Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Domenici of New Mexico, Senator Hutchison of Texas, and Senator Kyl of Arizona, in supporting the amendment to restore funding to the North American Development Bank, better known as the NADBank. As a cosponsor of this amendment, I want to tell you how important NADBank funding is to improving environmental conditions along the United States-Mexico boarder. This is important not only to my State of New Mexico, but to all the border States and to our Nation. The North American Development Bank was created in 1993 as a supplement to the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. Its purpose is to provide loans and loan guarantees to projects certified by the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission [BECC], also created as part of the NAFTA, for high priority border environmental and health projects. Due to its lack of wealth, the border region cannot be self- financing in its endeavor to develop and implement these types of infrastructure projects. These projects are absolutely critical to the border area in managing its considerable problems with air and water pollution, wastewater treatment, municipal solid waste, and hazardous waste. The NADBank is patterned after other multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. The United States and Mexico each are to contribute $225 million over a 4- year period in initial paid-in capital. The NADBank will then use this capital, along with funds raised in the financial markets and other resources to fund environmental and health projects along the border and to supplement privately funded projects. These funds will be combined with existing State and local funding, Federal grants and State revolving loans, and World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank loans to Mexico to provide for the substantial investment that is needed to provide the basic level of protection to human health and the environment. Rapid population growth and industrialization in the border cities has overwhelmed existing wastewater, water supply, and solid waste infrastructure. Untreated domestic and industrial sewage currently flows north to the United States and into the Rio Grande River. Thousands of residents lack safe drinking water and adequate solid waste disposal facilities. Air quality is severely deteriorated by emissions of industrial pollutants, and dangerous levels of carbon monoxide and ozone-forming hydrocarbons from urban traffic. Let me be clear that while this funding is for binational projects, U.S. citizens will realize substantial benefit from potential border infrastructure improvements. About 6 million people live in metropolitan areas along the United States-Mexico border. This population is critically impacted by water [[Page S 14057]] pollution coming across the border from Mexico in areas such as the Tijuana River and New River in California, the Santa Cruz River in Arizona, and the Rio Grande in Texas and my home State of New Mexico. By investing in pollution control in these areas, there is a direct and important benefit to U.S. citizens in terms of health protection, crop protection, and improved recreational benefits and increased property values. There are economic benefits that will accrue to us as well in maintaining our commitment to the border area. U.S. jobs will be generated in the equipment manufacturing and professional services sectors, which are found in almost all 50 States. The United States has a strong competitive advantage for providing equipment, instrumentation, and professional services for the construction of Mexico wastewater facilities along the border. With a potential need of almost $8 billion in border water related facilities over the next decade, up to $2 billion of business could be generated in U.S. products and services. In closing, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to ensure the future protection and preservation of the environment along the United States-Mexico boarder. It is good, not only for the health of our border communities, but also for the environment along the United States-Mexico border, and for the economy of the entire United States. amendment no. 2741 On page 43, under the heading, ``International Organizations and Programs,'' add the following provisio; ``Provided further, That not less than $1,500,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be made available for the United Nations Fund for Victims of Torture;''.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pell, the Senator from Rhode Island, be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. In response to the Senator from North Carolina, I was hoping to have a vote on the amendment that I have offered. I would be glad to do that at this time. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment, as the language of the amendment just read indicates, is an effort to put the Senate on record and the Congress on record as favoring protection of some basic humanitarian efforts made by Americans on behalf of the Cuban people. More importantly, it also allows Cuban-Americans currently residing in the United States to ease the suffering of immediate family members who they may have still remaining in Cuba. First, the amendment would allow Cuban-Americans and American citizens who currently reside in the United States to provide modest cash remittances of not more than $200 a month to immediate family members. The reason that this is an important provision is that, as I understand it, we presently have in place a policy or Executive order that is prohibiting those remittances. That has been in place ever since we were negotiating sometime last year with the Cuban Government. I do not believe that this will hurt any efforts to bring democracy to Cuba or aid the Cuban Government, but it will go a great distance in aiding or in easing the suffering of the Cuban people. Second, the amendment would protect the rights of Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba in the event of a medical emergency or death in their immediate family. Cuban-Americans would be able to travel for periods of up to 30 days for such emergencies. I am sure my colleagues would agree that any individual should be able to freely travel in order to attend the funeral of a family member or deal with a family medical emergency. Finally, the amendment says that the United States would not be prohibited from participating in humanitarian efforts of multilateral organizations in the aftermath of any natural [[Page S 14035]] disaster that might occur involving the island of Cuba. These international efforts or humanitarian efforts referred to would be efforts initiated by multilateral organizations of which we are already a member, and we, of course, would be aiding in relief efforts through those organizations. Mr. President, I am sure that all Members of the Senate will agree that the protection of these basic humanitarian efforts by Americans and Cuban-Americans on behalf of the Cuban people and family members is the right thing to do. We may have serious disagreements about United States policy and how that policy can best achieve democracy in Cuba, but surely we can all agree that such a policy should not be inhumane to the people of that country. Our Government's dispute with the Cuban Government should not interfere with clearly humanitarian efforts and basic family rights of Cuban-Americans residing in this country. Mr. President, I believe it is important for the Senate to be on record in support of this, particularly in light of some of the Executive orders that have been issued recently. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the second-degree amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send a second amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. [[Page S 14038]]

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, would it be possible in that same unanimous-consent agreement to have a provision for a vote on the second-degree amendment that I just offered giving sufficient time for debate?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to indicate that I intend to vote for H.R.1976, the Agriculture Appropriations Act of 1995. I believe that H.R.1976 is a reasonable piece of legislation that establishes adequate funding levels for one of the most important segments of our Nation s economy, the American farm and farmer. While I intend to vote for this legislation, I remain very concerned by the actions of the Senate last night in approving the amendment offered by our colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to take away from the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment any responsibility in the areas he now administers relating to forest management. As many of my colleagues who opposed this amendment have noted, we here in the Senate often disagree vehemently on matters of policy. I have disagreed with my Republican colleagues in the Senate, and I have disagreed with my Democratic colleagues in the Senate. I have disagreed with both Democratic and Republican administrations. However, Mr. President, I am concerned that, in adopting the amendment by the Senator from Alaska, we have crossed the boundary of reasonable policy differences. I am afraid that we have strayed into an area where when we disagree with someone in the Administration, we can simply come to the floor and in essence fire that person. Mr. President, that is a dangerous and, I think, wrong precedent to be setting. Congress should let the executive branch direct the internal, personnel affairs of the executive branch. That is the system that the Constitution establishes and we should not try to undermine that by legislative fiat. Again, Mr. President, I will vote for the agriculture appropriations bill, however, it is my sincere hope that the conference committee will remove the language added by the Senator from Alaska s amendment. If not, I will have serious concerns about being able to support the conference report. land grant funding for tribal colleges

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in my home State of New Mexico and across the country, agreement is virtually unanimous: it is time to reform our Nation's welfare system. The current system is not working as well or as efficiently as it could. The many State waivers already approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services are compelling evidence that the current system is incapable of meeting the wide variety of differing needs across our country. We need a system that is less costly; more efficient; and truly capable of moving people permanently from welfare to work. Most important, we need a system that gives States the flexibility they need to fund and operate programs specifically tailored to meet the needs of their citizens. But as we move toward reform, we must do so carefully and thoughtfully. We need to fully understand the ramifications of our actions, and we need clear, measurable goals. As we prepare to vote on final passage of welfare reform legislation, I would like to take a few moments to talk about effective goals and objectives for reform and to discuss how the majority leader's Work Opportunity Act and the Democratic Leader's Work First Act meet these goals. I would also like to discuss three critical differences in the two bills and the effect of these differences on my home State of New Mexico. Recently, I read a book on homelessness in America, ``The Visible Poor'' by Joseph Blau. One of the statistics in the book that made a significant impression on me was that something like one-third of all the homeless people in this country are working Americans. These Americans are doing everything we ask, and they still do not have the resources to afford basic housing. Joseph Blau attributes this phenomena to several factors. One is the sorry state of our economy, and the fact that the minimum wage is not really a living wage in this country. Many Americans are facing a declining standard of living. This has the obvious effect of forcing people to allocate a larger percentage of their income to the basic necessities; and when all of their income is not enough, to relinquish adequate housing in favor of food. The declining standard of living in America also has the effect of exerting downward pressure on our social safety net. I think all of us agree with the principle that work has to be rewarded. Working should pay more than not working. For most of American history, when our living standards were on the rise, this philosophy did not conflict with ensuring that everyone in this Nation had the basic necessities of life. It was quite possible to help some people in need to obtain food, housing, and clothing without violating the premise that those who were working should have a better life. We did not create the perfect social safety net, but we did the best we could to ensure that the poorest among us--especially children, who are the most vulnerable members of any society--had the basics of life. Today, however, when our economic living standard is in decline, some think the way to ensure that working pays more than not working is to take away from those who are not in the system. In other words, the argument is that if our Nation is confronted with a situation where a person can work and still not be able to afford a place to sleep, then to correct this problem, we need to remove any benefits that would have enabled those outside the employment system to have a place to sleep. Rather than making sure that those who work have a standard of living we can be proud of, we find ourselves taking away from the most vulnerable in society to make sure that those who work at least can find someone worse off in this Nation. I believe a saner approach is to make sure that everyone who works for a living in this Nation gets a decent living. This approach ensures that everyone who can work has the right incentives to do so, and that we do not have to literally take food and shelter from children to ensure that those who work are receiving more than those who do not. I hope that in the future, the Senate will engage on a debate on how to raise the rewards of working, through increasing the minimum wage, keeping the earned income tax credit, improving job training, and creating a national strategy on competitiveness. That would be an excellent policy debate. In the meantime, however, it appears that we must first fight to ensure that we do not force more people who are on public assistance to the streets so that to work becomes relatively attractive. I believe the scope of the compromise amendment worked out by the Democratic and Republican leadership is limited to this basic issue. The agreement should not be characterized as a significant step forward in the effort to reform and improve our Nation's welfare system. The agreement simply will help prevent us from taking too many steps backward. The compromise we are voting on today will enable States to get more unemployed parents into the work force because it will help make affordable child care more accessible for some. Not all families in need will be covered under the compromise, but a number parents in each State will be able to move from welfare to work. If the Senate votes today to reject the compromise amendment, in favor of the majority leader's bill, there is no question but that a substantial number of families, a growing percentage of the homeless already, will be forced onto the streets. If we vote to accept the compromise amendment, we will lessen the blow to some, but not all, of these families. Throughout the welfare reform debate, I have been concerned about the effect of a massive overhaul of our public assistance programs on these families, and the working Americans who are hanging on to the economic ladder just one rung above them. I am not saying that change is not needed. Some change is clearly needed. But in making changes, the Congress and the American people need to be aware of the degree to which these issues and programs are interconnected. We need to understand the ripple effect of changing one, or two, or three Federal programs. If one nutrition program is eliminated or consolidated, are more working Americans going to have to make a choice between food and housing? Of particular concern to me is the ripple effect in New Mexico: What does block-granting vital domestic programs mean to New Mexico's children? What does it mean to New Mexico's poor working families who can just barely make ends meet today? How are we going to guarantee that the basic needs of New Mexico's poor working families are met? How are we going to guarantee that poor, rural States like New Mexico are not left with disproportionate and unmanageable financial and administrative burdens? In seeking answers to these and other questions, I have reached the conclusion that the chief goals of welfare reform should be to create a system that encourages--and demands--personal responsibility and that helps people become self-sufficient, productive members of our society and workforce. To reach these goal, I believe we need a system focussed on education and on building the skills they will need to compete in the global marketplace of the 21st century. Four key components of an education- oriented system are: First, a strong public education system that includes training for adults, and, in particular, parents; second, affordable, accessible child care; third, affordable, accessible primary and preventive health care, including nutrition programs such as child care food assistance, and school lunch and breakfast programs; and fourth, real opportunities to earn a wage that allows working families to maintain a decent standard of living. I do not believe the Republican leadership's Work Opportunity Act will help us reach these goals. In fact, I believe the block grants contained in the Republican bill take us in the wrong direction and lead us away from our goals. Reducing essential funding and lumping many important social service programs into a few omnibus block grants, without any assurance of accountability or continuity among the states simply is not be the best way to reach our goals. Instead, we in the Congress need to work together with three objectives in mind: First, to enact well-considered, effective, and fair legislation where needed; second, to consolidate, coordinate, or eliminate duplicative or outdated programs; and third, to support and improve those Federal programs with proven track records of success, such as child care programs, the school lunch program, and the child care nutrition program. In my view, these three objectives are at the core of the Democratic leader's Work First welfare reform plan, which I am pleased to cosponsor. The Work First plan recognizes the need for a Federal partnership role in helping States and individuals gain the tools and skills-- education, effective job training, and child care--they need to become productive, contributing members of society. The Republican bill does not. The Democratic and Republican plans differ significantly in three key areas: First, commitment to work; second, commitment to child care; and third, commitment to States and American families in general. The top priority of the Democratic leader's plan is to move people from welfare to work. In fact, under the plan, welfare recipients must either go to work or enroll in school or job training within 6 months or sooner. To help meet these stringent work requirements, the Democratic bill helps States fund the education and training programs they will need. States will submit detailed plans for program implementation, so progress toward goals can be measured, but the states will have a great deal of flexibility in designing programs. The majority leader's Work Opportunity Act also sets up work requirements, but it does not fund them. Instead, the bill shifts AFDC, Emergency Assistance, and transitional and at-risk child care into a single block grant to the States; then it freezes the annual funding for the total block grant at the fiscal year 1994 level--$16.7 billion--for the next few years. If the Senate leadership's compromise is adopted, and additional $3 billion in funding for work-related child care, above the fiscal year 1994 level, will be available over the next 5 years. Because the work requirements under the Republican plan are mandatory, many believe the bill essentially amounts to an unfunded mandate of more than $23 billion over 7 years. In my home State of New Mexico, the unfunded work mandate totals $161 million over 7 years. As I understand it, the compromise agreement addresses a portion of the burden of this State mandate by allowing States, at their option, to require that single parents with children age 5 and under work 20 hours per week, as opposed to 35 hours under Senator Dole's bill. A key difference in the two bills, which is addressed in the compromise, involves child care. Both the Democratic bill and the compromise recognize that the No. 1 barrier to work for most parents is lack of child care. The Democratic bill would ensure that child care is available for all welfare recipients who are working. The Senate leadership's compromise would help ensure that child care is available for many welfare recipients who are working. In my view, this is a key difference between the Republican and Democratic bills--under the Dole plan, child care is not required or ensured. Existing Federal programs are simply lumped into an omnibus block grant to the States. Under the Democratic bill, access to child care is real. No parent will be able to use inability to find child care as an excuse for not finding work. Under the compromise, child care is not guaranteed, but it is more likely to be available. In addition to the overall increase in funding, $3 billion over 5 years, the compromise stipulates that funding will be distributed at the Medicaid match rate to those States that agree to maintain funding for at-risk child care programs. Despite the improvements that the leadership compromise would make to the majority leader's legislation, the Democratic and Republican proposals remain dramatically different in their fundamental commitment to the States and American families. The foundation of the democratic plan is an individual entitlement to American children and families. The foundation of the Republican plan--and the Senate leadership's compromise--is a block grant to the State. Why is this distinction important, particularly in light of the increased funding under the compromise? It is important, especially to poor families and poor States, because an individual entitlement is an unbreakable promise made by the Federal Government to its States and its citizens that in times of need, assistance will be there. Now, I want to make clear: this is not unconditional assistance. This is not a give away. Always, assistance will be contingent on certain requirements, such as job training, completing school, or seeking employment. Consistent with the Democratic bill's focus on work, the entitlement has a 5-year time limit, with exceptions for children. In addition, it is dependent on the signing of a parent empowerment contract, stating a participant's commitment to finding a job. No aid is provided unless a contract is signed, and penalties will be applied to those who violate the terms of their contract. On the other hand, the majority leader's plan and the leadership compromise are based on block grants. These are fixed amounts of money given to the States with little or no requirement for accountability, either to taxpayers or the State's citizens, and with no assurance of continuity among State programs unless amendments offered and accepted during the floor debate are retained in conference. The real problem is that the block grant may or may not be sufficient in times of need. When a State runs out of money, it runs out of money. Help simply will not be available to eligible, needy children and their families unless State and local taxpayers pick up the tab. To help alleviate this situation, the compromise includes a $1 billion contingency grant fund, which States could use--so long as they meet certain matching requirements--in fiscal emergencies. According to the information and statistics I have, my home State of New Mexico could be one of the first to apply for such a grant. Under the Republican leadership's plan, an additional 14,400 jobs for welfare recipients would be needed in New Mexico by 2000, or the State would be assessed a 5 percent penalty in reduced Federal funding. Now, 14,400 new jobs may not sound like a high figure when compared to States like Texas or California, which must add more than 116,000 and 358,000 jobs to their economies respectively. But in a poor, rural State like New Mexico, 14,400 new jobs is a significant number--it represents a required increase in the State's current welfare-related work participation rate of 123 percent. And it represents an increased cost to the State of $13 million in fiscal year 2000 alone. Directly tied to the increased work requirements are increases in the number of families needing child care. In fiscal year 1994, about 2,970 children in New Mexico received AFDC/JOBS-related child care. Based on the Republican plan's work requirements, the number of children needing AFDC/JOBS-related care would grow to at least 4,720 by 2000. This represents an increase of 159 percent, and an increased cost of at least $23 million in fiscal year 2000. Yet, the Republican plan does not provide any additional funding to cover the child care needs of these families. As a portion of the new temporary assistance block grant, the plan freezes funding for AFDC/ JOBS child care at the fiscal year 1994 level. The Senate leadership's compromise is only slightly better. It would make an additional $3 billion available over the next 5 years. When the additional funding is divided between the 50 States and spread over 5 years, the significance of the compromise tends to diminish. Fortunately from New Mexico's perspective, this additional funding would be drawn down by the States at the Medicaid match rate. Mr. President, let me just review the costs to New Mexico of the increased work requirements and related child care expenses. Estimates are that by 2000, New Mexico would have to spend: $13 million more for work-related operating costs, $23 million more in child care costs. In total, from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2000, $115 million increase. These two costs represents 40 percent of New Mexico's total block grant, leaving only 60 percent to cover cash assistance and other programs. If this is insufficient, as it would be if benefit levels remained where they are today, the State will have no option but to greatly reduce benefits, deny eligibility to many families, or spend much more than it does today in State funds. Based on current law projections, by 2005, 72,000 New Mexican children would be eligible for AFDC benefits. Under the Republican plan, which would strip parents--and their children--of all AFDC benefits after 60 months, 19,000 children--or 26 percent of all recipients--in New Mexico would be denied benefits. Further, the State could decide to maximize its Federal funds by implementing various penalties available as options under the Republican plan. Each penalty denies more children benefits: Children denied family cap: 12,000 if the family cap is added back in conference. Children denied birth to unwed teen: 320. Children denied family benefits for 24 months: 36,673. Today, we are debating the wisdom of block granting essential safety net programs. The block grants would be authorized for the fiscal years 1996 to 2000. Because we cannot project with certainty the economic and employment situations of each State in future years, or whether migration among States will be more or less significant than it is today, or a variety of other factors, we cannot precisely project the actual degree of harm one State may endure under a fixed formula for block grants. Mr. President, earlier in my remarks I said it was critical that we in the Senate work together, in a bipartisan matter, to enact real, goal-oriented welfare reform. I believe the compromise amendment worked out by the Senate leadership represents a step--albeit a small step--in that direction. I will support the compromise, and despite some serious misgivings, I will vote to pass the underlying bill. However, I remain deeply concerned that in the rush to cut spending and send a message to the American people, the very people who need our compassion and assistance the most--vulnerable children and their families--could be the most gravely hurt. In closing, I urge my colleagues who will take this bill to conference with the House to approach their deliberations carefully and thoughtfully. Without question, we need to better coordinate our public assistance programs; we need to streamline many of them; but we cannot do so in a way that threatens the health and well-being of New Mexico's--or any State's--children and their families.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the two floor managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, and the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, and their staff, for their excellent and efficient management of the fiscal year 1996 Appropriations Act for the Department of Agriculture. 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 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. 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.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand that my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, will shortly be offering an amendment to provide funds for American Indian postsecondary institutions. And I want to speak very briefly in support of this amendment. Mr. President, Senator McCain, as chair of the Committee on Indian Affairs, is offering this amendment which I am proud to cosponsor which will provide funds to those institutions that are authorized in the Equity in Educational Land Grant Status Act of 1994. That act was included as part of the Improving America's Schools Act, which we also passed in the last Congress. Mr. President, I sponsored that legislation in the last Congress to rectify what I saw as an unjust situation. That is, that every State and territory in the country had a land-grant college that received funds by virtue of that designation, but none of the Indian-operated institutions were designated as land-grant institutions in spite of the very important work that they did preparing people for careers in agriculture. Mr. President, we had the anomalous situation where the University of the District of Columbia was a land-grant college, but those institutions in my own State and elsewhere in the country which were dedicated to training Indian Americans to pursue careers in agriculture, as well as other careers, were not so designated. So the Equity in Educational Land Grant Act authorized land-grant programs for the 29 tribal and Indian-serving institutions, which came to be known as the 1994 institutions as a result of our passage of that legislation last year. Those institutions serve 25,000 students from 200 different tribes. The legislation then passed in October 1994 had bipartisan support and had the endorsement of the Department of Agriculture, the National Association of State Universities and Land-grant Colleges, the 1890 historically black land-grant colleges and the existing land-grant colleges in States with tribal colleges. The appropriation that Senator McCain is calling for here would make funds available for four different purposes, as I understand it, for payment into the endowment, which would be much-needed; a certain amount of funding to strengthen curriculum in food and agriculture sciences in these 1994 institutions; a certain amount for capacity- building grants; and, again, a separate amount for competitively awarded extension programs administered through the existing State land-grant colleges in cooperation with these 1994 institutions. The offset would be from a very small amount of the dollars provided for the benefit of the land-grant college system. I am persuaded that these funds will be well spent. The programs that the amendment provides for in all 29 colleges are roughly equal to the amount that the Department of Agriculture allocates to fewer than one of the existing land-grant colleges each year. This funding will develop expertise in training to improve the training and use of over 50 million acres of Indian agricultural and forest land. The most recent surveys of tribal colleges found that even in the economically depressed areas where these schools are located, tribal college graduates are employed at rates of 74 to 85 percent, generating very large amounts in Federal taxes. For these reasons, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator McCain and his amendment. I hope it is adopted by the full Senate. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that willingness to accept the modified amendment. If that concludes debate on this issue, I suggest we go to a vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection. I believe the Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen, wanted to speak for a few moments.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask a question of the manager?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have made some modification in the amendment to accommodate concerns that were raised on the other side. Is it permissible for me to send the modification of the amendment and have that voted on?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes. I do seek unanimous consent to modify the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the modified amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this press release from the Department of Justice, dated August 9, is entitled, ``The Nation's Prison Population Grew Almost 9 Percent Last Year.'' When you read over on page 3 of this it says: More than a quarter of State and Federal inmates were imprisoned for drug offenses, that is 234,600 prisoners in 1993. Prisoners serving a drug sentence increased from 8 percent of the State and Federal prison population in 1980 to 26 percent in 1993. In Federal prisons--this is a startling statistic; people really should focus on this--inmates sentenced for drug law violations were the single largest group. Sixty percent in 1993 of the prisoners in our Federal prisons were there for drug law violations. That was up from 25 percent in 1980. When you look into how we deal with the problem of more and more people going into prisons for drug offenses, the solution is in this area. The solution is in treatment, prevention, and education. There is a publication which recently came out by the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors which makes a very compelling case, that where we put these people in treatment, the incidence of criminal activity reduces very substantially. In my home State of New Mexico, they have estimated that the rate of DWI arrests in the year before treatment was 27.8 percent in the group that received treatment, while in the 1-year post-treatment period, the rate was 9.8 percent. That is an enormous reduction. I know that the majority leader is concerned about how it impacts on his State. The report I am referring to says that Kansas has reported a reduction in legal problems on the addiction severity index comparison data between admission and discharge for 2,700 of its clients who received treatment services in fiscal year 1993. Between admission and discharge, there was a 35 percent decrease in the severity of legal problems for clients in treatment. Mr. President, if we are serious about dealing with the crime problem, we need to maintain some level of funding here. My amendment simply provides $100 million in funding to offset the $1.3 billion which is contemplated in this legislation and in the appropriations bill that I referred to. I know that people are concerned about not spending too much money. Mr. President, this is a good investment. If we do not spend the money here, we will be spending it down the road in building more prison cells. That is the tradeoff, and I believe very strongly that we ought to at least support the House level of expenditure for this drug and alcohol treatment prevention and education.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I have no objection to putting the amendment aside under those circumstances.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment, amendment No. 2484, I gather, is at the desk. I will not ask it be read. Let me explain briefly what the amendment does. The amendment simply provides that we will make our bill, this bill that Senator Dole has proposed here, consistent with the House legislation on welfare reform in that we would provide $100 million for each of fiscal years 1997 through the year 2000 to States to help them provide treatment for drug addiction and alcoholism. Let me review the situation we have as I understand it and then invite any correction if the manager of the bill or anybody else would like to correct my impression. This morning I put together a very simple chart which demonstrates my skill at calligraphy, but also, I think, makes the point I am trying to get at here. These, as I understand it, are proposed losses in Federal funds for drug and alcohol treatment, prevention and education, assuming this legislation is passed and assuming we go forward with other budget cuts that are contemplated. Let me specify how I get the figures. As I understand it, the legislation we have here proposes to eliminate any funds for beneficiaries under SSI who are there by virtue of having a drug or alcohol abuse problem. So they are no longer eligible to receive SSI benefits. That is estimated to save the taxpayers $300 million. Payments to RMA's are also eliminated. These are the organizations, as I understand it, that provide services and do monitoring of the problems that alcoholics and drug abusers have throughout the country. That is $100 million. We are eliminating Medicaid eligibility for alcoholics and drug abusers. That is another $100 million. Then there are a series of cuts which I am informed have been voted by the Appropriations Committee, the Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Committee, on Wednesday. I assume those will be agreed to here when they come to the full Senate. Those amount to $108 million cut in substance abuse block grant funding, $100 million in drug treatment demonstration programs, $29 million in drug abuse prevention demonstrations, and $166 million in drug-free school money which will be eliminated. The alcohol and other health programs that Health and Human Services runs we are cutting by $242 million. So the total reduction in Federal support to States and to beneficiaries in this area of drug and alcohol treatment prevention and education is $1.345 billion this next year. [[Page S 13629]] Mr. President, I have concerns about that kind of drastic cut. The amendment I have offered will try to help resolve some of that by at least adding in $100 million. The $100 million is a very, very small part of what is being lost. I think that is obvious to everybody. At least it is a good-faith effort. As I understand the agreement that has been worked out between the leadership on the Republican side and the leadership on the Democratic side, the intent is to add in $25 million a year to offset the $1.345 billion which is being lost. To my mind, that is not a credible effort by the Senate and it is not adequate to what we are doing. So all I am saying is, let us at least do what the House of Representatives did, let us at least provide $100 million additional funds for substance abuse block grants in this next fiscal year and each year during the time this legislation is in law. The issue here is not just whether you like people who are beneficiaries of this. The issue is how this impacts on the criminal problems we face in the country. I have a press release here from the Department of Justice. This is August 9.