Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Federal investments in civilian research as a percentage of our economy and as a percentage of overall Federal spending will be lower in 2002 than at any time in 40 years or more. Our national R&D investment, public and private, will be dipping below 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) while almost every other industrialized nation seeks to match the Japanese and German R&D investment levels of almost 3 percent of GDP. Will this matter? In the short term, perhaps not, other than to the thousands of scientists and engineers who will be displaced. According to a recent White House report, our previous investments have given us a substantial lead in many critical technologies. In the longer term, undoubtedly it will matter. That same report concluded that both the Japanese and Europeans are catching up in many areas and new nations will challenge in the future. In 1899 Charles Duell, Director of the U.S. Patent Office, proposed to close up shop because ``everything that can be invented, has been invented.'' Luckily, we did not follow such Luddite advice as we prepared for the 20th century. Nor should we today as we prepare for the challenges of the 21st century and seek to maintain this Nation's place as the pioneer leading the family of nations in the exploration of the endless scientific frontier. The scientific and technological frontier really is still endless. Bush, not Duell, had it right. Scientific revolutions are still only beginning in molecular biology, materials science, and electronics and have not yet begun in areas yet to be discovered. For the past half century the Federal Government has been an excellent steward of the taxpayers' money in this area. Not every project has been a success, nor should they have been. But the payoff to our economy and our security and our well-being--the areas Roosevelt queried Bush about-- has been worth many times the investment. Some in Congress argue for more than decimating our Federal research enterprise on the grounds that civilian applied research spending constitutes ``corporate welfare'' or ``industrial policy.'' This is fundamentally wrong, for reasons that President Bush first outlined in his speech to the American Electronics Association in February 1990 and which he reiterated throughout the rest of his Presidency. I will not go into a long discussion of that today. But I will note that a Republican pollster has concluded that the American people do not agree with the priority assigned Federal research spending in the Republican budget. I refer to a report in the same July 3 issue of New Technology Week entitled ``Public Surprises Pollsters, Backs Federal R&D.'' I ask unanimous consent that it also be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the bipartisan consensus on our science and technology policy is now fracturing as we seek to balance the Federal budget. The Republican budget resolution passed at the end of June proposes to slash the Federal research investment across government. By the year 2002, the Federal Government will be spending about $28.5 billion for civilian research and development, down a third from today's investment in real terms. These figures come from estimates made by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the July 3 issue of New Technology Week entitled ``GOP Balanced Budget Plan Seen Crippling R&D'' together with an accompanying table be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. According to this article, Steve Wagner of Luntz Research & Strategic Service, said: ``We went looking for things that didn't pan out. We went looking for the degree to which government investment in R&D was seen as corporate welfare, and we didn't find it. We went looking for the degree to which concerns about the deficit cast such a pall over everything that R&D should take a disproportionate or even proportionate cut, and they told us ``no.'' It's fair to say that I was surprised by the extent of support.'' Wagner went on to say: ``People are very pragmatic.'' He encapsulated the [[Page S 10311]] public's message as: ``Jobs are a priority, finding a cure for AIDS is a priority, and if it takes the Government to do it, the Government should do it.'' And he adds: ``If they think government involvement will make the situation better, people will not hesitate to say that's a legitimate function of Government.'' Wagner and his fellow pollster Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies conclude that there is a preference in the public mind for public-private R&D partnerships. Their advice for their House Republican clients reads: ``Neither the Government nor private industry is completely trusted to make these (research) investment decisions. The Government remains the agency of the common interest. Private business is seen as more efficient, more disciplined, but also self- interested. These perceptions cannot be changed in the short run, but they can be used: Let the private sector say what is feasible, which technologies offer the promise of payoff, and let the Government say what is in the national interest to develop. A partnership of both entities looking over each other's shoulder will likely be most satisfying to the voters.'' When I read this, I thought the pollsters were giving a pretty good description of SEMATECH, the Technology Reinvestment Project, the Advanced Technology Program, the Environmental Technology Initiative, and the many other partnerships which Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton have fostered over the past decade. Vannevar Bush did not use focus groups and pollsters to figure out the direction of post-war science and technology policy. But without their benefit, he captured the public sentiment both then and today. He saw the need for partnership, for industry to do what it did well in the pursuit of profit and for Government to fill needs that industry would not in the public interest, needs in areas ranging from military research to medical research to applied research in housing, agriculture and other areas designed to generate jobs. I hope that my Republican colleagues will take the advice of their pollsters. Speaker Gingrich told the American people on David Brinkley's Sunday morning news broadcast on June 11 that he was worried about the degree to which research budgets were scheduled to be cut. He said: ``Yes, I am sufficiently worried that I met with Congressman Walker, the chairman of the House Science Committee, and with various subcommittee chairmen of the House Appropriations Committee who have science, and asked them to maximize the money that goes into research and development, because I am very concerned that we're going to cut too deeply into science.'' Mr. President, recognition of a problem is perhaps the first step to a solution. I have yet to see research and development spared in the budget process in the House appropriations subcommittees, far from it. But perhaps with the help of rereading Science--The Endless Frontier, this generation of politicians will find the resources for Federal R&D investments which our grandchildren will need for their security, their prosperity, and their well-being. President Clinton and Vice President Gore stand in the long line of American leaders dating from Roosevelt, Truman, and Vannevar Bush who have supported an American science and technology enterprise second to none in the public interest. The Republican budget resolution stands outside that tradition. The sooner Speaker Gingrich and his Republican colleagues can return to bipartisanship on these vital investments in our Nation's future, the less the damage will be. Mr. President, I hope that will be soon. I yield the floor. Science--The Endless Frontier letter of transmittal Office of Scientific Research and Development, Washington, DC, July 5, 1945. Dear Mr. President: In a letter dated November 17, 1944, President Roosevelt requested my recommendation on the following points: (1) What can be done, consistent with military security, and with the prior approval of the military authorities, to make known to the world as soon as possible the contributions which have been made during our war effort to scientific knowledge? (2) With particular reference to the war of science against disease, what can be done now to organize a program for continuing in the future the work which has been done in medicine and related sciences? (3) What can the Government do now and in the future to aid research activities by public and private organizations? (4) Can an effective program be proposed for discovering and developing scientific talent in American youth so that the continuing future of scientific research in this country may be assured on a level comparable to what has been done during the war? It is clear from President Roosevelt's letter that in speaking of science he had in mind the natural sciences, including biology and medicine, and I have so interpreted his questions. Progress in other fields, such as the social sciences and the humanities, is likewise important; but the program for science presented in my report warrants immediate attention. In seeking answers to President Roosevelt's questions I have had the assistance of distinguished committees specially qualified to advise in respect to these subjects. The committees have given these matters the serious attention they deserve; indeed, they have regarded this as an opportunity to participate in shaping the policy of the country with reference to scientific research. They have had many meetings and have submitted formal reports. I have been in close touch with the work of the committees and with their members throughout. I have examined all of the data they assembled and the suggestions they submitted on the points raised in President Roosevelt's letter. Although the report which I submit herewith is my own, the facts, conclusions, and recommendations are based on the findings of the committees which have studied these questions. Since my report is necessarily brief, I am including as appendices the full reports of the committees. A single mechanism for implementing the recommendations of the several committees is essential. In proposing such a mechanism I have departed somewhat from the specific recommendations of the committees, but I have since been assured that the plan I am proposing is fully acceptable to the committee members. The pioneer spirit is still vigorous within this Nation. Science offers a largely unexplored hinterland for the pioneer who has the tools for his task. The rewards of such exploration both for the Nation and the individual are great. Scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress. Respectfully yours, V. Bush, Director. The President of the United States, The White House, Washington, D.C.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 50 years ago today the Truman White House released ``Science--The Endless Frontier,'' the document that set the course for this country's postwar science and technology policy and that has continuing relevance today, five decades later. This seminal report was written by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, who had headed up the wartime mobilization of our Nation's scientific and technological resources to defeat our Axis foes. It was written in response to a series of four questions which had been posed to Dr. Bush by President Roosevelt in a letter dated November 17, 1944. As the Bush report was being released, President Truman was at the Potsdam conference with Churchill and Stalin. Three days earlier in the New Mexico desert, the United States had detonated the first atomic bomb--the Trinity test, although that would remain secret to all but a few leaders and the Potsdam principals until the Hiroshima bombing on August 6. The research effort which Dr. Bush, a Republican I might add, had headed during the war was the greatest scientific and technological mobilization the world had ever seen. It had included not just the Manhattan Project, but major efforts and great successes in weapons technologies, such as radars, fighter aircraft, bomber aircraft, and code breaking, and in what we call today dual-use technologies, such as the first electronic computer, aircraft engines, medical technologies, and communications technologies. President Roosevelt had asked Bush four questions: First: What can be done, consistent with military security, and with the prior approval of military authorities, to make known to the world as soon as possible the contributions which have been made during our war effort to scientific knowledge? The diffusion of such knowledge should help us stimulate new enterprises, provide jobs for returning servicemen and other workers, and make possible great strides for the improvement of the national well-being. Second: With particular reference to the war of science against disease, what can be done now to organize a program for continuing in the future, the work which has been done in medicine and related sciences? The fact that the annual deaths in this country from one or two diseases alone are far in excess of the total number of lives lost by us in battle during this war should make us conscious of the duty we owe future generations. Third: What can the Government do now and in the future to aid research activities by public and private organizations? The proper roles of public and of private research, and their interrelation, should be carefully considered. Fourth: Can an effective program be proposed for discovering and developing scientific talent in American youth so that the continuing future of scientific research in this country may be assured on a level comparable to what has been done during the war? President Roosevelt added: New frontiers of the mind are before us, and if they are pioneered with the same vision, boldness, and drive with which we have waged this war we can create a fuller and more fruitful employment and a fuller and more fruitful life. Vannevar Bush worked with four advisory committees over the next 7 months to respond to the President's [[Page S 10310]] tasking. Unfortunately, Roosevelt had passed away before he could receive this far-seeing report, which fully endorsed his vision of a new and endless frontier of science in the national interest. Instead it was Truman who met with Bush on June 14, 1945, and approved the release of the report. And it was Truman who would oversee the establishment of the National Science Foundation 5 years later after a long congressional debate and the implementation of the report's other recommendations. What did the report say and why is it still relevant? Mr. President, until the Bush report, we had no national policy for science. Bush argued that this must end. ``In this war,'' he wrote, ``it has become clear beyond all doubt that scientific research is absolutely essential to national security.'' But he went beyond the national security justification for governmental support of research: More and better scientific research is essential to the achievement of our goal of full employment . . . Progress in combating disease depends upon an expanding body of scientific knowledge. Bush saw the Government's role in supporting science and technology as filling needs where the public interest was great, but the private sector would not meet these needs adequately. He wrote: There are areas of science in which the public interest is acute but which are likely to be cultivated inadequately if left without more support than will come from private sources. These areas--such as research on military problems, agriculture, housing, public health, certain medical research, and research involving expensive capital facilities beyond the capacity of private institutions--should be advanced by active Government support. To date, with the exception of the intensive war research conducted by the Office of Scientific Research and Development, such support has been meager and intermittent. For reasons presented in this report we are entering a period when science needs and deserves increased support from public funds. It is striking to me in rereading ``Science--The Endless Frontier,'' how soundly Bush and his colleagues addressed almost every aspect of science and technology policy--from the Tax Code to patent policy to science education to the structure of the postwar science and technology infrastructure in Government. Bush's report put the United States on a course of sustaining preeminence in science and technology for the past 50 years, a course that enjoyed bipartisan support for most of those five decades. What have our scientists and engineers accomplished with the resources the taxpayers gave them over the past five decades? They won the cold war, put men on the moon, revolutionized medicine, invented computers, pioneered electronics and semiconductor devices, and invented a myriad of new materials that have fundamentally changed our lives. This is just as Bush predicted half a century ago. Bush had the wisdom to know that new scientific and technological fields would emerge that he could not yet imagine: semiconductor electronics, molecular biology, and materials science to name just three. Bush had the vision to see that Federal investments in science and technology could transform our lives and contribute to our health, standard of living and security. For the past half century, the Federal Government has acted on Bush's vision to foster a science and technology enterprise in this country second to none. It is not an accident that American industries from aerospace to agriculture to pharmaceuticals, in which the Federal Government has made substantial research investments, enjoy world leadership. It is a direct result of the vision of Vannevar Bush, who we remember today as one of the giants of the post-war generation. I ask unanimous consent that the first 12 pages of Bush's report, including Roosevelt's letter and Bush's response to Truman, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Any Member who would like a copy of the complete report, which runs 196 pages with appendices, should contact my office.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, on another issue, I rise to congratulate my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Representative Bill Richardson, for his recent trip to Iraq that resulted in the early release from prison of two Americans, David Daliberti and William Barloon. Madam President, we have all been affected by this story. We agonized with the families of these two Americans since their arrest in March when they inadvertently crossed the Iraqi border while trying to visit friends at the United Nations observer post in Kuwait. We recoiled when we learned that their sentence would be 8 years in prison. We watched as others tried to negotiate a solution to the crisis, including the wives of Mr. Daliberti and Mr. Barloon, who visited their husbands in a Baghdad prison. And we worried as a nation when we received reports that both men were experiencing heart trouble that required hospitalization while in the prison. We have now learned, however, that Representative Richardson has been doing more than simply listening to the news coming out of Iraq like most of the rest of us. He met eight times with the Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, sometimes catching a flight from Washington early in the morning so that he could return before votes were cast in the House. These visits established a feeling of trust that allowed Representative Richardson to travel to Iraq, where he pressed Saddam Hussein for the release of the captive Americans on humanitarian grounds. As with any negotiation, we now know that there were moments of disagreement and misunderstanding with the Iraqi President. Representative Richardson persisted in arguing that releasing these men at this time was the right thing to do. Madam President, in a world with a seemingly endless number of intractable conflicts and troubles, from Bosnia to Rwanda to North Korea, it is with a sense of relief that as a result of Representative Richardson's successful humanitarian mission to Iraq, we have one less crisis hanging over our country and over the two families that have now been reunited. All Americans should be proud of Mr. Daliberti and Mr. Barloon for their courage and strength over the past 5 months. I am especially proud of my friend and colleague from my home State of New Mexico for his remarkable achievement in winning their release. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the U.S. Senate in its recent confirmation of Mr. Edmundo Gonzales to be Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Labor. I am confident that Mr. Gonzales will continue to be an asset to that department and to the United States. Mr. Gonzales is originally from El Rito, a small town in northern New Mexico. He graduated from Arizona State University with an education major, and also received a MBA and Juris Doctor from the University of Colorado. He has worked as an attorney, and as a manager for U.S. West, Inc. In 1993, he came to the Labor Department, where he has worked on management standards and in the Office of the American Workplace. Throughout his career, Mr. Gonzales has demonstrated a commitment to public service. While working for U.S. West, Inc., in addition to other duties, he served as an Executive on Loan to the Denver Public Schools, working on budgetary and strategic planning matters. He has served as President of the Hispanic Bar Association, and on a number of charitable and cultural boards. We as a Nation are fortunate to have a person of Mr. Gonzales's caliber serving our Government. I wish him well in his new position.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague who is the prime sponsor of this bill in this Congress, and I am pleased to cosponsor the bill with him. I want to compliment him for his leadership on this very important issue. He has been a leader in trying to deal with the problem of how to stabilize population growth in the world for a very long period of time. Today, we are reintroducing the International Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Act. I also believe that this is a very important piece of legislation and has the potential of providing substantial benefits to this country over the coming decades. I think we have already benefited greatly from the very modest investment we have made in sustainable development and in population efforts. From my perspective, just as the Senator from Wyoming was saying, the attention to global population issues and support for worldwide development is critical to our future success here in this country. We have joined, Senator Simpson and I, with Congressman Beilenson and Congresswoman Morella, to introduce an earlier version of this in the last Congress, the 103d Congress. The bill we are introducing today, like the previous bill, will focus U.S. foreign policy on a coordinated strategy to accomplish three things. No. 1, to achieve world population stabilization; No. 2, to encourage global economic development and self-determination for all women; No. 3, to improve the health and well-being of women and their children. These three objectives are inseparable. To be successful, U.S. foreign policy needs to integrate population strategies and programs into our broader economic and development agenda. The way I see it, the U.S. efforts to help develop economies around the world, to promote democracy around the world, all of those efforts will be futile if we do not first address this issue of 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 over 10,000 people per hour? When the women and men who make up a nation's work force pool do not even have the right to plan their families? And when millions of women around the world do not have access to basic and lifesaving reproductive health care or educational opportunities? The 1994 U.N. International Conference on Population Development, which Senator Simpson attended and Senator Kerry attended, from this body, focused the world's attention on these issues and began a new era in population and development. At that Cairo conference, Senator Simpson indicated there was a program of action that was adopted as a consensus document. That program of action is the foundation for the legislation that we are introducing today. It clearly puts human beings at the center of development activities and encourages the international community to address global problems by meeting individual needs. It calls for gender equity and equality, for women to have and exercise choices in their economic and public and family lives, and for making reproductive health care available throughout the world. The program of action which was adopted in Cairo recognizes that some significant worldwide progress has already been made in the last few decades, including lower birth and death rates in most parts of the world, reduced infant mortality, increased life expectancy, a slight rise in educational attainment, and a slight narrowing in the gap between the educational levels of men and women. However, the Cairo Programme of Action, along with the State of Population Report, which was released just 2 days ago by the U.N. Population Fund, also recognized that a tremendous additional amount needs to be done. At the core of both the International Programme of Action and the United Nations report are two fundamental concepts. They are, first of all, that population, poverty, patterns of production and consumption, and the environment are so closely interconnected that none can be considered in isolation. And, second, that sustained economic growth, sustainable development in population, are fundamentally dependent upon investing in people; more specifically, on making advances in education and in economic status and in the empowerment of women. This legislation, which I am very proud to cosponsor with Senator Simpson in this Congress, represents a significant step forward. I sincerely hope our colleagues in the Senate will give it a careful look. I commend him for scheduling a hearing this next week, at which we can explore the issues in more depth, and I look forward to working with him throughout the rest of this Congress in trying to see this legislation enacted into law.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Albuquerque Technical-Vocational Institute, a community college in New Mexico that is celebrating its 30th year of service to the community. T-VI's impressive growth has paralleled the expansion of the community it has served for 30 years. From its origins with 150 students in an old abandoned elementary school, Albuquerque Technical- Vocational Institute has matured to become New Mexico's second largest higher educational institution with 20,000 students at three campuses, and an additional satellite campus planned in Bernalillo County's South Valley. The development of Albuquerque's silicon mesa and high-tech economic expansion would have been impossible without the high-tech training provided at T-VI. T-VI wisely seeks out the counsel of the business community to ensure that its programs and training facilities are state-of-the-art. T-VI is a leader in technical education in New Mexico, placing its graduates in working environments that have helped to expand the state's economy and enrich the community. In a community noted for its cultural diversity, T-VI has become a model of educational advancement. T-VI graduates are at work in a variety of technical careers, trades and professions throughout New Mexico. They provide [[Page S 9938]] needed technical assistance and services to a variety of industries including our National Labs. Mr. President, for its outstanding accomplishments, I would like to commend the students, teachers and administration of the Albuquerque Technical-Vocational Institute for 30 years of service to the community and to the State of New Mexico.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have all looked with awe and admiration toward the playing fields of Connecticut and the largest sporting event in world this year--the Special Olympics World Games. We all know that this singular event is the product of a visionary mind and an energetic spirit, both in the person of Eunice Kennedy Shriver. It was she who dreamed the dream and did the hard work necessary to make that dream come true. Thousands are now involved, but it was Eunice Shriver who made Special Olympics a vital, reliable part of lives that otherwise would have lacked focus and achievement. People from my State have come east to participate, and today I rise to honor Larenson Henderson and the basketball players of Team New Mexico from Shiprock. This is an all-Navajo team, Mr. President, the first completely American Indian team in any sport in the history of the Special Olympics. The New York Times had a story on this outstanding group of young men, and quoted their coach as saying, `` `They have heart,' '' and indeed they do. Heart is the tie that binds all Special Olympic athletes, and it is the driving force behind the Games themselves. We've seen wonderful things happen in New Haven during these Special Olympics, but perhaps the best is yet to come. One of the Navajo players said, ``Losing these games doesn't bother me. We're playing with the best teams. It gives us more confidence just playing them.'' Mr. President, I'd say it makes us all proud that this excellent program has produced such an attitude through an atmosphere of healthy competition guided by the simple creed of doing one's best. Eunice Shriver and all associated with this fine effort deserve our warmest thanks and praise for helping these athletes win by simply giving them the means to try.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I feel that it is important that the Members of this Chamber move history forward and support the President's decision to normalize diplomatic relations with Vietnam. Over the last 17 months, the Vietnamese Government has helped to resolve many cases of Americans who [[Page S 9725]] were missing in action or held as prisoners of war. I strongly feel that our responsibility to the families of courageous, patriotic Americans who fought in the Vietnam conflict, and who are still missing, will never end until the status of their fate is resolved. But important progress is being made. As President Clinton stated this afternoon, 29 families have received the remains of their loved ones with the assistance of the Vietnamese Government. Important documents have been passed on to our Government to help shed light on the fate of other missing Americans. And the number of discrepancy cases of Americans thought to be alive after they were lost has been reduced to 55. Mr. President, we must continue serious efforts to secure information about our lost soldiers, and this effort can be greatly enhanced by coordinating and working with the Vietnamese Government and its people. Normalizing relations will help our cause and further our national interest. Mr. President, those who have argued against normalization seem more comfortable with the past and have little vision of the future. We were engaged in serious conflict in Vietnam, and much of our military presence in Asia derived from the needs and requirements of that conflict. But who has benefited from American sacrifice? Not many in this country. Japan has just emerged as the largest foreign investor in Vietnam. During the first half of this year, Japan won 30 major infrastructure projects worth $755 million. Of Vietnam's intake of $3.58 billion for these first 6 months, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore followed behind Japan in investment. The United States ranked sixth in this major new growth market in the Asia Pacific region. Although the United States dropped its trade embargo with Vietnam last year, America's failure to restore diplomatic relations has meant that the Ex-Im Bank could not finance trade, that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation could not insure American firms' commerce with Vietnam, and that our Nation could not develop trade treaties with what many consider to be the most important, new, big-emerging market. Without the ability to establish a treaty and grant MFN status with Vietnam, it is unlikely that the Vietnamese will earn money to purchase American products. Mr. President, last year in the Washington Post, Alan Tonelson of the Economic Strategy Institute wrote about a 104-page Mitsubishi Corp. report entitled: ``Master Plan for the Automobile Industry in Vietnam.'' He noted that this Japanese trading firm had already organized its efforts and meticulously established a framework to build a Vietnamese automotive industry, dependent on Japanese support. For once, America needs to get ahead of the curve, to support U.S. firms entering new markets, instead of having to elbow in after others have wrapped up the market. Mr. President, America--more than any other nation in the Asian region--should be the beneficiary of Vietnam's economic development. We have an important duty to determine the fate of our lost and missing. But this effort will best be served by restoring diplomatic relations and recognizing Vietnam's Government. We must understand that our national economic interests are eroding each day that we allow other countries to push forward into this emerging economy and leave U.S. firms and American workers behind. The time has come, Mr. President, for us to engage Vietnam and to build a future with this Government and its people that helps us deal with our wounds and helps our citizens into a new era.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding me time. I do believe that it is heartening that we have a consensus for deficit reduction here in the country. I believe the President led the way in that effort during the first 2 years of his term, and I commend my Republican colleagues for the commitment they have shown to bringing us back to that important goal this year in this Congress. But, Mr. President, I want to express some concerns that arise when I look at the budget resolution that has been brought to the floor by the Republican majority, concerns that we may be losing sight of our real objective in this budget-cutting exercise. It seems to me the sole purpose of deficit reduction is to increase our investment in the future. What we are attempting to do is to get the Government to live within its means so as not to leave the bill for this generation's largesse to our children. Mr. President, indiscriminately slashing budgets is no recipe for growth and is a bad way to organize investments for the future. To leverage our investment, I believe that we need to support programs, particularly education programs, technology programs, and export promotion programs that contribute to our economy's growth and that help create high-wage jobs that enhance the standard of living for all Americans. I will speak separately on the importance of maintaining our investment in education, but let me first discuss the issues of technology and export promotion. In this analysis of what works and what does not work, what Government should focus on and what it should not, we need to worry about tomorrow's bottom line just as much as we worry about today's bottom line. Growth policies that help keep our economy strong are vital in looking at that bottom line for tomorrow. America has much to be proud of in its technology infrastructure, but it would be wrong to believe that Government did not help lead in building that infrastructure, but it would be wrong to believe that Government was not an essential partner with the private sector in helping to innovate and to nurture technologies that the corporate world has further developed. The conference report on the budget resolution promises to seriously damage our Nation's future vitality. I have a number of problems with the plan, none greater than handing the bill for this balanced budget to those least able to pay and leaving the wealthiest in society in better shape. But I also know that if our Government fails to remain steadfast in its commitment to a national technology infrastructure and to [[Page S 9331]] the funding of civilian research and development and to programs that support and help finance export efforts, then our economy will continue to erode; and we will forgo the gains and growth from high-technology developments and will become a nation built on a lower paying service economy. Mr. President, in this Chamber, we have heard a great deal about leaving things to the market; that the private sector and the invisible hand will solve our problems most effectively if we essentially shut down many areas of Government. I believe, as do all of us, in a lean and a streamlined Government, but I do not believe that the market alone can solve all the problems of our citizens. And I do not believe that we should ignore the fact that our Government has a good track record and has gotten a great deal right in technology support and in export assistance. There is no doubt that we would be eating our own seed corn if we were to go forward and dismantle these programs. I recommend to those who frequently call on the ghost of Adam Smith and subscribe to a prescription of the invisible hand that Smith referred to in the ``Wealth of Nations,'' that they go back and reread some of that treatise that he wrote. Smith clearly outlined a role for Government, a perspective with which I 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 have not done well in this Nation. He continues that the state must build infrastructure on which commerce depends; that is the Government must build roads, canals, and bridges. In the modern context, that means airports and a national information infrastructure and 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, an example was shipbuilding, and in our day an example is nuclear energy. Adam Smith himself outlines these as indispensable functions of Government, of minimalist Government, as he saw it 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 budgets, as we will today, cannot neglect the indispensable roles that Government does have to play. But I believe that the theologies that are driving the Republican budget we are dealing with here have neglected many of 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. As I have previously stated in this Chamber, our Government's program in civilian research and development under this budget will be cut by 30 to 40 percent by the year 2002 and will be pushed to a 40-year low as a percentage of the gross domestic product. In contrast, the research communities in Germany and Japan continue to receive increased resources as the growth they have generated for their nations has been recognized and rewarded. Yet in the United States, we are abandoning those who won the cold war, those who put men on the Moon, who initiated genetic research and biotechnology efforts, who created computers and advanced electronics, who have fought disease and revolutionized a myriad of enhancements in agriculture. Our national investments in science and technology, that have yielded semiconductors, molecular biology advances, and materials science development, have paid off tremendously for the Nation. In 1969, when the Federal budget was last in balance, Federal civilian research spending was 0.76 percent of gross domestic product. Only the Bush administration stands out among the administrations of the last several decades in trying to correct the downward decline in commitment by this country to technology support. This present administration has maintained the commitment that the Bush administration demonstrated. Today, our support of civilian research and development is running at approximately 0.46 percent of gross domestic product, and in the Republican budget plan is estimated to fall to 0.27 percent of GDP. The real impact, the impact on our children and on the citizens of this great Nation, is that we will strip them of their opportunities in the future if we go the path that this budget resolution calls for. Are we prepared to do that? Are we prepared to forfeit the important leadership role the United States has played in technological innovation and growth? I hope that we give a resounding ``no'' to those questions. I have to say that our ambivalence about these issues has already allowed Japan to quickly rise to parity with this Nation in the number of patents produced and in the overall excellence of its technological and manufacturing infrastructure. It is anachronistic to say that Japan simply licenses American technological wizardry. They have their own stable of wizards now, and we must compete. We simply cannot role over and allow ourselves to become followers in the field of high technology advancement. That would be an unforgivable legacy to leave to our children. I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reconsider our Nation's technology support program. I think that most would agree that our Government should not be engaged in picking winners and losers. That is not the issue. What we need to understand is that the combination of fierce market forces and the globally competitive environment we are in rarely support the precompetitive stage of product development. Despite the prospect of substantial reductions in federally supported civilian research and development, the Wall Street Journal has reported that numerous private commitments to research and development are also being cut. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported that AT&T, General Electric, IBM, Kodak, Texaco, and Xerox have all announced intentions to cut their research budgets. While other nations ensure that they will build and maintain a strong foundation for research support in their private sector, our Nation is turning away from this strategy and seems all too ambivalent about letting advanced manufacturing move abroad, allowing high-wage jobs to disappear, and allowing the responsibilities and rewards of innovation to be taken by our competitors. If we hope to restore the economic health of our Nation, then we should embrace these proven growth- producing programs which help our industry and help our citizens, rather than running from those programs. Adam Smith, if he were here today, would argue that our precompetitive technology programs are indispensable to the national interest. Export assistance programs are also in our national interest. On the 19th of June, Senator Bond outlined for us the important role that the International Trade Administration and the Bureau of Export Administration of the Department of Commerce play in our international trade activities and in our economy. I agree with him that these governmental functions need to be maintained. To the degree that the conference report fails to support these activities, we need to go back to the drawing board. Let me first point out that our great Nation spends less than 2.8 cents supporting each $100 of exports. On one hand, given that export related jobs tend to earn higher wages and, on the other, that our Nation is approaching a $200 billion trade deficit this year, our support for export activities is a worthwhile investment. In fact, our investment in exports is too paltry as it is. Comparatively, as a recent report from the Economic Strategy Institute reports, the lowest level of export assistance support among other developed nations is about 10 times the U.S. level. The recent trade agreement that was just consummated yesterday between ourselves and Japan should highlight for the American people and for this body the importance that trade plays in our ability to maintain good-paying jobs in this country. A gauge often used to assess the jobs impact of exports is that a billion dollars of exports equals about 20,000 jobs [[Page S 9332]] in the American economy. If you run the numbers, it is clear that our economy is losing about 4 million jobs because of trade deficits. Cutting the budget deficit should help increase the overall health of the economy, should lower interest rates, and should help spur business activity in the Nation. But it is also clear that the export sector will become an even more important driver of our economic growth. Given these trends, it is important that Government address market failures in the export sector. Exports are important to this economy. And exports create jobs, good jobs. Export-related jobs are growing seven to eight times as fast as the growth of total employment. A decade ago, less than 7 million Americans worked in export-related jobs while today the number is close to 12 million. In another 5 years, the number will approach 16 million. And given what we know about the stagnation of wages in this Nation, that despite high corporate profitability today, our workers are not benefiting from increased productivity, it is important to underline the fact that export jobs pay more, in fact, about 15 percent more than other manufacturing jobs. Companies that manufacture for export are more productive, and they are less likely to be caught in the tailspin of a shrinking manufacturing sector. We ought to consider putting manufacturing jobs on the endangered species list, Mr. President, if we turn away from our efforts to export. To be clear about the financial impact: white-collar manufacturing workers earn an average of $20.50 an hour in wages and benefits, blue collar workers earn $16.69 an hour, and people employed in the service sector average just $8.39 an hour. Every time we replace a manufacturing job with a service job, we are cutting our wages in half. Mr. President, just going with this trend cannot be in the national interest. We need to support our export base and support our technology base. Anything else would be irresponsible. Some might ask, why not leave a sector that is growing--and that is the export sector--that seems healthy and headed in the right direction, free from any Government meddling? First of all, this export activity has been achieved through private partnerships with Government. When the market fails to provide critical export financing, the Ex-Im Bank, a classic example of Government/private sector partnerships, absorbs credit risks that private institutions would not absorb. And has the Ex-Im Bank been a deficit creator? No. During the last fiscal year, the Ex-Im Bank took $785 million from the U.S. Treasury and provided $15 billion in financing that supported $17 billion in United States exports, with nearly half of this going to the fastest-growing big emerging markets such as China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, Argentina, and Brazil. There are many other examples of how we have helped in promoting exports in this economy, Mr. President, through Government/industry partnerships. Addressing risks that the private sector would not, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a quasi-Government institution, has provided the insurance to make global trade and investment more secure. OPIC, which has not paid out any large claims since the mid-1970's, has actually generated significant returns to the treasury. But even when discussions have been held about privatizing this activity, private providers contend that they will not make insurance commitments that OPIC can. These are examples of the Government addressing failures of the market; and they happen to be examples where the costs, if any, to the Government, have been turned into strong positive gains. In the international arena, when foreign markets are truly free, then the Department of Commerce and USTR need not negotiate for and protect American economic interests, but such free markets exist only in theory. A realistic look at world trade would show the French subsidizing their export financing; Chancellor Kohl offering $2 billion in low cost loans to China linked to purchases of German products; and Tokyo pouring over $2 billion a year for foreign aid into Indonesia to grease the way for its firms. The neoclassical economist would argue, no problem. They would argue that American consumers still win, and these other governments are only harming themselves and their people. The problems with that line of reasoning are many, but in particular, we are not engaged in a perfect world economy. In Japan, producers' interests are dealt with more preferentially than consumers'. And as we know in this Nation, consumers' interests are not generally subordinate to producers. Over the long run, specialization will occur, and production will move to areas like Asia where consumer interests have been constrained. To prevent further erosion of the American manufacturing and export base, we need to support industry efforts to penetrate otherwise closed foreign markets. The Department of Commerce estimates that over $1 trillion of infrastructure projects will come on line in Asia in the next decade. Virtually all of these projects will be awarded by governments, and virtually all will be hotly contested by companies supported by their home governments. I believe that we cannot responsibly afford to further diminish the meager support that we provide our exporters just as other competitors are expanding theirs. We need our Government on the front line to make sure that American firms and American workers get a good share of these projects. Furthermore, over the last 40 years, the American economy has been the robust growth market on which our firms have focused and which firms around the world have targeted. Our corporations have not developed the same skills base and support structures that other nations have developed to promote exports. For smaller and mid-size firms, international opportunities are new and important, and America has hardly tapped the tremendous potential of this sector. For these companies, acting purely on their own, the task of penetrating foreign markets is expensive and overwhelming. Fifty large firms account for about half of America's exports. We need to do better, and we need to, as a Government, support an infrastructure for export growth. That means that we need to support the efforts of the Foreign Commercial Service, need to broaden our counseling activities, and need to continue to connect our small firms, which are the backbone of our economy, with resources to achieve export-led growth. This is what Government is supposed to do. And I would propose to you that such a jobs-growth strategy complements our budget reduction goals, the combination of which will maximize our investment in the future. Let me briefly share with you two brief stories of encounters of firms from the great State of New Mexico with the Department of Commerce, that so many here seem bent on dismantling. FMI, an Albuquerque developer of software applications for barcode scanners, had never exported to the Mexican market. With the assistance of the Santa Fe office of the International Trade Administration, FMI participated in RepCom '94, a show organized under the State of New York trade division that enabled the firm to secure important distributors, establish relations with potential client firms, and even yielded a significant direct sale. The firm has just secured its first- ever sales in to the Mexican market and expects its position to grow. Second, United States Cotton, a manufacturer of cotton pads and other cotton cosmetic products, recently reported the signing of a joint venture agreement with a firm in Chile, where it too had never traded before. Using the Gold Key Service Program of the Department of Commerce, U.S. Cotton has been able to generate first-year sales approaching $500,000. The firm anticipates that expanded production capabilities in Chile will result in expanded sales and will create additional jobs. Let me also add that the great State of New Mexico, which has led the Nation in terms of export sector growth over the last 5 years, trades today nearly as much with Japan as with Mexico. And New Mexico exports to the Asian region in total are actually much greater than to Mexico. Last year, New Mexico exported approximately $100 million in goods to Mexico, $80 million to Japan, and $150 million to the Asian region. The combined efforts of the state's trade development offices and the Santa Fe office of the International Trade Administration in [[Page S 9333]] the Department of Commerce as well as the resources of the Small Business Administration have helped New Mexico to participate in the global economy. We have a long way to go in our great State, but supporting exports, supporting technology development make sense for New Mexico and make sense for America. In conclusion, Mr. President, we need to heed Adam Smith's word. We need to make sure that Government addresses those tasks that the private sector cannot or will not address. We need to maintain our investment in civilian research and development efforts, and we must continue to build the export platform that has been under construction for some time. To fail to do this would limit our leverage in building a more prosperous future and securing continued American leadership. I would like to remind my Republican colleagues that their opposition to these export programs is an entirely new development. Letters of support for the Foreign Commercial Service, for expansion of International Trade Administration domestic service centers, and for prevention of reduced staffs for sites have been sent to the Secretary of Commerce by Senators Brown, Campbell, Coverdell, D'Amato, Domenici, Hatch, Hatfield, and numerous others. I realize that we are all facing a confluence of tough choices in our budget deficit reduction efforts, what to cut and what not to cut--but I would argue that our colleagues' earlier intentions were correct, that supporting our small and mid- sized businesses into the international arena was the correct strategy to jump start growth, spur jobs, and create a more healthy economy. Claims that these programs significantly impact our budget deficit are not supported by the facts. We spend less than a billion a year for all export programs in a $1.2 trillion annual budget, but reducing this amount would harm our business sector, reduce growth, stifle incomes and keep us blocked out of important growing economies. We would effectively be handing over to other nations important, high-paying jobs that would otherwise go to American workers. That, Mr. President, is not what we have been elected by the citizens of this great Nation to do. Mr. President, let me just urge that in finalizing a budget resolution between this Congress and the President, we need to keep our eye on the ball of those programs that will promote job creation and promote more economic growth in the future. This budget, as it comes before us today, does not do that. Mr. President, I hope that can be corrected before final action is taken by this Congress. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I will just say, the Senator from California has made a very good-faith effort to correct this. I support her efforts. I hope the Senate will adopt her amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will respond that I would like a couple minutes to support the amendment by the Senator from California.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me briefly say I support the effort of the Senator from California to amend the bill in this regard. This provision, this most adequate plaintiff idea, as I understand, was proposed as part of a substitute in committee. There was no hearing held on it. I believe that is the case.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I think one of the hallmarks of our legal system has always been that a person's right to go to court or a person's right to have his or her case presented in court should not be strictly tied to the person's financial condition. We should not means test justice, as the saying goes. I think where you get a provision like this where there is a presumption that the plaintiff who has the most invested is the most adequate plaintiff and, therefore, should control the litigation, that comes very close to means testing justice. It causes me great concern that we would have this kind of a provision. Clearly, there have been groundless lawsuits brought, and that is the purpose. The purpose of this legislation is to deal with that. I understand that. I support this legislation. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, but when I cosponsored it, there was no provision in it for most adequate plaintiff. Now there is a presumption that those who have the most invested should control the litigation. I do not know that that is always true. I do not know that that should always be the case. Therefore, I do have problems with the bill as it now stands.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send this amendment on behalf of myself and Mr. Bryan. It is a very simple amendment. The present bill, as it is pending before the Senate, calls for a mandatory review by the court in any private action arising under the legislation. It says that the court shall establish a record with specific findings regarding compliance by each party, and each attorney representing any party with the requirements of rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, prohibiting frivolous pleading or frivolous activity by counsel. The difficulty is that later in the bill where it specifies presumption, that we call for on page 105 and 107 of the bill, [[Page S 9164]] we only specify that the appropriate sanction apply to pleadings filed by the plaintiffs. Our amendment would change that and make it more balanced, in that it would specify that the sanctions could apply either to pleadings filed by the plaintiff or to responsive pleadings or motions filed by defense. I think this is acceptable to the managers of the bill. I think it is only reasonable that if we are going to have this provision in the bill--which is a provision, quite frankly, I do not agree with--I think that singling out these securities cases as the only cases in our court system where we require a mandatory review by the court, and the finding and imposition of specific findings, is a mistake. If we are going to have it, we should make it balanced between plaintiff and defendant. I know the Senator from Nevada wishes to speak. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes here this morning to oppose cuts for science education that were made June 20, in the House Appropriations Committee, related to the Energy Department. Congress is engaged in an important process to reduce the Federal budget and I support that process. I recognize very difficult choices will have to be made. But I want to be sure, to the extent I can, that the process remains thoughtful and maintains our national commitment to improvement in education and our national investment in education, at the same time that we proceed toward a balanced budget. Cuts being proposed for science education in the Department of Energy appropriation do not meet that test of thoughtfulness and support for investment in education. In 1989, President Bush met with the 50 Governors throughout this country in an education summit in Charlottesville, VA. That was a historic occasion because for the first time the Governors and the President met together to discuss that important issue of how to improve education in the country. In 1990, they published goals for this country, and one of those goals, which I believe was an extremely important goal for us to commit ourselves to, was the goal of making this country first in the world in math and science education by the year 2000. This is the backdrop against which we need to judge what we are doing in this appropriations process here in the Congress in these weeks. I am told that the House appropriations bill, that I referred to before, significantly reduces the $160 million for science education embedded in various parts of the Department of Energy, and it eliminates altogether the funding for two line items which are focused entirely on education. Those two line items are: First, the University and Science Education Program in the Department of Energy Office of Science Education and Technical Information. The House appropriations mark for this program has reduced the funding from the proposed $55 million, which the President asked for in his budget, to absolutely zero. The second of these two line items is the Department of Energy Technology Transfer and Education Program for Department of Energy Office of Defense Programs. The House mark for this program was reduced from $249 million in fiscal year 1996--that was the proposed level--to $15 million, including a cut to zero funding for the $20 million line item earmarked for science education at our three national weapons laboratories. Obviously, Mr. President, this is of concern to me because this directly affects two of those national laboratories in my home State of New Mexico, Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories. First, let me describe the impact of the elimination of the Science Education and Technical Information Program. This cut eliminates the central coordinating and evaluation mechanism for all of the Department of Energy education activities, which is the Office of Science Education and Technical Information. In eliminating this office, Congress would eliminate the administrative infrastructure for other Department of Energy science education offices' programs, the only Department of Energy office in which education is not just an ancillary function. In addition, this cut would eliminate the laboratory cooperative science centers, which leverage the much larger investment in science and technology expertise residing in the Department of Energy Laboratory System. These centers connect thousands of students and teachers each year in high schools, colleges, and graduate programs with scientists at our Department of Energy laboratories. The centers provide training and mentoring, and hands-on laboratory experiences both at the laboratories themselves and at local public schools and universities. They provide internships, faculty research opportunities, and professional development enhancements and lab-school partnerships. They also help support the Department of Energy's scientists' participation in a variety of State and local systemic education reform activities, such as the National Science Foundation's State systemic reform initiatives. These cuts will weaken the pipeline of well-trained scientists supported by the 73 percent of programs funds that go to universities to train future engineers, technicians, and scientists for current and future work force needs. They will eliminate Department of Energy work to support and strengthen the caliber of science and math education at the secondary and at the college levels, and the 1996 priorities for work force development, systemic education reform, science literacy, evaluation, and dissemination. Mr. President, the Department of Energy education cuts will have a particularly damaging effect for those who benefit from the education activities of Sandia National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory in my home State of New Mexico. First, they will suffer education cuts as part of the centers that I just described. Second, they will also suffer the loss of their part of the additional $20 million for education programs concentrated at Sandia, Los Alamos, and at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, the Nation's three weapons laboratories. For Sandia National Laboratory, this would eliminate education outreach funding which in 1995 was $6 million from the Office of Defense Programs, $2.3 million from the Office of Science Education, and almost $2 million from other internal funds to reach a total of over $10 million. This will mean the loss of K through 12 student enrichment programs, K through 12 teacher professional development programs, college and university programs, and programs for educational technology. For Los Alamos National Laboratory, it would eliminate educational outreach funding again for the 1995 fiscal year, which amounted to $6.3 million from the Office of Defense Programs, $1.3 million from the Office of Science Education, $600,000 from other parts of the Office of Energy Research, for a total of about $8 million. This would mean the loss of nationally recognized model science and math programs relied upon by the States that they serve for high- quality professional development for our teachers. Together, these cuts in the two programs will hurt science education in the country, and it will especially hurt science education in my home State of New Mexico. They will weaken the infrastructure support for science education and work force preparation. These are the kinds of priorities that we need to protect. We need to reassert our commitment to reaching the education goals that were established by President Bush and the Governors in 1989. We should not undermine those goals by making these kinds of shortsighted cuts. Mr. President, as we work to reach deficit reduction and to reach a balanced budget, we need to make our priorities clear. One of our priorities needs to be retaining funding for science and math education. I hope that when the Senate passes its appropriations bill, it will see to it that the funds for these programs are retained, and that we can prevail in conference with the House. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the confirmation of Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. In my view, it is time that the Senate put personal agendas and Presidential primary politics aside. It is time we let Dr. Foster get on with the important job he has been preparing for throughout his professional [[Page S 8869]] career: the job of chief public health advocate for our country. Based on the public hearings held by the Labor and Human Resources Committee and the very detailed questioning those hearings involved, I have come to the conclusion that Dr. Foster is imminently qualified to serve as Surgeon General. Just as Presidential politics should not define when and under what conditions the Senate conducts its business, neither should we in the Senate attempt to define, based on ideology alone, the boundaries of a Surgeon General's professional experiences. We in the Senate need to focus on the real world we live in, not the world we wish we lived in. The reality is that our Nation has deplorably high rates of teen pregnancy, infant mortality, and poverty. Too many of our children are abused, troubled, hungry, and hopeless. Childhood violence and death due to suicide are increasing at alarming rates. Incidence of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are increasing in every population in our country. Statistics from my home State of New Mexico illustrate these facts in graphic detail: We have the third worst rate of births to unmarried teens in the nation: From 1985 to 1992, the number of births to unmarried teens grew from 41.6 to 60.1 births per 1,000 females age 15 to 19. That is an increase of 44 percent over 7 years. In 1991, 18,234 cases of child abuse were reported in New Mexico, an increase of 21.4 percent from 1990. More than 10 percent of New Mexico's children live in extreme poverty, with family incomes below 50 percent of the poverty level; 27.2 percent of our children live in poverty, compared to the national average of less than 20 percent. Nearly 40 percent--4 out of 10--of our children live in families with incomes 150 percent of the poverty level or less. Our teen violent death rate, though declining, was still hovering at more than 70 deaths per 100,000 teens in 1992. I could go on, but I believe I have made my point. The real world is tough. The problems we face are tremendous. It will take a person who has faced reality and dealt with the problems he has seen with compassion and commitment to find solutions to the enormous public health challenges confronting our nation. My impression is that Dr. Foster is such a person. His background as a practicing physician, a scholar, and academic administrator, and an advocate for poor children, combined with his proven ability to lead are evidence of his strength and compassion. Dr. Foster has proven his commitment to public service and public health. He deserves to be judged by the Senate on his merits as a physician and an educator. And he deserves the opportunity to serve his country as the next Surgeon General.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today we have had an historic opportunity to vote on a sweeping revision of the 1934 Communications Act, an act which is now, over 60 years after its original passage, woefully out of date. We tried last Congress to revisit this legislation but we were unable to bring the matter to the floor. I am glad that we have had a chance to consider this legislation on the floor this year. I hoped to be able to vote for it. We owe it to the people of this country to modernize the laws which govern telecommunications services and to do so in a way that promotes competition among the companies attempting to provide those services, and thus provide American families with more and better services at lower prices. This legislation serves the first purpose--that of modernizing the law to reflect the many changes in technology since 1934. However, there is a real question as to whether the end result will be more competition. On the contrary, I believe that the result of this bill may be more concentration of power in the market. I do not believe American families will benefit from this concentration. I would like to believe what I have heard on the floor over the last week: that true competition will ensue from this bill, and the result of that competition will be a new world of innovative products at affordable prices. Nevertheless, I fear that the flaws in this bill will likely defeat those hopes. Accordingly, while I would like to be able to vote for this bill, I cannot. I am a longtime student of technology and of telecommunications. I know what benefits they can bring. I have promoted State and Federal support for technology in the classroom and I have sponsored legislation to provide that support. I am proud to have Rockefeller-Exon-Kerry language in this bill which will, for the first time, make access to telecommunications services by schools, libraries, and rural health care providers affordable. I am especially proud that the Senate approved this aspect of the bill. But there are a series of amendments to this bill which I had hoped would pass and which would have made this bill what I had hoped it could be and what I think the American consumer deserves. First, and foremost, I was disappointed that the efforts of my colleagues from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan and Senator Thurmond of South Carolina, to bring the Department of Justice into the process, were defeated. I fear that this bill--without the amendment to give the Department of Justice a more active role--may lead to abuses and more concentration in the long distance market. There are serious issues competition issues raised by the entry of the Bells into long distance, yet we have given the Nation's expert competition agency, the Department of Justice, a toothless role. The Department of Justice has long and deep experience with this market and with these competitors. It is the best positioned entity to evaluate the many issues which are going to arise as new entrants seek access to the local exchange networks controlled by these companies. In my view, only the Department of Justice can assure that what is billed as competition does not become concentration to the detriment of the American consumer. I also have concerns about the potential for concentration in the cable market which this bill presents and the potential for greatly increased cable rates for consumers in rural areas where competition is unlikely to exist in any meaningful way. The marketplace will very likely bring lower prices and greater choice to consumers in urban and affluent areas. But in many parts of the country, and in much of my State of New Mexico, the marketplace will do little. We have seen in airline deregulation how rural consumers are treated. I hope that that does not happen in the cable marketplace as well. If it does, and we shall see in the next few years, Congress should revisit this issue to provide the protections which I would have liked to see this bill today. Other amendments, such as the ones offered by the Senator from Nebraska, [Mr. Kerrey], to put a consumer representative on the universal service board and to restrict cross subsidization by public utility of services, were defeated. Other amendments designed to keep some reasonable limits on broadcast ownership were also defeated. Taken as a whole, this bill, while up-to-date, seems to be to anticonsumer and anticompetitive. I foresee an increasing concentration in the telecommunications industry with increasing prices for consumers with little increase in choice or innovation for those living in rural America. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this bill can be improved in the conference. If it is, I will be happy to vote for it when it returns to the floor. In its present form, however, I must vote no.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak just briefly on this amendment that Senator McCain has offered to strike out section 310 of the telecommunications bill and indicate my strong opposition to that effort. The provision which he is intending to strike was added by the Senator from Maine in the committee markup with the help of the Senator from West Virginia and I know with the urging of the Senators from Nebraska and others. I think the provision that was adopted in committee is an excellent provision and one we need to keep in the bill. I became interested in this set of issues because of the needs in my own State of New Mexico to provide telecommunications services to rural schools in particular, but also to rural hospitals and to rural libraries. In our State, we have one model program which came to my attention several years ago, and that is at the Clovis Community College on the east side of New Mexico. It is a 2-year school. They began a pilot project several years ago to provide instruction from that community college into nine of our rural high schools in that part of the State. We still have, today, in this school year which is just now ending, classes taught at the community college that students in those small, rural high schools are able to access in their own classrooms. That has been a very successful project and it is a model for what we ought to be doing throughout my State and throughout this entire country. However, we are not able to do it throughout my State and throughout this entire country because of the enormous cost of taking advantage of telecommunications services. What is needed is special provisions, special rates so that educational services can be provided to schools at reasonable cost; and can be provided to rural hospitals and rural libraries at reasonable cost. I am persuaded that technology can either be a great boon to mankind and to the people in this country in coming years, or it can prove to be a great divider of our people. Either it will help us all to pull ourselves up and realize the opportunity that is present in this country, or it will further divide the rich from the poor, the urban from the rural, the ``haves'' from the ``have nots.'' The provision that the Senator from Maine proposed in committee, which is now in the bill and which we need to keep in the bill, goes a long way toward helping us ensure that technology brings us together instead of dividing us. I do think it is essential that we take some action in this area as a public policy matter. You cannot leave everything up to the free market system. I heard the Senator from North Dakota speaking, Senator Dorgan, earlier this afternoon. He was pointing out that left to its own devices, the free market system will provide technological opportunity and new technology and benefits to those who can pay the bill. We want that to happen. But we also want some access to that technology for those who may not be able to pay as much and that is what this provision is intended to do. There is another example in my State which I just would allude to because it is a very small example but perhaps one that people can understand. There is a small community in New Mexico called Santa Rosa, which is east of Albuquerque on our Interstate 40. That is the community that you have to go to if you live in Guadalupe County and you want to go to high school. You have to travel to Santa Rosa. North of Santa Rosa about 60 miles is the much smaller community of Anton Chico. If you live in Anton Chico you have school right there up through the elementary level, and then you have to get on a bus and travel 60 miles each way to go to high school. What the school district there in Guadalupe County has done very effectively, is use telecommunications to provide instruction from the Santa Rosa schools to a classroom in Anton Chico, for those students who wish to continue past the eighth grade and take instruction in the ninth grade without having to travel all the way to Santa Rosa. This has allowed them to keep students in that school for that extra year, and in many cases keep those students involved in education long enough that they will stay in school through twelfth grade. This is dealing with a very, very real problem we have in New Mexico of students dropping out. They drop out for a variety of reasons, but one of the reasons that students drop out in some of the rural parts of our State is because of the physical problems of getting to the high school that they need to attend each day. Modern telecommunications services can help us to solve this problem. One of the great opportunities that we have as a country, as we try to improve our educational system, is to take proper advantage of new technology to keep students interested, to help students raise the standards that they are achieving in school, and to eliminate the difference that exists between the quality of instruction in urban schools and that of rural schools. In order that technology is successful or is able to help us in this regard, we need to deal with the problem of the cost of using that technology. This provision allows that. I hope very much we will keep it in the bill. It is one of the better provisions in this telecommunications bill and I think it would be a very sad day if the Senate were to agree to strike this part of the bill. I compliment the Senator from Maine, the Senator from West Virginia, the Senators from Nebraska, and others who have worked hard to get this provision in the committee-reported bill. I urge my colleagues to keep it in there and to defeat the McCain amendment when it comes to a vote. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I object to proceeding at this time to the bill.