Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I do thank the Senators for their remarks. It is my understanding then that if overall funding levels are maintained, the equivalent of the level of base operational support provided in fiscal year 1995 should be allocated to these Indian vocational education institutions. But if funding for these purposes is less than fiscal year 1995 levels, a lesser amount would [[Page S 14988]] be distributed based on each school's share of the overall amount it received in 1995.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am interested in preserving the current policy and practice in the Carl Perkins Act for Indian postsecondary vocational institutions. During each of the last 6 years $4 million has been authorized and $2.9 million has been appropriated each year to provide some stability and base operational support for the nationally accredited tribal postsecondary vocational education institutions. Both the Crownpoint Institute of Technology in New Mexico and the United Tribes Technical College in North Dakota are currently supported with these funds. My concern is that this support not be abandoned in the legislation under consideration. I understand that the senior Senator from Arizona, who chairs the Committee of Indian Affairs, would also like to address this issue.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senators. I have tried to maintain existing protections for the Crownpoint institution because of the important work it accomplishes. I do not want that to be at the expense of other fine tribal schools. And I thank the Senator from Arizona for clarifying that if there are funding reductions, they be applied proportionately to the tribal schools affected. I would ask the chairwoman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Kassebaum, whether she shares the views set forth by Senator McCain?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I speak on behalf of the Legal Services Corporation. In my home State of New Mexico, the Legal Services Corporation has a proven track record. Without this program, there are few alternatives if any for the poor to have access to the legal system. Many of the people who benefit from Legal Services were once considered part of the middle class. However, as a result of unemployment, illness, divorce or aging, these people are now left without the means to afford a private attorney. Some of the people who are helped by this program are: the senior citizen living on social security in rural New Mexico who is a victim of a consumer fraud scam; the disabled veteran who has had VA health benefits denied; the woman who has children and is trying to escape form an abusive relationship. There are many reasons to vote against the block grant approach adopted by the appropriations committee. By eliminating the Legal Services Corporation, a new bureaucracy is created because States now have to set up administrative structures to fund and oversee legal services programs. This new bureaucracy with higher administrative costs will soak up much needed resources. Further, the block grant proposal limits legal representation to the ``most basic needs.'' For example: A person may still be represented in an eviction case; there will still be services available to probate a will; in cases of child abuse; in seeking a protective order; file a petition for bankruptcy; a quiet title action. However, the question becomes: Are these the only legal services that the poor seek? Obviously, the answer is no. Other possibilities have been prohibited by the block grant and that is the heart of the problem with this appropriations bill. Here are some types of things that will not be permitted under the block grant: assistance in a divorce (applies to abusive situations); abortion; applying for veterans benefits; obtaining home ownership; credit access; Indian/Tribal Law issues; paternity; adoption; rights of the physically disabled; and consumer-related law (elderly scams). There are many reasons to support the Legal Services Corporation, but the primary one remains the reason this program was created in the first place--it is the most cost efficient way to allow the poor to have access to our legal system. If the goal of a block grant is to allow local control and flexibility, then the Legal Services Corporation is already accomplishing this objective. Mr. President, this particular system is not broken. The Legal Services Corporation uses only 3 percent of its budget towards administrative expenses. The decision making is divided among those with knowledge in poverty law. Currently, the mid-level bureaucracy is eliminated because grants do not have to be approved by State or local governments. In essence, this appropriations bill is placing the burden on the shoulders of those who are not represented in this debate, the poor, and I urge my colleagues to restore the Legal Service Corporation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss an amendment I am offering on this appropriations bill. My amendment encourages agencies funded under the bill to become more energy efficient and directs them to reduce facility energy costs by 5 percent. The agencies will report to the Congress at the end of the year on their efforts to conserve energy and will make recommendations for further conservation efforts. I have offered this amendment to every appropriations bill that has come before the Senate this year, and it has been accepted to each one. I believe this is a commonsense amendment: The Federal Government spends nearly $4 billion annually to heat, cool, and power its 500,000 buildings. The Office of Technology Assistance and the Alliance to Save Energy, a nonprofit group which I chair with Senator Jeffords, estimate that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually if they would make an effort to become more energy efficient and conserve energy. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will encourage agencies to use new energy savings technologies when making building improvements in insulation, building controls, lighting, heating, and air conditioning. The Department of Energy has made available for government-wide agency use streamlined ``energy saving performance contracts'' procedures, modeled after private sector initiatives. Unfortunately, most agencies have made little progress in this area. This amendment is an attempt to get Federal agencies to devote more attention to energy efficiency, with the goal of lowering overall costs and conserving energy. As I mentioned, Mr. President, this amendment has been accepted to every appropriations bill the Senate has passed this year. I ask that my colleagues support it. amendment no. 2850 (Purpose: To require State Department to report on cost savings generated by extending foreign service officer tours of duty in nations for which the State Department requires two-year language study program, including China, Korea, Japan) On page 93, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following: And also provided, That by May 31, 1996, the State Department will report to the President and to Congress on potential cost savings generated by extending foreign service officer tours of duty in nations for which the State Department requires two year language study programs, but specifically including China, Korea, and Japan. This study should consider extending terms on the following basis: junior officers from the current two year maximum term to a three-year tour, and mid to senior foreign service officers from the current three year minimum term to four year minimum with a possible employee-initiated one year extension. Potential costs savings from revised foreign tour of duty guidelines

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the managers of the bill agreeing to accept this amendment. The Competitiveness Policy Council [CPC], for which I am recommending just $100,000 of support in fiscal year 1996, has just published several reports which provide thoughtful commentary on our Nation's economy. These reports include three just recently released and titled ``Lifting All Boats: Increasing the Payoff From Private Investment in the American Economy'' by Harvard Business School professor, Michael Porter, and Salomon Inc. chairman, Robert E. Denham; ``U.S. Technology Policy: The Federal Government's Role'' by former Bush administration Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, Robert White; and ``Saving More and Investing Better,'' which concentrates on raising national savings and improving the way saving is allocated, or invested, in the private sector. During a time when we are struggling with important decisions about the role of Government in the economy--about what programs should be cut back, which should be nurtured--it seems to me that a bipartisan Council such as CPC, which produces the sorts of high-intellectual octane material that directly responds to choices we are making in our national economic framework, should receive our support. The Competitiveness Policy Council, which started operating in 1991, was established as a bipartisan Federal advisory commission. Of the 12 members, of which 6 are Republicans and 6 are Democrats, 4 are appointed by the joint leadership of the House, 4 by the joint leaders of the Senate, and 4 by the President. Business, labor, and Government as well as public interest groups are equally represented, each group having three members representing their interests. And when this commission was initiated, the founders had the wisdom to make it a creature of both the legislative and executive branches. The CPC's mission is to develop recommendations to Congress and the President to improve the productivity and international competitiveness of the American economy. And importantly, the Commission provides dispassionate analysis of the state of the U.S. international economic competitiveness, providing a report to the President and Congress on an annual basis. At this time, when CPC is issuing important policy reports and has others in the pipeline, it would not be judicious of this body to force a premature end to the good work and initiatives of this valuable commission. Its capital allocation report, ``Lifting all Boats,'' is ripe with important recommendations for which the American business community will cheer; these recommendations, CPC argues will help businesses truly organize for the long term, which is also very much in the national economic interest. The CPC may also reconstitute its Trade Policy Subcouncil to focus on regional trade agreements within the Western Hemisphere and the Asia Pacific region and the impact of these on both the multilateral trading system and American [[Page S 14667]] living standards. The need for trade negotiating authority would make this effort timely. Furthermore, the Council has begun work in two other areas: regulation and the relationship between Federal and state governments and U.S. competitiveness and living standards. I do not need to tell any of my colleagues here that $100,000 is modest; but this amount will allow the CPC to conclude the important work it has only recently begun to release and distribute. I think that many of my colleagues across the aisle can also attest to the quality and lucidity of CPC policy analysis and recommendations. As part of this amendment, I suggest that we pare back, just a bit, the increase that the committee bill proposes for the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA]. The bill provides the DEA with a 12.4 percent increase, $93 million, above the current year; an amount that surpasses the President's request by $40 million. Specifically, the committee bill provides an increase of $10.5 million for Permanent Change of Station moves. Last week, $4 million of fiscal year 1995 funds was reprogrammed for this very same purpose. Thus, I propose that the $100,000 appropriation for the Competitiveness Policy Council be drawn from the account for Permanent Change of Station Moves in the DEA fiscal year 1996 appropriation. Support of the Competitiveness Policy Council at this level of funding should be an easy decision to make. I think that the positive contribution of CPC's work will be returned in many multiples as the overall health of our economy benefits from CPC's wise counsel. Thank you. energy efficiency

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could we have it restated again? I am not sure what we are being asked to consent to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have spoken here in the past expressing strong support for the initiative of this Congress to cut our Government's Federal budget deficit. But I feel just as strongly that this effort be undertaken in a sensible way that promotes economic growth where it can, and at all costs, does not actually cause the economic welfare of our citizens to worsen. One of the steps that our Government can take to both cut spending and promote economic growth would be to better leverage the investment we make in our Foreign Service officers stationed in Embassies and consulates abroad. Presently, all levels of Foreign Service officers receive language training for non-English language speaking posts to which they are sent. Our personnel assigned to nations that use Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Arabic languages receive, at Government expense, 2 years of language training. All other language programs offered are 1-year programs. I strongly support the training of our foreign service personnel so that we have a culturally literate team of American representatives pursuing our interests abroad. But it does seem to me that we could be doing more both to enhance our ability to pursue American political and economic interests abroad and give the taxpayer more return on his investment if we revised our guidelines for the length of assignment for our foreign service officers. Presently, the State Department does not make a distinction between the terms of duty in those nations for which we provide 2 years of language training as opposed to 1 year. We also don't have a framework that allows us to provide longer-term assignments in those nations, particularly in Asia, that are relationship-based and are of significant consequence to America's trade and economic agenda. Junior foreign service officers--regardless of whether they had 1 or 2 years of language training--remain in their foreign assignment just 2 years. Mid- to senior-level foreign service officers are assigned for 3 years, and can, at their own initiative, extend their assignment for 1 additional year. I think that we can get more return on our investment by extending the assignments for junior foreign service officers, who are assigned to a country for which we require a 2-year program. These countries would include China, Korea, and Japan which, of course, have very high priority on our Nation's economic radar. I also believe that mid- to senior-level foreign officers should have their assignments lengthened from 3 to 4 years in these high-priority nations, and continue to have the personal option of extending an extra year. I think that this framework makes good common sense and should not be a controversial matter. I would like to request that the State Department study this proposal that I have briefly outlined and report back to the Congress and to the President by May 31, 1996 on the cost savings that such a plan would generate. I also think that America would further its own interests by allowing those who develop good networks and cultural literacy in key nations to remain in place for longer periods of time. If there was a message that I heard from those staffing our overseas posts it was that we pull our people out just when they were figuring out the lay of the land. I think that the State Department may find that revising their foreign assignment guidelines, particularly in assignments in which our taxpayers have made considerable investments in language training, would make good sense. Amendment No. 2851 (Purpose: To require a report to the Congress on the Doppler weather surveillance radar located on Sulphur Mountain in Ventura County, California) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the retirement of Bernard L. Barela, District Director for the Albuquerque District after 34 years with the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Barela is a native of New Mexico whose family has been here for over 200 years. His mother, sister, and numerous family members still reside in the New Mexico area. Mr. Barela served in the U.S. Navy from 1957 to 1959. Upon receiving an honorable discharge he returned to Albuquerque where he was a civilian employee. [[Page S 14562]] Mr. Barela began his IRS career as a grade 3 mail clerk in the Phoenix District Office on 1961. He then became an office call interviewer in Phoenix until 1966. After that he transferred to Las Vegas as a revenue officer until 1969 whereupon he became revenue officer group manager in San Bernardino, CA. In 1971, he moved to San Diego as chief of office branch and was selected as one of the first grade 13 group managers in collection in the Los Angeles District. Mr. Barela moved to the field branch chief position in 1972 in San Diego and in l973 marked his first return to Albuquerque as a collection and taxpayer service division chief. 1973 also marked another promotion for Mr. Barela as the collection division chief in New Orleans District. Mr. Barela served as executive assistant, to assistant regional commissioner, central region office in Cincinnati from 1975 to 1981. In 1981, Mr. Barela entered the executive ranks of IRS, where he has served in several positions of increasing responsibility. Mr. Barela's first executive assignment was an assistant director, returns and processing in Washington, DC, during 1981. In 1985 Mr. Barela became the assistant director, service center in Atlanta. In 1989, Mr. Barela became assistant District Director in Fort Lauderdale where he assisted during the recovery after Hurricane Andrew. In 1993, Mr. Barela returned home to Albuquerque as the District Director, the highest State office with the IRS.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we find ourselves today debating once again the use of striker replacements. This morning, we will conduct two test votes to determine, ultimately, whether or not we will allow the President to enforce Executive Order 12954, which prohibits the Federal Government from contracting with firms using permanent replacements in cases of legal strikes. Although many of us have addressed this issue in the past, I would like to briefly outline my position on this important issue. We all know that it is illegal to fire a worker engaged in a legal strike. We also all know that the Supreme Court Mackay Radio decision in 1935 made significant inroads into this protection from dismissal by allowing the hiring of permanent replacements for striking workers. In the last 15 years or so, the increased use of such workers has been one of many factors that have undermined a healthy relationship between workers and employers. I believe that this country is slowly waking up to the idea that we cannot continue down a path where employers look only at short term profits, and trade in the prospect of our future for expediency today. We are not making the long term investments in capital and human resources that cost now, but will have tremendous payoffs in the future in terms of both profits and wages. We are also not creating the sort of working partnerships between employees and employers that are necessary for our long-term success in the world economy. We simply cannot be competitive in the world if we continue to trade our future for our short term gains. Yet, the use of permanent replacements, I believe, is too often one more step on that path. Rather than address differences with legitimately bargaining representatives, thus developing partnerships, employers too often simply replace these workers. For that reason, I believe that we must discourage the use of permanent replacements, and I support the President's decision to not do business with firms employing this practice. The President has found that the use of permanent replacements erodes labor-management relations, and thus adversely affects the cost, quality, and timely availability of goods and services procured by the Federal Government. I am confident that the President is taking an important step to discourage a practice that could have an adverse effect on our Nation's long-term economic prospects. For these reasons, I will vote ``no'' on cloture.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment with my colleagues Senator Hutchison and Senator Domenici. This amendment would extend for 1 year the authority of the Secretary to require a set aside of up to 10 percent of a United States-Mexico border State's community development block grant allocation, as under section 916 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, for colonias. The colonias provision has been in effect in every year following the passage of the Cranston-Gonzalez Act in the 101st Congress, allow the original authorization lapsed in 1994. It is not a change in the status quo, and has no budget impact. Although section 916 of Cranston-Gonzalez requires States to make 10 percent of CDBG funds available for colonias, in cases like New Mexico and California, where the full 10 percent has not been utilized each year, HUD has allowed States to reallocate the funds within the State. The point is that the funding is there. For my colleagues not familiar with colonias, these are distressed, rural, and predominantly unincorporated communities located within 150 miles of the United States-Mexico border. Texas has documented well over 1,100 colonias, while my State of New Mexico has over 30. They are often created [[Page S 14366]] when developers sell unimproved lots, and using sales contracts, retain title until the debt on the property is fully paid. They often do not have adequate water and sewage access. These conditions create a serious public health, safety, and environmental risk to the border regions. Perhaps more importantly, they represent third-world conditions in the United States. I believe, and the Secretary of HUD agrees, that we must make the eradication of such conditions within the United States a national priority. It is my hope that my colleagues will accept this amendment, addressing the problems of the colonias has been a national priority, and I believe that it should remain one. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to commend the two floor managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], and the distinguished Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], and their staff, for their excellent and efficient management of the VA-HUD Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Act. I would like to take a few moments to discuss an amendment I am offering on this appropriations bill. My amendment encourages agencies funded under the bill to become more energy efficient and directs them to reduce facility energy costs by 5 percent. The agencies will report to the Congress at the end of the year on their efforts to conserve energy and will make recommendations for further conservation efforts. I have offered this amendment to every appropriations bill that has come before the Senate this year, and it has been accepted to each one. I believe this is a common-sense amendment: The Federal Government spends nearly $4 billion annually to heat, cool, and power its 500,000 buildings. The Office of Technology Assistance and the Alliance to Save Energy, a non-profit group which I chair with Senator Jeffords, estimate that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually if they would make an effort to become more energy efficient and conserve energy. Madam President, I hope this amendment will encourage agencies to use new energy savings technologies when making building improvements in insulation, building controls, lighting, [[Page S 14385]] heating, and air conditioning. The Department of Energy has made available for government-wide agency use streamlined energy saving performance contracts procedures, modeled after private sector initiatives. Unfortunately, most agencies have made little progress in this area. This amendment is an attempt to get Federal agencies to devote more attention to energy efficiency, with the goal of lowering overall costs and conserving energy. As I mentioned, Madam President, this amendment has been accepted to every appropriations bill the Senate has passed this year. I ask that my colleagues support it. amendment no. 2799 (Purpose: To increase amounts provided for FEMA salaries and expenses, Office of the Inspector General, and emergency food and shelter) On page 153, line 17, strike ``$166,000,000'', and insert ``$168,900,000''. On page 153, line 21, strike ``$4,400,000'', and insert ``$4,673,000''. On page 154, line 13, strike ``$100,000,000'', and insert ``$114,173,000''.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Jeffords-Bingaman amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill, which would restore authority to the EPA Administrator to expend funds on their atmospheric pollution prevention programs, and on the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund. This amendment requires no new money of any offsets to H.R. 2099. It merely allows the administrator to use appropriated funds from the $1.6 billion program and administration fund to continue what we believe is essential work going on at EPA. It does not affect the overall budget cuts prescribed in the bill. The Green Lights Program represents one of the best ideas of the past 20 years in the field of environmental protection. As our framework of environmental laws has evolved since 1970, we have been shown the positives and negatives of command and control regulation. While strict standards have been successful in many ways at reducing pollution, they have also proven costly and unwieldy for complying companies in some situations. The Green Programs at EPA have done an exceptional job at saving energy and reducing pollution in a voluntary, flexible manner which should be emulated and expanded rather than zeroed out. In 1994 alone, Green Lights and Energy Star prevented $69 million metric tons of carbon equivalent, including 5.1 billion pounds of carbon monoxide, 14.1 million pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 6 million pounds of nitrogen oxides. While these pollution reductions are a positive step, the more impressive fact is that these improvements are making money for State and local governments, companies, nonprofits and other organizations in almost every case. The Green Lights and Energy Star Programs saved $92 million in utility bills in 1994 alone. Corporate welfare is a term one hears of often these days, both in and outside of this body. I am strongly supportive of reducing unnecessary subsidies to private industry wherever possible. However, labeling the EPA programs as corporate welfare is just plain wrong. No direct subsidies are given to corporations or any other participants. In fact, no direct marketing is done on behalf of any specific manufacturer or contractor. EPA merely alerts energy users to the financial savings and public relations benefits of the programs and gives them a long list of businesses that can do the work. All sales and contracting is the responsibility of the companies involved. I have heard many statements in this Chamber railing against the evils of environmental regulation. If the majority also eliminates cooperative, voluntary, non-regulatory approaches to environmental protection, what alternatives remain? Also restored in this amendment is the authority of the Administrator to expend Federal dollars on the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund. Stratospheric ozone depletion from man-made chlorofluorocarbons [CFC's] is a real and pressing problem. Due to prompt action on the part of the Congress to phase out production of CFC's in the Clean Air Act, ozone depletion will likely peak in the year 2000, and restore itself gradually during the following 3 to 5 decades. The United States is enduring significant transition cost to accomplish the phase-out and must be assured that our progress is not undercut by rampant CFC use in developing countries. Our participation in the Montreal Protocol is essential for those recovery projections to be realized. I understand that the subcommittee chairman would like to see the Montreal Protocol funded by the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. It does not make a difference to me if the Senators from Missouri and Kentucky want to work out an arrangement. However, our treaty obligations to the Montreal Protocol are vital, and whether our commitments to it are met should not be subject to a squabble over what subcommittee should provide the funds. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The research, the development, and the educational activities that come from this partnership between NSF and DOE, between universities and a national laboratory, and the facility that is state- of-the-art is truly a unique national resource that should make all who are involved proud of it. I commend the NSF for its efforts, and I commend this subcommittee for its diligence in providing the resources that will maintain world leadership.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to speak on this legislation. I wish to speak in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 1817, which is the fiscal year 1996 Military Construction Appropriations Act. I opposed the bill when the Senate debated it in July, and now the conferees, in my view, have brought back an even worse bill with even more add-ons for Member interest projects. We hear much these days about the need for deficit reduction. Critical domestic programs, such as education and health care and energy assistance for the poor and civilian research are being decimated by the Republican Congress on the grounds that we absolutely must fulfill the electorate's mandate to balance the budget by the year 2002. Committees throughout the Congress are busily reporting their contributions to the reconciliation bill and including provisions that, in my view, will do major damage to our Nation's health and future prosperity. We have already debated some appropriations bills that make major reductions in critical programs, such as Indian education and health. We will soon be debating others which decimate domestic programs in housing, education, and many other areas. While these domestic programs are being cut to the bone, we have before us now a conference report that includes 129 Member interest projects not requested by the Pentagon. The projects, totaling $795 million, are spread among 45 States--all except Connecticut, Maine, Delaware, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Texas tops the list with nine add-on projects, totaling $47 million. Kansas has five projects worth $33.5 million and, accordingly, is another big winner. Mr. President, this bill makes a mockery of all the protestations about deficit reduction coming from this Congress and leading Republican candidates. In my view, the President should veto this bill. The President was not stingy in his request for funding for military construction projects. His fiscal year 1996 military construction budget proposed a 22-percent increase; that is nearly a $2 billion increase above the 1995 level. He put particular emphasis on the needs for family housing and implementation of base closure and realignment recommendations. What this Congress is now proposing to send to the President is a pork-laden bill with a net addition of $479 million above the President's budget request. Essentially, this so-called fiscally conservative Congress is saying that a 22-percent increase in military construction is not enough, that the increase needs to be 28 percent. Mr. President, where else are we saying that this year? Outside of the defense budget, is there a single major discretionary or mandatory spending category that is growing 27 percent? I cannot think of a single one. I can think of a lot that are being cut at least 28 percent. In reality, the increase is even larger because many of the so-called cuts made in the bill are phony. They will just pay the bills in future years. A few large projects are stretched out so that we can defer paying the total bill until some future fiscal year. For example, $92 million is postponed from the third phase of a project in the Army Institute of Research in Maryland out of $119 million requested. I could give other examples. Unfortunately, this bill has sailed through both Houses with bipartisan support. There is so much money available to spend in this area that there has been plenty to allocate to interest items on the Democratic as well as the Republican side. When Senators McCain, Kerrey, and I attempted on July 21 to trim $300 million out of the Senate version of the bill that had at the time about 100 unrequested projects, we were defeated 77 to 18. That vote occurred minutes after the Senate had given final approval to the $16 billion in rescissions in domestic programs for fiscal year 1995. The President has not condoned business as usual on this bill in the Congress. Throughout the budget process, the administration has expressed strong objections to the hundreds of millions of dollars in unrequested military construction projects. OMB Director Alice Rivlin told Senate Appropriations Chairman Hatfield on July 18 that ``with the Nation facing serious budget constraints, such a spending increase is not affordable.'' The American people are not clamoring for additional spending for the Pentagon. What little support there is for increased Pentagon spending, in my view, will dwindle further when the public realizes how the additional funds would be spent by the Congress. Mr. President, I hope that President Clinton will not associate himself with this bill. He should use his bully pulpit to explain to the American people that there are better uses for this money, including deficit reduction and education and health. The American people want a strong defense. They also want a brighter future for their children through investments in education and research. They want a society that does not turn its back on those least able to fend for themselves. Our defense is not strengthened by squandering money on projects that the Pentagon has not requested. If Congress insists on doing so, the American people should hold us accountable for these misplaced priorities. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to set aside the narrow parochial interests and to resist the temptation of the easy press release about how good this bill is for bases in their home State, and to cast a vote against this conference report in the national interest. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am pleased to yield that time to Senator Glenn.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the two floor managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, and the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, and their staff, for their excellent and efficient management of the Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Act for the District of Columbia. I would like to take a few moments to discuss an amendment I am offering on this appropriations bill. My amendment encourages agencies funded under the bill to become more energy efficient and directs them to reduce facility energy costs by 5 percent. The agencies will report to the Congress at the end of the year on their efforts to conserve energy and will make recommendations for further conservation efforts. I have offered this amendment to every appropriations bill that has come before the Senate this year, and it has been accepted to each one. I believe this is a commonsense amendment: the Federal Government spends nearly $4 billion annually to heat, cool, and power its 500,000 buildings. The office technology assistance and the alliance to save energy, a nonprofit group which I chair with Senator Jeffords, estimate that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually if they would make an effort to become more energy efficient and conserve energy. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will encourage agencies to use new energy savings technologies when making building improvements in insulation, building controls, lighting, heating, and air-conditioning. The Department of Energy has made available for Governmentwide agency use streamlined energy saving performance contracts procedures, modeled after private sector initiatives. Unfortunately, most agencies have made little progress in this area. This amendment is an attempt to get Federal agencies to devote more attention to energy efficiency, with the goal of lowering overall costs and conserving energy. As I mentioned, Mr. President, this amendment has been accepted to every appropriations bill the Senate has passed this year. I ask that my colleagues support it.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed by the managers of the bill that it would be more appropriate to offer this as an amendment to the State, Justice, Commerce bill which is scheduled for consideration next week. For that reason, I withdraw the amendment at this time.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I will not object, Mr. President.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from North Carolina. I would like to take a few moments to talk about the United Nation's population program more generally, because quite clearly, the underlying intent of the amendment is to eliminate U.S. funding for all of UNFPA's population stabilization efforts. 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 in 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 focusing on the domestic and international high tech 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 focused 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: Between 1990 and 1993, U.S. exports to developed countries grew by 6.2 percent. In 1993 alone, U.S. exports to developing countries grew more than 14 percent. Over the period between 1990-93, exports to developing countries rose nearly 50 percent--49.8 percent. In terms of dollars, Latin America is a good example. In Latin America, United States exports rose by nearly $30 billion between 1989 and 1993--from $44 billion to $71 billion--representing a 61-percent gain. I believe a significant factor in this growth has been the modest U.S. commitment to development and population assistance in the developing countries. Thailand, Costa Rica, Mexico are examples of countries in which a small United States investment in population and development assistance has repaid itself many times over in increased trade opportunities. It is in our economic interest to continue support for UNFPA. The concerns raised by the Senator from North Carolina are addressed under current law and in the bill before the Senate today. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.