownership plans. This provision, known as section 133, was originally put in place by Senator Long, when he was the honorable chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. It allows banks making loans for the establishment of employee stock ownership plans [ESOP's] to deduct half of the interest received from that loan from income. In practice, this provision has lowered the costs of establishing an ESOP, and thus expanded employee ownership. It is estimated that about 50 ESOP's are established in this manner each year. Mr. President, I support the current provision because I support employee ownership. In a time when corporations are enjoying soaring profits and wages remain stagnant, employee ownership gives workers a means to share in the profits of their labor. In cases in which employee ownership is significant and in which voting rights are extended to employee owners, as required by section 133, it also can give workers an important voice in corporate decisions. Beyond helping individual workers, there is significant evidence that employee ownership enhances the competitiveness of corporations. Several studies, including a 1995 study by Douglas Kruse of Rutgers University, have established a positive link between employee ownership and corporate performance. It is no surprise that workers are more productive when they own the fruits of that productivity. In a global economy, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to encourage corporations to be more competitive? Beyond these substantive policy reasons for striking the anti-ESOP provision in this legislation, I believe that there are budgetary reasons for striking this language. Most notably, it is my understanding that the revenue estimates attached to this provision are grossly overstated. No hearings have been held on the provision or its revenue effects, and the ESOP Association has done an analysis showing the anticipated revenue is extremely unrealistic. I ask that a copy of that analysis be included at the conclusion of my remarks. In summary, Mr. President, I believe that the provision in the legislation before disallowing the preferential tax treatment of ESOP loans is bad policy, and I urge support of Senator Simon's amendment to strike it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to prohibit the payment of legal expenses to providers when they appeal the denial of a claim or cost adjustment and lose that appeal. Providers would still be able to recover other legal expenses, including the cost of an appeal if they prevail on the appeal under the provisions of this amendment. The amendment would save money for Medicare part A and prevent a potentially large abuse of the current system. The Federal Government should not be paying for individuals or corporations to sue the Federal Government especially when they sue and lose their appeal.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding me time. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the Kennedy-Simon student loan amendment. It does deal with a very serious problem that I see in this budget reconciliation bill. Very simply, what we are talking about here is $10.8 billion that is to be reduced or eliminated out of the funds that will otherwise be made available to students over the next 7 years, students who want to go to college and who do not have the financial means with which to go to college. That $10.8 billion is presented by the Republican majority as being fairly shared. We are going to try to charge some of that to the loan industry and some of that to the students and families themselves. I have a chart here, Mr. President, which I think makes the point pretty clearly that the cost, that $10.8 billion, is not fairly shared. What this chart shows is that something like 30 percent of this entire $10.8 billion, $3.1 billion specifically, will be additional costs to the loan industry; 70 percent of the entire cut in education is costs to students and their families. That is $7.6 billion over 7 years. Let me talk about some of the specific things that we are doing to increase the costs to students and families during that time, because some of it is precedent setting and, in my view, it is a very bad precedent and reflects very badly on our country. One which has been referred to by both the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Rhode Island is that we are starting, for the first time, to charge interest on the loan from the day of graduation. That may seem like a small item and, in some larger global sense, it may be, but it signifies something about what the Congress is about in this reconciliation bill. Always before, the idea was when students graduated from college, we would give them a 6-month grace period in which to get a job, in which to begin to receive regular monthly paychecks, before they were charged the interest on that loan. But we are eliminating that in this legislation. Here the idea is that we can pick up $2.7 billion over the next 7 years by eliminating that grace period and starting to charge that interest from the day they graduate. I think that is a shortsighted, mistaken and wrong policy decision. A second item that I particularly want to focus on that I think is perhaps even a worse precedent is this whole idea of charging a tax to schools that want to make a student loan. In my State, the schools that are making Federal student loans are generally schools that are trying to provide education to moderate-income families and students. They would be charged, under this bill, .85 percent, nearly 1 percent of the value of the loan, at the time the loan is originated. When I bought a house, I remember that they charged me a loan origination fee. You always shop around to see where can you get the fewest points, where will they charge you the fewest points for your house loan. The Government has never charged points for student loans before. We have never charged origination fees when we made a loan to a student to go to school. This year, for the first time, we will begin to charge an origination fee. Now we charge it to the institution. The school itself has to pay the student loan and, of course, that builds in an incentive for the school perhaps to look for more financially capable students. They do not have that cost. They do not need to worry about origination fees if they get students that, in fact, do not need student loans. I think it is a very bad precedent. I think when you start charging an origination fee for a student loan, it is a sad day in our Nation's history. That is exactly what we see proposed in this bill. That would, supposedly, result in the Federal Government picking up $2 billion over the next 7 years. We are increasing the interest rates on family interest. That is another $1.5 billion. And then by capping the amount of direct student loans that can be made, presumably we are going to pick up $1.4 billion. Mr. President, this amendment would strike the most onerous provisions of the reconciliation bill by striking the provisions that increase the costs of loans for students and their families. The Republicans propose that almost 70 percent of the $10.8 billion cuts in the current student loan system be shouldered by students and their families. Only $3.1 billion is borne by the loan industry and $100 million by cost sharing with States. The overwhelming majority of these cuts, shown in red on this chart, would be shouldered by the very students the program is intended to help. Only 30 percent of the cuts, shown in yellow on this chart, are imposed on banks, guaranty agencies, and secondary markets in the student loan industry. That means that directly or indirectly the wrong people suffer. It will cost needy students more to borrow. The Kennedy-Simon amendment fixes that. It strikes all portions of the Labor and Human Resources Committee reconciliation title that impose higher student loan costs on students and their families. Let me show you how. First, the amendment would restore a 6-month interest-free grace period following graduation. That means that interest would not accrue on student loans for 6 months after graduation giving students time to look for a job. This amendment strikes the Republican cut of $2.7 billion for the interest-free grace period. The amendment would thereby save an individual student between $700 and $2,500, depending on the length of study and amount borrowed. Next, the amendment eliminates a new .85-percent fee on new student loans. It strikes the $2 billion Republicans would save by introducing this new loan fee. The Republican plan would force colleges either to absorb this new tax on student loans or pass it on as increased students fees. This would have meant about $25 every year for about 14 million students with new loans. It would have effectively penalized schools for accepting needy students. Next, the amendment eliminates the rise in interest rates families pay for student loans. Without this amendment, the increase in PLUS loan interest rates could amount to up to $5,000 a family. This increase would be paid by the very families who lack other assets against which to borrow, and must therefore borrow most heavily from this program to afford 4 years of college. Finally, the amendment eliminates the 20 percent cap on the direct loan program. The program is now at 30 to 40 percent and has made the student loan process much quicker and more efficient for participating students. This amendment is good policy for the Nation. In New Mexico, it will be absolutely essential. It will enable a better education for some students who otherwise would not go to college. Colleges in New Mexico have volunteered my office the numbers of their students on Federal financial aid because, they tell me, they know is vital for the students they serve. They say three New Mexico colleges alone have well over 20,000 students receiving some form of Federal financial aid. At the University of New Mexico, there are about 10,000; at New Mexico State University, about 9,000; at Western New Mexico University, about 1,400. Other colleges have more. More important, over 70 percent of all financial aid in most New Mexico colleges is Federal. In some it is almost the only source available. In New Mexico Highlands University and New Mexico Junior College in Hobbs there is very little financial assistance that is not Federal. These schools serve students to whom financial assistance is absolutely essential, whose families cannot sustain higher levels of personal debt. Other States may be richer than New Mexico. But in my home State, this amendment would make the difference in reducing the level of student and family debt to a point that working families feel it is within their reach. This would enable some students to go to college who otherwise might not go. Graduating from college is no longer a ticket to the good life; it has become a mandatory qualification for most entry-level professional jobs. This bill strikes at the heart of the Federal Government's commitment to education; the Kennedy-Simon amendment renews that commitment to making college accessible to qualified students regardless of privilege. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy-Simon amendment. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to a provision in the budget reconciliation legislation before us that could put at risk the pensions of hard-working Americans. Specifically, I refer to the provision allowing corporations to take money out of funds deemed overfunded by the IRS for deductibility purposes, and use that money for other employee benefits, without paying an excise tax. Of course, because money transferred in this manner is fungible, the money could actually be used for almost any purpose. The principal problem with this provision is that pensions funds considered overfunded by IRS for tax policy consideration are not overfunded on an actuarial termination basis. As I understand it, this means that while the plans have enough money to meet their current ongoing obligations, if for some reason the plan terminated, the people who had paid into that plan would have no guarantee that the plan could provide the pension benefits that they earned over the years. In such a case, the U.S. taxpayer, through the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation [PBGC], would be forced to step in and pay the benefits. Mr. President, we know that workers are concerned about their ability to retire with a decent standard of living. We also know that our Nation is suffering from a lack of savings and capital for economic expansion, and that institutional investors like pension funds are the single largest investors in capital. It therefore makes absolutely no sense to me to provide an incentive to decrease pension security, savings, and available capital through provisions like the one included in the budget reconciliation legislation before us. I think we should be doing more to promote sound pension plans, and expand coverage for American workers. This provision seems to me to be doing just the opposite: putting existing plans at greater risk without expanding coverage. In the time since this and a similar House provision have come to the public's attention, numerous pension experts, including the American Academy of Actuaries and the PBGC, have expressed concern about the effect this provision could have on pension fund soundness. I have also heard from constituents expressing similar concerns. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to strike this provision.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak for just a few minutes about the Republican tax plan, the plan which is before us. It is title XII of the bill. It begins on page 1463 and runs through page 1949. In case some of my colleagues have not read all aspects of it, I have not either, but I do think I understand the main thrust of it. The main thrust of it is that it does place an additional burden on those who are least able to pay. In doing so, it provides tax breaks to those who are doing the best in our economy. The Joint Committee on Taxation, which has been referred to many times here in this debate, has released some findings that I think all of us have to agree are accurate, and those findings are that people who earn $30,000 a year or less will be shouldering a heavier tax burden once this bill becomes law. The new data are the result of the effort and the proposal to reduce by $43 billion the earned-income tax credit. Mr. President, this chart here, I think, makes the point about as well as anyone could. We have here the people who have $10,000 of income or less. Their taxes will be expected by the year 2000 to rise 9.6 percent. In the case of people with $20,000 of income, it is 2.2. In the case of people with 30,000, it is a smaller percentage. But everyone in that entire range would see their taxes increased. At the same time, those above $30,000 would see a decrease. Mr. President, what we have, which is a fairly remarkable result, in my opinion, is a bill that cuts Federal taxes, reduces Federal taxes by $245 billion and at the same time increases taxes on more than half of all Americans who pay tax. Let me point to one other chart here which I think makes the point very dramatically. The Senator from North Dakota earlier was saying that the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers are the ones who are going to see their taxes go up. In my home State--and we have State-by-State breakdowns of this--in my home State of New Mexico, it is not the bottom 50 percent who are going to see their taxes increased; it is the bottom 70 percent. Because we are a low per capita income State, we have a substantial number of people who are in that income category that puts them at $30,000 or less. So 70 percent of the taxpayers in my State will in fact see their taxes rise under this bill according to the Joint Tax Committee. What is most disturbing about this is that this is happening at a point in American history where the average American worker is having a tougher time making ends meet. They are seeing their wages, the real spending power of their wages decline. Families are increasingly finding themselves without adequate health care coverage or pension options. It is a time when the stock market is at new highs, when corporate profits have never been higher than they are at this time in our history. In fact, talking about the stock market and corporate profits, there have been many times in the last month or so when I wished I owned some stock. We own very little stock. And I am sure there are many working families in this country who look at the rise in the stock market and wish they had a piece of that pie. But the reality is they do not. What we are doing here is the rich are taking a bigger share of the Nation's economic pie than ever before. We are proposing in this bill to reduce the burden on those who are relatively well off. Some have recently argued that the $500 child tax credit is more than an adequate offset to those working poor who will be getting tax increases. This is simply not true. Clearly, a family has to have substantial enough income on which to pay taxes for a $500 credit to make a difference. More than a third of the Nation's children will not benefit at all or will only receive partial credit from this proposal. If we are serious about giving tax relief to the working poor, then the child tax credit should be refundable or offset against payroll taxes, not just against the income tax. A working family in my State with two children and $15,000 adjusted gross income has no Federal tax liability and thus has no opportunity to receive any benefit from the child tax credit. This worker, however, has a real increase in tax burden by the reduction in EITC that helps the family keep working, not falling back into welfare programs. But this same worker has payroll taxes of $1,148.00. If the child tax credit were an offset against these taxes, then this might do some good. Mr. President, this Senate has been here before--in fact, 14 years ago. In 1981, it was the passage of the Kemp-Roth bill which was a major cause of the deficit we are now struggling with. In 1983, 1985, and at other subsequent times, this Congress has quietly undone parts of Kemp-Roth, which cut taxes during a time when the Nation's financial circumstances could not bear the pressure. But we have never recovered--and that is why the budget balancing process today is so terribly difficult. It is very unwise to attempt to cut the programs that we are cutting toward the noble cause of balancing the budget, and at the same time cut taxes for the wealthy. It was the wrong thing to do in 1981, and it is the wrong thing to do today. Mr. President, if we are going to promise tax relief, it needs to be equitable. We must go back to the drawing board and reverse these EITC reductions. The Republican tax plan, as it now reads, benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor. We would be better off leaving the whole issue of taxes to another day when we can afford it, and when it can be done fairly.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the excellent comments by the Senator from North Dakota. I want to speak about one portion of the priorities that he discussed there with his chart. I want to talk about education--and education is a priority for this country--and what is reflected in the budget that is about to be passed here in the Senate and, in the next few weeks, sent to the President. This week, the Senate is getting ready to take up a reconciliation bill which contains a $10.8 billion cut in financial support for Federal student loans. I share my colleagues' distress that at the moment tuition costs are rising, the Senate is asking to save billions of dollars on the system that helps students and their families pay their tuition. If such a change in the student loan program was the only cut being made in education, obviously, we would be concerned. And if there were no other way to balance the Federal budget, we would be concerned and perhaps be able to see our way clear. But neither is the case. Cuts in student loans are, unfortunately, the tip of an education-cutting iceberg. The debate on the reconciliation bill will be in the spotlight on these cuts in higher education. The Labor-HHS appropriations bill cuts billions more in elementary and secondary education. Mr. President, I am concerned at the magnitude of the cuts. I am concerned at the erosion of the bipartisan commitment that we have had to support education here in the Congress. Most of all, I am concerned with the abandonment of a clear vision and a sense of urgency regarding the need to raise the performance of our educational system. The magnitude of these cuts, Mr. President, is enormous. Let me show a chart here that indicates some of the problems as I see it. This chart shows the last 7 years--1996 being the seventh year, so it is the last 6 years, I guess, of support for education. It is easy to see from this chart that, in each year, from fiscal year 1990 to fiscal year 1995, there has been some increase in funds for education voted by the Congress. That was, in some years, not as much of an increase as I would have liked and, in some cases, it was not as much of an increase as an increase in inflation, but there was some increase. I should make clear, this is not a chart that shows increases in growth; this is a chart that shows absolute increases and absolute cuts. In 1996, according to the budget resolution which we are about ready to have a final vote on, there is a proposal for a $3.7 billion cut in the educational funds. This reverses a bipartisan agreement over the last three administrations that improving education is a top priority in this country. That priority has been expressed each year in annual increases in total educational funding that varied from $2.6 billion in 1991 to $0.6 billion in 1993. Compare this to the House proposal to cut $3.7 in fiscal year 1996. We are making a very dramatic reversal in our priorities this year for the first time in many years. Twelve years ago, the Reagan administration appointed a blue ribbon group called the National Commission on Excellence in Education. In 1983, they issued a report, which many of us have heard about now for over a decade, called ``A Nation At Risk.'' That commission concluded in that report in 1983: * * * 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. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur--others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments. If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. * * * We have dismantled essential support programs which helped make [prior] gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking unilateral educational disarmament. That report ``A Nation at Risk,'' called on the public to rally to deal with the situation. It challenges Americans to undertake a long- term effort to achieve excellence in education and the public did respond. States raised their high school graduation requirements. Today, States require more years of study in the basic subjects of the curriculum that were recommended by that commission--subjects of English and mathematics and science and social studies and computer science. In 1982, the year before the ``A Nation at Risk'' study came out, only 13 percent of all high school students graduated with 4 years of English, 3 years of math, 3 years of science, and 3 years of social studies. Those are the amounts recommended in that report. By 1987, that percentage had gone from 13 percent up to 29 percent. By 1990 it was at 40 percent. In 1992 when this administration took office, it was 47 percent. At the same time, student achievement--this is not just the number of courses taken, but this is actual achievement--as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress made only modest improvements. These achievements resulted from a broadly based bipartisan effort involving educators, public policymakers and the public itself focusing on how to achieve excellence. These efforts received an additional boost in 1989 when President Bush invited State Governors to an education summit in Charlottesville. In fact, then-Governor Clinton was one of those who attended that Charlottesville summit. The purpose of that summit was to focus on a list of specific national education goals for the country. The goals were to be measurable and to be attainable by the year 2000. The Bush administration developed an America 2000 strategy, lending the authority and the bully pulpit of national leadership to a program to focus schools on how to improve performance [[Page S 15436]] and how to achieve better educational results. The business community has embraced these goals and become the most articulate spokespersons for this national need to raise education standards. When the Goals 2000 legislation was passed into law in the last Congress it was endorsed by the National Alliance of Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as by the National Parent Teacher Association, and a long list of other educational associations. Why has business taken such an interest? Because business leaders are acutely aware that modest improvements in student achievement cited above are just not adequate to prepare young people to succeed in the work force. Competition in the global economy would demand higher levels of reading and writing and problem solving than we have ever needed before. Schools need to help graduates meet the real world standards that will be applied when graduates are hired and retained and promoted in jobs. Business leaders recognize the urgency of the need for schools to realign their academic standards which the higher standards at the workplace will demand of them as graduates. Lou Gerstner, who is the chairman and CEO of IBM Corp., addressed the Nation's Governors at one point earlier this summer. He pointed out to the Governors that it has been 12 years since ``A Nation at Risk'' was published and U.S. students still finish at or near the bottom on international tests of math and science. He said the first priority for public education should be ``setting absolutely the highest academic standards and holding all of us accountable for results. Now. Immediately. This school year. Now if we don't do that, we won't need any more goals, because we are going nowhere. Without standards and accountability, we have nothing.'' Now, how does the budget that we are going to vote on this week match up to Lou Gerstner's sense of urgency and the need to improve education? He talks about how we have to do it ``now, this school year.'' I submit that this budget does not measure up at all. This budget is an abdication of our responsibility to deal effectively with this problem. The budget cuts in education are too much and they are in the wrong places. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill proposes $10.8 billion be saved from student loans in postsecondary education over the next 7 years. The appropriations bill which eventually will have to be passed in some form magnifies this very unfortunate trend. In fiscal year 1996, the House appropriations bill cuts overall spending for elementary and secondary education in the Department of Education by $5.9 billion--from $32.9 to $27 billion. Cuts are made in Head Start programs, safe and drug-free schools, and bilingual education, Indian education, and the list goes on. These are the wrong priorities. Let me show one other chart here, Mr. President, just to make the point about priorities. This is a chart that summarizes the various discretionary spending accounts in this year's budget proposal. Starting on the left, we have agriculture, where there is a slight cut in discretionary spending, going on across. There are additional cuts in entitlement programs that are not reflected on this, but these are the additions and the cuts in discretionary spending where we get to make a decision every year without question. When we look at where the largest single area of cut in discretionary spending is, it is in education and training. Obviously, the largest area of increase is defense, and the only other area of increase is in crime. But the largest single area of cuts in discretionary spending is in education and training. Mr. President, these are the wrong priorities. These do not reflect the priorities of the American people. One particular program I want to talk about which concerns me greatly in this budget bill is the Goals 2000 Program. In the House appropriations bill dealing with education they cut the funding in that program from $361 million in 1995 to zero dollars in 1996. Yet the purposes for which Goals 2000 makes Federal funds available to States and local school districts are exactly the purposes that as a Nation we most need to pursue. This Goals 2000 Program is a flexible program. It makes block grants to States for their own school improvements. Next year, 90 percent of the funds that will be used in that program will go to local districts. In 48 States, these grants are being used as the States decide to use them. In Washington State, for example, for 30 districts in which mentor teachers train other teachers. In Kentucky, for homework hotlines and other efforts to enhance parental participation. In Massachusetts, for 14 charter schools. In other States, for other efforts at achieving high educational standards. This program will not tell States what higher standards have to be. The States decide that for themselves. In my own home State of New Mexico, our State has developed the educational plan for student success. Like other States, we use our Goals 2000 money to bring together the citizens and the educators and the business leaders to look at existing State policies, compare them with where we want to go. They--this group in New Mexico--will use the Goals 2000 funds to pursue strategic planning, to improve student learning and success and New Mexico's own standards of excellence. We are not a rich State in New Mexico. Without Goals 2000 funds, New Mexico's efforts to reach the vision that Louis Gerstner talks about will be significantly slowed down. Worse, without support from Goals 2000 and other important Federal programs, we signal to New Mexico and to other States that Louis Gerstner's sense of urgency is misplaced. We signal that it is enough, in our view, to allow States to progress at whatever pace they would like, without any help from the Federal Government. That simply is not true. This year, the year 2000, is fast coming on us. How we balance the budget today is going to shape how we enter this new century. The budget needs to reflect our priorities. Improving education needs to be high on that list of priorities. And while some progress has been made, our Nation is still at risk. Presidents Reagan and Bush and Clinton have joined with the public to improve the education offered to the next generation. The budget that is going to be on this Senate floor for a vote later this week is a retreat from that commitment. We know better. And we owe much better to the next generation. I hope we can find ways to do better before we adjourn this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 100 years ago, New Mexico was 17 years from becoming a State and Grover Cleveland was in his second term as President, the x ray was discovered, and O. Henry, who was a writer of great importance in this country, was charged with embezzlement. Also, 100 years ago was the time that Senator Anderson, Clinton Anderson of my home State of New Mexico, was born. Senator Anderson was a man who would mean a great deal to this institution, to this country, and to my home State of New Mexico. Mr. President, 100 years ago today he was born in Centerville, SD. As a young man, he contracted tuberculosis and moved to New Mexico for treatment of that disease. I should note, Mr. President, that many other of my State's distinguished residents did the very same thing. The dry air of New Mexico revived more than one set of eastern lungs, and Senator Anderson's were among these. He recovered from his illness. He worked in journalism. He was active in Democratic politics. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1941, served until 1945, when President Truman asked him to become Secretary of Agriculture. In 1948, he ran for the Senate and came to this body in the famous class of 1948 that included Margaret Chase Smith, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Paul Douglas, Russell Long, Robert Kerr, and Estes Kefauver. He served for 24 years, creating a very distinguished legislative record, as many of his illustrious classmates did. One of the finest studies of this outstanding Senator was written by Senate historian, Richard Baker, entitled ``Conservation Politics/The Senate career of Clinton P. Anderson.'' Dr. Baker perfectly described Senator Anderson's technique as a legislator. He said in that book, and I quote: Anderson saved his shots. He was not accustomed to launching trial balloons. When he spoke, his colleagues listened. When he decided that New Mexico could gain no more by prolonged debate, he settled for the best package available. And when he attached to a legislative measure the full weight of his intellect and prestige, doubting solons set aside their skepticism, and he prevailed. Mr. President, however many of us have the honor of representing New Mexico in the Senate, Senator Anderson provides a benchmark against which we will be measured. I am proud to have known him. My uncle, John Bingaman, was active in getting him elected and reelected to the Senate and felt when he died we lost a great public servant. Today we honor the fact of his birth and the value of his life. For us in New Mexico and in the Senate, his are the shoulders we stand on as we move into the future. Mr. President, I thank you for the chance to speak, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would ask that my 4 minutes be charged equally to the two sides.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 4 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. I appreciate that time to speak about some of what is going on in Congress. There is a lot going on, but I wish to speak particularly about the Medicare and Medicaid proposals that we are going to have to vote on in the near future. Mr. President, 30 years ago, when President Johnson signed into law the Medicare legislation, which really did establish a contract with the people of this country, New Mexico was very proud at that time because one of our great statesmen, Senator Clinton Anderson, was standing with President Johnson there in Missouri at the time that legislation was signed. As many who have studied American history may recall, the legislation that enacted Medicare was called the King-Anderson bill, and Anderson, of course, was the Senate sponsor of that legislation, and very proudly so. Since that historic day in the summer of 1965, the Medicare Program has made health care a reality for thousands of people throughout this country and, of course, thousands in New Mexico. It has been the lifeblood of many of my State's rural hospitals and rural health care providers. Today, the program is at a serious risk, and I am not at all confident that the contract that President Johnson and Senator Anderson then had worked out and fought for will survive in the same form that they enacted it. The Republican majority here in Congress is proposing to reduce Federal resources for health care in this year's budget by $450 billion from Medicare and Medicaid. That will occur, of course, over the next 7 years. In New Mexico, the result clearly will be less health care for poor children and a greater financial burden on seniors and families who attempt to care for seniors. Today, there are some 300,000 New Mexicans who depend upon Medicaid for health care, and 60 percent of those 300,000--180,000, roughly--are poor children. I think that is a fact on which many have not focused in this debate, particularly on Medicaid. A significant majority of the people who are beneficiaries of Medicaid are poor children. That is certainly true in my State. Under legislation that has been proposed by the Republican majority in the House and the Senate, many of these children are bound to go with less health care available to them. Both the House and Senate bills call for major reductions in Medicaid funds to my State, New Mexico. In the House bill, the reductions in funding for New Mexico will exceed $900 million over the next 7 years, almost $1 billion. In the Senate bill, the reductions will exceed $600 million. The Federal Department of Health and Human Services predicts that the loss in funding will cause our State, New Mexico, to reduce the number of people being served by Medicaid by 19 percent. Now, if 19 percent of the 180,000 children presently served are dropped from the program, then more than 34,000 poor New Mexico children who today are covered by Medicaid will not be covered by Medicaid in the future. Some may argue that this will never happen; that the State will make up the difference; that any shortfall in funds will be made up by our State legislature and/or Governor. If that is true, I guess my question is, why is my State joining with 23 other States in sending a letter protesting the overly prescriptive and onerous provisions that are contained in the Senate bill, specifically the requirements that States provide health care for below-poverty-line pregnant women and children up to age 12. Mr. President, under the current Medicaid Program, our State is required to provide service to these vulnerable individuals, and my question is, why do we not just continue with that requirement? According to the Governors' letter, which I referred to earlier, continuing with that requirement could potentially lead to a huge cost shift to the States and the States want the flexibility to avoid that cost shift and thereby reduce the benefits to that vulnerable group. In New Mexico, more than 212,000 seniors and children and adults with disabilities currently depend upon Medicare in addition to those who depend upon Medicaid, and by the year 2002 more than 257,000 New Mexicans are anticipated to be eligible for the program. More than 210,000 of those will be seniors. What do these program cuts that are contained in the legislation we are going to vote on this next week mean to seniors? According to the American Association of Retired Persons study of this issue, the average Medicare beneficiary in my State will pay a minimum of $2,000 more in higher deductibles, higher copays, and there are many services that will not be covered. It also means a raising of the eligibility age from 65 to 67 beginning in the year 2003. Mr. President, a cost shift of this type and this size is especially tough on New Mexico seniors and their families because so many of those in my State who are seniors live at or near poverty. One in every five New Mexicans, including about 26,000 seniors, lives in poverty in my State. Many of the State's seniors are barely making ends meet today. [[Page S 15272]] The question is, how can poor, elderly New Mexicans possibly come up with the additional resources, this additional $2,000 that it is anticipated they will have to come up with? Medicaid currently pays for $188 million of nursing home care in New Mexico annually. I heard the Senator from North Dakota speak about the woman who had a husband in a nursing home. We have many people in nursing homes in my State, and they benefit substantially from the payments that Medicaid makes. Through the Medicaid Program the State typically picks up the extra cost where Medicaid falls off. But to do so, under the cuts that are proposed, the State must raise additional revenue. And it would be substantial additional revenue, this $188 million that I referred to earlier. That would be in addition to the $600 to $900 million shortfall which also would have to be made up if services were to continue as they presently are. If New Mexico will not or cannot raise the revenue needed to keep the safety net in place without Federal assistance for these 300,000 current beneficiaries, the results are very clear, Mr. President. Thousands of seniors and children in my State will be denied adequate health care in the future. The arguments for these cuts are well known by all of us. Proponents say the cuts are necessary to get us to a balanced budget. But if a balanced budget is the goal, then my question is, why here today at this very moment do we have a committee marking up a bill to cut taxes in this country by $245 billion over this same period? If a balanced budget is the goal, and poor children and seniors have to do without health care in order to meet that goal, then why cannot the Congress also limit spending for the Pentagon to the amount that the Pentagon requested? All of New Mexico's shortfall, every single dollar of New Mexico's shortfall in Federal funds for health care could be offset by foregoing one of the additional B-2 bombers that the Republican Congress insists on ordering. So this debate, in my view, is not about whether we should reduce expenditures on health care. Clearly, we need to make some reductions. And we will do that. The debate is how deep those cuts will be, where the greatest burden of this deficit reduction will fall, what the priorities of this Nation are. These priorities should include maintaining decent health care for the most vulnerable in our society. The proposal that is being presented to us this next week does not provide for that. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. And I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just commend both my colleagues, the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Connecticut. They have spoken out on this issue before. Of course, the Senator from Connecticut is the ranking member on the subcommittee which has jurisdiction in this area and does an excellent job in providing leadership to us on these issues. I do think our policy with regard to Cuba is an anachronism today. This legislation would further entrench that same policy and further harden that policy in a way that I think would result in delaying democracy coming to Cuba. I think that is clearly the end result. The reference to China reminded me of a cartoon which I enjoyed several years ago. President Reagan was visiting China, and one of the cartoonists had a picture of him on the Great Wall of China speaking to Chou En-Lai at the time, saying, ``This wall is terrific. If this does not keep the Commies out, I don't know what will.'' That, I think, points up the absurdity of a policy. That is a Communist government in China. It has been a Communist government. We do business with them. We need to do business with them. We need to recognize that they are a real part of this world. Clearly, we have such a contrary policy when it comes to Cuba it needs to be rethought. This legislation needs to be defeated and certainly we have a chance to do so at this point. I think the President is acting judiciously and properly in beginning to plant some seeds which will encourage democracy to come to that island. That is all that can be done at this point. I think that is an important step forward, and we should not interfere with it. We should not do anything to support this Helms- Burton legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, our Nation has passed into a new period in our history, out of the cold war and into a time that will be entirely different than what we experienced during the cold war. Children studying history will look in textbooks and see clearly the demarcation between that period of the cold war and what we are now beginning to experience. They will see the breaking point, when the Berlin Wall fell, when the Soviet Union collapsed, when economic strength rather than military might began to define a country's real position in the world. It seems that just about everyone knows that history is dragging our country forward, that we need to adjust to new circumstances. And everyone seems to know this but those who are, in fact, making decisions in this area that this bill deals with. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, or the Helms-Burton bill, sends us not forward into this new era, but rather back about 30 years. Our Nation's foreign policy is rife with anachronisms, and I cannot personally be supportive of helping to reinforce and to entrench our foreign policy in these outmoded and outdated policies. The issue we are discussing today is not whether the United States supports a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. Everybody here wants to see that occur. That goal is not in question. The means of getting there is what is in question. I feel that the provisions of the Helms-Burton bill will stall rather than help our efforts to get to a democratic regime in Cuba. About a week ago, the President of the United States announced a plan that received much bipartisan praise. The President promised to more vigorously enforce unlicensed travel to Cuba, but to broaden support for cultural and intellectual in a way that the [[Page S 15080]] people of Cuba could encounter more frequently and broadly the benefits of democracy that are at work here in the United States. The President stated that he would license nongovernmental organizations to operate in Cuba, to provide information, to provide on a relief basis, when needed, the necessary infrastructure to help guide Cuba and its people toward democracy in the future. The President also noted that Cuban-Americans with relatives still in Cuba will be permitted to visit Cuba to tend a family crises, and that these automatic one-time-per-year licenses to visit would not be stymied by the current delays and management problems that frustrate American citizens from getting to Cuba when family emergencies exist. The President is also instructing that Western Union be licensed to handle wire transfers of funds to families in need on that island. But do any of these proposed actions by the President strengthen Castro's hand? In my view, they do not. What these provisions do is help bond the people of Cuba to the people of the United States. For 34 years, we have tried to bring Fidel Castro down with heavy-handed tactics. One would think that during such a long period of time we might have figured out that our policy has not been successful. We need a new direction that must involve building bridges with the Cuban people. They have in them the beginning of a policy that will bring democracy to Cuba. This bill does not help in that process. I do think that the President's plan is an important step in the right direction. The Helms-Burton legislation which we are now dealing with on the Senate floor would injure and alienate ordinary Cubans; it would weaken Cuba's civil society and retard the fledgling efforts to move toward democratization in that country, and the unprecedented effort to impose United States policies on other countries would make it more difficult for the United States Government to cooperate with its allies in fashioning a joint approach toward Cuba. We cannot endlessly bully our allies around the world on issues related to trade, except when the most severe national interests of our Nation are at stake. We have had 34 years of stalemate with regard to Cuba. Finally, things seem to be indicating some transition is occurring. Now is not the time to do battle with Europe and with Asia over our relations with Cuba. Now is the time to develop strategies to help this nation as it does move into a new order. Mr. President, I must also mention the serious concern I have with title III of the bill which creates the right for United States persons who were not United States citizens at the time of property expropriation to sue in United States Federal courts persons who traffic in United States properties in Cuba. This provision will provide an unfunded mandate on our Federal courts. It will lead to a flood of new lawsuits, costing U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in court expenses. Furthermore, the $50,000 threshold that this bill contemplates in such cases means that we are primarily addressing the needs of relatively wealthy Cubans and neglecting those who were victimized but, in fact, were less well off. If we are to make decisions of this sort, we should respond to the crimes committed and not to the particular wealth of the individuals who were harmed. Nevertheless, to handle this matter in American courts would certainly impede current U.S. efforts to resolve outstanding property claims disputes. It would impede economic reform efforts by a transition government in Cuba, and it would overburden our already overburdened Federal courts. In the Inter-American Dialog it was recently reported that used only as an instrument of pressure the embargo that we currently have against Cuba is not effective in promoting reform. It may well have the opposite result of stiffening resistance to change. Constructive use of the embargo requires that the United States open an active dialog with the Cuban Government to foster Cuba's democratization and encourage a range of political and economic reforms. In closing, Mr. President, I want to add one last caution, as others have stated here on the floor, with regard to this legislation. This bill was not reported out of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It did not go through a markup. This bill is handling matters that are very consequential for our relations with that nation. In such consequential matters we clearly need to scrutinize what we are doing, act with caution. I believe we need to follow the normal practice which exists here in the Senate and has for many years. That is, to allow committees to work on legislation, allow committees to revise legislation before that legislation is brought to the full Senate for passage or defeat. I urge my colleagues not to support this bill as it now stands. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, although the bill has already passed the Senate, I want to state my strong opposition to H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 1996 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, State, Judiciary, and related agencies. Mr. President, I believe that H.R. 2076 is the epitome of the shortsightedness of the 104th Congress. H.R. 2076 leaves our country at a disadvantage internationally and it significantly eliminates the past emphasis of fighting crime through prevention programs. I am encouraged that the final Senate version of the bill is different from what emerged from the appropriations committee. Some of the programs that have been reinstated or have had the appropriations increased are beginning to make serious inroads into the problem of crime in our communities. I would like to first address the programs that are important to New Mexicans and that I hope will emerge from conference unscathed. These specific programs are or have the potential of being very successful if given a chance. cops program The first program that has proven to be successful is the Community Oriented Policing Services program, otherwise known as COPS. In 1 year, since the program's inception, New Mexico has received more than 180 officers from the COPS Program. All parts of New Mexico have been awarded officer positions. From the Aztec Police Department in the north and Sunland Park in the south, to Quay County in the east and Laguna Pueblo in the west, all have felt the impact of this program. The COPS Program is different from the block grant proposal that was in the committee version because it emphasizes the concept of community policing. It gets officers out into the community preventing crimes rather than reacting to crimes once they have been committed. Mr. President, I am encouraged that the Senate stripped out the language that provided a $1.7 billion block grant for communities. From my understanding, the block grant money could be used to hire secretaries, buy a radar gun, or buy a floodlight for a local jail. The law enforcement community is against this broad approach. The sentiment is best summed up by Donald L. Cahill, the chairman of the national legislative committee for the Fraternal Order of Police, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February on the block grant type proposal. He stated: This broader category opens the door to using these funds for numerous purposes other than hiring police officers--such as hiring prosecutors or judges, buying equipment, lighting streets, or whatever. These are all worthwhile--but they won't arrest a single criminal. The bottom line is to place more officers on the street and the COPS Program has proven to be successful. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the National Troopers' Coalition support the COPS Program. To quote Mr. Cahill again: ``Police are the answer for today and prevention is the answer for tomorrow.'' drug courts program Mr. President, I am also encouraged that the Senate adopted Senator Biden's amendment that reinstated the drug court concept. In Las Cruces, NM, we have a drug court that receives State funding. If given a chance to receive Federal funding, this program could be expanded or used as a model for other drug courts throughout the State. This program has shown to be an innovative way to lower dramatically recidivism rates among those with alcohol problems. The focused treatment program includes frequent drug testing, judicial and probation supervision, drug counseling, detoxification treatment, and educational opportunities. Participants in the program who do not finish are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The Las Cruces drug court demonstrates true partnership with the community. It works in conjunction with five other agencies from the community: Partners for Prevention, Southwest Counseling Service, Southern New Mexico Human Development, N.M. State University Criminal Justice Department, and Dona Ana Branch Community College. The Drug Court Program specifically attacks a problem which has become national in scope. If this program is eliminated in conference, the Congress in essence is saying that it washes its hands of this matter. violence against women I am encouraged that the Senate has retained the Violence Against Women Act. By doing so, the Senate is stating that this program does address an issue that has become national in scope and it is a priority. I am also encouraged that the Senate today overwhelmingly adopted an amendment by my friend and colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, that restores funding for the Violence Against Women Act at the level requested by the administration. If given the resources, this act has the potential to demonstrate that the Federal Government can make a real difference when dealing with violence against women. Through prosecution, outreach, and education, the Federal Government has assumed the responsibility of a full partner in this cause. commerce, justice, state appropriations I find myself unable to support the final version of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill because when the dust finally settled on the structure of the bill, it became clear that the interests of the Nation were not going to be served by its passage. We should not envision our attempts to achieve a balanced budget as just a slash and burn process. We need to bias our spending toward those projects that produce real growth in our economy. Growth generates jobs, better incomes, a higher standard of living for our citizens, and helps to minimize the role of Government in the economy by helping to empower workers and businesses to thrive in a global trading environment rather than to be wards of the State. The wards of the State that we are rewarding this year are those contractors winning the 129 military construction projects valued at $795 million above the President's request in the Defense appropriations bill. This spending was not in the national interest and is all too typical of the sloth and waste that has been part of our Nation's appropriations process for years. Do not fool yourselves. Nothing in this process has changed. What we are failing to do in the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill is to leverage the tremendous entrepreneurial business energy in our Nation by partnering with it Federal support to do the things that the private sector cannot or will not do on its own. This bill guts the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] which sets standards and develops measurement systems for machine tools as well as componentry in our most advanced high- technology industries. It has been NIST that has overseen the important Malcolm Baldrige Award which has helped encourage and inspire American industry to reach higher levels of performance and quality. The Manufacturing Extension Program and Advanced Technology Program [ATP] are both cut back in this bill, particularly ATP which is practically shut down. It is these programs that have helped us move technologies primarily caught in national laboratories and our defense technology base out into the commercial sector. While Japan is redoubling its efforts and investing heavily in miniaturization and subatomic level processing, the United States cannot afford to forego efforts in linking our private sector and our national laboratories. Other programs that are critical to the economic security of the Nation and either are eliminated or drastically cut back are the International Trade Administration; Bureau of Export Administration; as already mentioned, NIST; the Economic Development Agency; the National Telecommunications and Information Administration; and the Minority Business Development Agency. I am not opposed to restructuring what our Government does, and I am not opposed either to scaling back Government. I am, however, committed to economic growth and think that we must set tough standards by which to measure the need for and role of Government in our economic activities. There is such a role. The invisible hand that so often we hear about is only [[Page S 15076]] there to strangle us if we do not understand what the invisible hand responds to and what it does not. As I have mentioned before on the floor of this Chamber, I would recommend that those who frequently call on the ghost of Adam Smith and subscribe to the prescriptions of the invisible hand pull from their shelves a copy of ``Wealth of Nations.'' Dust it off and give it another good read. Smith clearly outlines the role of Government, a perspective with which I would agree. He states that first, the State has a ``night watchman function,'' to see to the safety and security of its citizens. He argues that the State must educate its labor force--something that we do poorly in this Nation. He continues that the State must build the infrastructure on which commerce depends; that it must build roads, canals, bridges; and in the modern context, airports, the national information infrastructure, basic research laboratories, and export assistance offices. The Government must pay for itself and must therefore tax and charge for its services. And the Government must support development of those technologies that are not at first easily commercializable--in his day, shipbuilding, and in ours, nuclear energy. Adam Smith himself outlines these as the indispensable functions of Government, of minimalist Government, and leaves the rest to be fixed by the market. Those of us who are tasked with the responsibilities of writing budgets and voting on them cannot neglect the indispensable roles that Government does have. But I believe that the theologies driving recent Republican budgets have neglected these roles. And we must revisit this effort knowing that while we must cut our budget deficit, we must also promote high-end economic growth which creates high wage jobs and a better standard of living for our citizens. And enmeshed as we are in a global economy, we have to export more and erase the chronic deficits that represent real job-leakage from our economy. I look forward to voting in favor of a Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill that cuts back unproductive investments that the government makes in favor of those that address the welfare of our Nation, now and into the future. But I am afraid that this bill does not help to secure the welfare of our citizens. In closing Mr. President, I am disappointed at this legislation as it was presented to the Senate. I am happy that we have been able to make some changes to the more misguided portions of the bill and I am also glad that the managers have agreed to accept amendments I intended to offer to the bill. However, I cannot support a bill that takes our Nation back in time and dismantles programs upon which we should be basing our future.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I introduce the Block Grant Performance Standards Act of 1995. This legislation is intended to provide a minimum set of performance standards for all block grants allocating Federal funds to States, localities, and other recipients. In the 104th Congress, we have seen a movement toward block grants. The idea behind this movement is that we have too many programs providing funding to other levels of government, and that these programs involve too much paperwork. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that if we bundle these programs into broader block grants, we will release other levels of government to better allocate these resources without wasting time and money filling out paperwork bound for bureaucrats in Washington. Mr. President, I agree that in many cases some of this reasoning is correct. To the extent possible, we should try to reduce paperwork and increase flexibility for State and local governments receiving Federal funds. I believe, however, that in creating block grants we must be responsible to taxpayers and resist the temptation to simply turn over blank checks to other levels of government. As the elected officials at the Federal level, I believe that we must set up minimal performance standards for the block grants we provide. I am pleased that some of the block grants we are creating do have accountability built in. The Chair of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Kassebaum, for example, has done an admirable job of including planning and performance standards for the States' administration of the job training block grants anticipated by S. 143, now before the Senate. I was successful in attaching an amendment to the welfare reform bill approved by the Senate that will provide similar accountability. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to provide accountability standards for all block grant programs. It requires entities receiving block grants to submit a plan to the agency administrating the grant program that outlines the goals of the entity for the use of the Federal funds, a description of how the goals will be achieved, and a discussion of performance indicators that will be used to measure progress toward those goals. It also ensures public participation in the development of this plan through the creation of appropriate community advisory committees. Finally, it provides for the provision of penalties for entities receiving block grants who consistently do not meet the goals they set for themselves in their block grant plans over a period of 2 years. Mr. President, I believe that this legislation strikes the right balance in ensuring that we meet our fiduciary responsibilities to Federal taxpayers and our desire to provide maximum flexibility to entities receiving block grants. It builds on the work of others, including Senator Roth, the sponsor of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law 103-62, which set similar performance standards for the Federal Government; and David Osborne, who has written on the need to develop performance standards for government. It also draws on the work of Senator Hatfield and his legislation to implement flexibility within current programs: S. 88, the Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act of 1995. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an article be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I introduce the Block Grant Performance Standards Act of 1995. This legislation is intended to provide a minimum set of performance standards for all block grants allocating Federal funds to States, localities, and other recipients. In the 104th Congress, we have seen a movement toward block grants. The idea behind this movement is that we have too many programs providing funding to other levels of government, and that these programs involve too much paperwork. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that if we bundle these programs into broader block grants, we will release other levels of government to better allocate these resources without wasting time and money filling out paperwork bound for bureaucrats in Washington. Mr. President, I agree that in many cases some of this reasoning is correct. To the extent possible, we should try to reduce paperwork and increase flexibility for State and local governments receiving Federal funds. I believe, however, that in creating block grants we must be responsible to taxpayers and resist the temptation to simply turn over blank checks to other levels of government. As the elected officials at the Federal level, I believe that we must set up minimal performance standards for the block grants we provide. I am pleased that some of the block grants we are creating do have accountability built in. The Chair of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Kassebaum, for example, has done an admirable job of including planning and performance standards for the States' administration of the job training block grants anticipated by S. 143, now before the Senate. I was successful in attaching an amendment to the welfare reform bill approved by the Senate that will provide similar accountability. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to provide accountability standards for all block grant programs. It requires entities receiving block grants to submit a plan to the agency administrating the grant program that outlines the goals of the entity for the use of the Federal funds, a description of how the goals will be achieved, and a discussion of performance indicators that will be used to measure progress toward those goals. It also ensures public participation in the development of this plan through the creation of appropriate community advisory committees. Finally, it provides for the provision of penalties for entities receiving block grants who consistently do not meet the goals they set for themselves in their block grant plans over a period of 2 years. Mr. President, I believe that this legislation strikes the right balance in ensuring that we meet our fiduciary responsibilities to Federal taxpayers and our desire to provide maximum flexibility to entities receiving block grants. It builds on the work of others, including Senator Roth, the sponsor of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law 103-62, which set similar performance standards for the Federal Government; and David Osborne, who has written on the need to develop performance standards for government. It also draws on the work of Senator Hatfield and his legislation to implement flexibility within current programs: S. 88, the Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act of 1995. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an article be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate these clarifications and the commitment shown by Senators McCain, Kassebaum, and Domenici. Reforming the Federal Job Training System