Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago the Senate passed a budget resolution designed to eliminate the Federal deficit over the next 7 years. The House passed its version of that budget the week before. While there are some major differences in those budgets, particularly on tax cuts and defense spending and domestic discretionary spending, there is one common feature, and that is a proposed drastic cut in Federal support for civilian research and development. That is across Government. There has been very little attention paid to this part of the budget balancing effort so far. The public attention has been concentrated on Medicare, Medicaid, education, and tax cuts for the wealthy. But this issue, these drastic cuts in Federal support for civilian research and development, may be the place where the Republican budgets that have been passed through the two Houses will do the most damage to our Nation's future well-being and prosperity. Overall, civilian research and development spending will be cut 30 to 40 percent by the year 2002 to a four-decade low as a percentage of our economy. Some agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, perhaps the National Institutes of Health, may be cut only at the inflation rate during the next 7 years, but all others--that is, NASA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, EPA--all appear to be slated for much deeper reductions. For those who are not familiar with the budget process here--I am sure there are some who are watching who may not be--let me explain why we cannot be more specific about the effect of these budgets at this point. The budget resolutions that are still being considered in conference make many assumptions about Federal programs. The only binding assumption which came out of what we did here in the Senate and in the House is the assumption that affects civilian-applied research with regard to the domestic discretionary spending cap. In fiscal year 1995, this current year, that cap is $257 billion for total domestic discretionary spending. Under the Senate version of the budget in 2002, it will be $234 billion, or a 10-percent reduction. That is a 10- percent reduction coupled with 7 years of no inflationary adjustment. Under the House version, the domestic discretionary spending total in 2002 is even lower. In the House version, it will be $229 billion. If civilian research is treated on average like all other programs in this larger category, this domestic discretionary spending category, which I would assume is really the best case that we could hope for, if that were to be the case, then that research and development funding would be cut 30 percent in real terms. If other programs, such as highway funding, law enforcement, and veterans programs are protected from cuts when funding is finally allocated by the Appropriations Committees, the cuts in research and development could reach 40 percent in real terms. Mr. President, I am tempted to ask what the research community in this country has done or failed to do to deserve this type of treatment at this stage in our Nation's history. The research community won the cold war for us. They put men on the moon, they revolutionized medicine, they invented computers, they pioneered electronics and semiconductor devices. They invented a myriad of new materials that have fundamentally changed our lives. This is just as Vannevar Bush, who was one of the giants in the post- World War II generation in science, predicted in his report, ``Science: The Endless Frontier,'' about half a century ago. Bush had the wisdom to know nearly 50 years ago that new scientific and technological fields would emerge that he could not yet imagine --semiconductor electronics, for example, or molecular biology and the material sciences, just to name three. Bush had the vision to see that Federal investments in science and technology could transform our lives and contribute to our health and the standard of living and the security of all Americans. Federal investment in civilian research and development did not cause the Federal deficit. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Mr. President, here is a chart that I want to direct my colleagues' attention to. It shows civilian research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product during the 40-year period from 1961 through the year 2001 or 2002. In 1969, which is the last Federal budget that we had that was in balance, Federal civilian research spending was .76 percent of gross domestic product, about in this range. With the sole exception of the Bush administration, it has trended lower for the last quarter of a century. In 1995, it is estimated at about .46 percent of gross domestic product, the same as it was in 1992. In the year 2002, under this budget resolution that passed both the House and now a different one in the Senate, but the same in this regard, in the year 2002, it will be about .27 percent under these Republican budgets. That assumes the best case, as I mentioned earlier; that is, that research is treated on averages the same as other domestic discretionary programs. It is not just that our civilian research investments have not caused our current deficit. More importantly, there is almost universal recognition that these investments have paid for themselves many times over by the growth that they have contributed to our economy. It is not an accident that American industries, from aerospace to agriculture to electronics to pharmaceuticals, enjoy world leadership. Federal civilian research investments are truly investments in the Nation's future. Mr. President, in my view, it is folly to be cutting them to this extent over the next 7 years as we enter this new century. The cuts in Federal support for civilian research will almost surely not be made up in the private sector. The Wall Street Journal on May 22 reported on deep cuts being made by AT&T, by General Electric, by IBM, Kodak, Texaco, and Xerox in their research budgets. The reason: Private-sector firms have an ever narrower focus and an ever greater unwillingness to invest in long-term research projects, the benefits of which are uncertain, and usually the benefits of which are not capturable by any single firm alone. The governments of our major economic rivals, Japan and Germany, recognize the importance of civilian research investments. Let me show you another chart, Mr. President. This chart compares the three countries in 1992. It shows that in 1992, the German Government invested .9 percent of gross domestic product that year in civilian research, over in the right. The Japanese Government invested .5 percent, directly and indirectly. Neither [[Page S7655]] country shows any sign that it is joining us in planning to slash investment in research spending. It is quite the opposite. They and the other industrial countries around the world are seeking to emulate the successful American model of the last half century in science and technology, just as we seem bent on abandoning that model. Our research universities, our Federal laboratories, and our investments in small business research and innovation are the envy of the world. Under the Republican budgets, we risk losing a generation of research and of young researchers, since the best students will be diverted to other professions by the grim job prospects awaiting them in research careers. Mr. President, it is worthwhile to ask how we got ourselves into this fix, and how we can get out of it. That is something I believe will be discussed here in the coming months as we talk about these budgets. What we have seen over the last 2 years is the almost complete fracturing of bipartisan consensus which was forged during the Reagan and Bush administrations on the appropriate Federal role in civilian research and development. The consensus was that the Federal role should stop at precompetitive development activity, which should be conducted on a cost-shared basis, with industry putting up at least half the money. One test of the precompetitive nature of the research was whether some of our industry's intense rivals, such as Intel and Motorola, in the case of Sematech, which most of us are familiar with, could collaborate in a single effort. Everyone agreed that the Federal role should not include helping individual firms to get specific products to the commercial marketplace. Indeed, the very term, ``precompetitive development,'' was first coined by President Bush in a speech that he gave to the American Electronics Association in February of 1990. He was seeking to distinguish the technology policy that he was pursuing in his administration from the industrial policies of his predecessors in the 1970's--for example, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, supersonic transport, and the Synfuels Corporation. President Bush spoke proudly during the 1992 campaign of his efforts to expand civilian applied research through a series of new, high payoff investments in critical technologies: A high performance computing and communications initiative; an initiative to improve the manufacturing and performance of materials; an expanded program in biotechnology research; the establishment of the U.S. advanced battery consortium, which was to be funded for 4 years; a significant increase in our aeronautics research budgets; and the establishment of seven regional manufacturing technology centers for the distribution of modern manufacture of tools and know-how. This notion of what the appropriate role of the Federal Government in research is and is not was supported in numerous pieces of legislation passed since 1980 with bipartisan sponsorship and with the blessing of the Reagan and the Bush administrations. The vast majority of that legislation passed this body unanimously. Indeed, the American bipartisan consensus of 1992 on the appropriate role of Government in civilian research and development was incorporated in late 1993 into the Uruguay round subsidies code, and it is now the world norm that governments can fund the full cost of basic research, they can fund up to 75 percent of the cost of applied research that is relevant to industry and up to 50 percent of the cost of precompetitive development. They can do all of that without risking trade sanctions. Any development subsidies beyond that precompetitive stage are fully sanctionable, as they should be. Unfortunately, by late 1993, this bipartisan consensus that I have referred to had been fractured. As President Clinton and Vice President Gore pursued a science and technology policy almost identical to President Bush's and did so with real commitment, which I commend them for, our debate suddenly reverted to the sort of bumper sticker level which we had mistakenly thought was behind us. Charges of industrial policy, charges of picking winners and losers were affixed to a broad range of civilian research programs. By early this year, the bumper sticker pejorative had become corporate welfare. That is a phrase which, unfortunately, was popularized earlier this year when Secretary of Labor Bob Reich used it to refer to tax incentives, tax subsidies of various kinds. Republican leaders argued, mistakenly, that Federal support for research in areas from aeronautics to computers to health to energy to agriculture and the environment was somehow illegitimate, either because it was corporate welfare or it represented some type of industrial policy. It was merely seen as a duplication of private sector efforts. As David Sanger, who has reported on these issues for many years, pointed out in an article in the business section of the New York Times on May 23--this is a quote from his article: Such arguments underscore the sharp difference in the way technology and trade policy is dealt with in Washington and in the capitals of its major economic competitors, where trade is considered national security and ``picking winners and losers'' is a phrase with no political resonance. Mr. President, the overall budget prospects facing civilian research in this country in the years ahead demonstrate just how high a political resonance this issue seems to have taken on today, at least in some parts of the political spectrum. I do not believe this course we have charted for ourselves in these budget resolutions makes sense for the Nation, and as my colleagues know I led an effort during the debate on the budget to make spending on research, technology and related trade promotion and trade law enforcement programs a high priority in the allocation of funds for the next 7 years. The amendment would have put the Senate on record in favor of maintaining the overall fiscal year 1995 level for these programs. It would have conceded that there would be no inflationary adjustment during that period. But it would at least have tried to keep in place existing funding. It would have put the Senate on record against any net tax cuts unless we could first achieve that goal. The amendment did not seek to allocate funds within any of the various civilian research agencies. That would have been left, as it should be, to the authorizing and appropriating committees. By the year 2002, even under the amendment I offered, Federal civilian research and development investments would be at a four-decade low as a percentage either of Federal spending or of gross domestic product. Mr. President, this first chart I put up before makes that point very dramatically. It shows that we would have the lowest level of spending, the lowest percentage of spending of our gross domestic product on civilian research we have had in four decades. It would not have fixed the problem of sustaining our investments at the level that our economic competitors will be investing. Even if the amendment had been adopted, in 2002 we would still be spending slightly more than half of what the Japanese Government spends and about a third of what the German Government spends as a percentage of gross domestic product. Unfortunately, this very modest effort was defeated here on the Senate floor by a vote of 53 to 47, with all Republicans except Senator Jeffords voting in opposition and all Democrats voting in favor. I also supported a comprehensive fair-share budget, which was a substitute offered by my colleague, Senator Conrad, that would have balanced the budget while preserving funds for domestic discretionary programs. The fair-share budget provided $36 billion in additional discretionary funds in 2002 for research, education, and other priorities by limiting the growth of tax loopholes for wealthy corporations and individuals. That also failed on a 60-to-39 vote, largely along party lines. Almost a century ago, in 1899, the head of the Patent Office, Charles Duell, is purported to have proposed to close up shop at the Patent Office because, in his opinion, ``everything that can be invented has been invented.'' A half century later, Vannevar Bush laid out his starkly different vision for the Federal role in science and technology. Now, as we prepare to enter the 21st century, we face a choice between those two competing visions. Because I believe that the scientific and the technological frontier is still endless, just risk condemning our children and grandchildren to a less prosperous and less healthy and less secure future, I intend to continue fighting for Federal research investments even as we continue working toward a budget resolution. I hope we can restore the bipartisan support for these programs that was there until very recently, and I hope we can do so before serious damage is done to the programs. I am afraid this is going to take not just months but perhaps even years. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to speak. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Republicans, in particular Representative Kasich and Senator Domenici, deserve credit for focusing the attention of Congress on the great need to balance the Federal budget. The ever-growing national debt is a weight on the growth of the economy. Merely paying the interest on the debt costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year and limits the Government's ability to act effectively. I strongly support balancing the budget at the earliest possible date, and I realize that a lot of sacrifices will need to be made in order to reach a balanced budget. The Republican budget leaders in both the Senate and the House were brave enough to submit plans that call for a great deal of fiscal restraint and some hard choices. For that we should commend them. But, unfortunately for a lot of Americans and a lot of New Mexicans, the choices the Republicans have asked us to make are the wrong choices. With their eyes firmly fixed on providing tax loopholes to the rich and to providing an unspecified tax cut, the Republicans in Congress are forced to balance the budget in an unbalanced way. I am sure in coming weeks I will be criticized for not voting for the Republican budget. People will say I did not support a balanced budget. But the truth is that today I will be recorderd as having voted in favor of a balanced budget, the very same day the Republican budget passed. But the balanced budget I voted for--the Democratic alternative budget I helped craft--is a budget just as strict fiscally as the Republican budget, but fairer to seniors, students and working families. The Republican budget, in my view, is anti-working families, anti- seniors, anti-future, and anti-New Mexico. In contrast, the Fair Share Plan--formulated by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, myself and a small group of Democratic Senators--does the following: I. Achieves even greater fiscal discipline than the Republican plan A. Balances the budget (on a unified basis) by 2002, just as the Republican plan does. B. Achieves total on-budget balance (that is, without using Social Security surpluses) by 2004, or 2 years before the Republican plan does. II. Protects critical investments in our future competitiveness A. Restores non-defense discretionary spending to a hard freeze, providing almost $200 billion more than the Republican plan for critical investments in: First, education and training, second, infrastructure, third, research & development, and fourth, other areas that will boost our economic competitiveness in the 21st century. B. Freezes defense spending to the same extent as the Republican plan. III. Reduces the burden on middle class families A. Protects middle class seniors by restoring $150 billion from the Republican cuts in Medicare and Medicaid benefits. B. Restores to middle class college students and their families the full $14 billion that Republicans propose to cut from student loans and other mandatory education accounts. C. Reverses the Republican plan's cut in the earned income tax credit for lower-middle class and poor working families, by restoring $60 billion of the Republican proposal on income assistance programs. D. Only cuts $22 billion from family farm and nutrition assistance programs, $24 billion less than the Republican proposal. E. Restores half of the Republican $10 billion cuts in veterans benefits. IV. Asks the wealthy to pay some fair share of the burden of balancing the budget A. Rejects the Republican $170 billion reserve for tax cuts that will mostly benefit wealthy taxpayers. B. Asks big corporations and wealthy taxpayers (couples making over $140,000 per year, e.g.) to pay some share of the deficit reduction burden, by closing tax loopholes and by just limiting the growth in tax breaks and tax preferences for corporations and these wealthy taxpayers to inflation plus one percent (CPI + 1 percent). V. Brings all, and not just some, of the components of federal expenditures under control A. The Republican budget proposal limits Federal direct spending to less than a 25-percent increase over the form of loopholes, tax preferences, and tax breaks to increase by almost 50 percent over the next 7 years. B. The Fair Share Budget corrects this imbalance by limiting direct spending to just over 25-percent increase (cutting over $1 trillion in spending and interest over the next 7 years), but also by slowing the growth of Federal tax breaks and tax preferences to a 35-percent increase over the same period. The alternative budget requires the cutting of just 5.7 percent of a projected $4 trillion of tax expenditures over the 7 years, and limits the cuts only to wealthy corporations and wealthy taxpayers (couples earning over $140,000, e.g.). VI. Is NOT about raising anybody's taxes A. Tax preferences or tax entitlements are one of the fastest growing categories of Federal spending. The Fair Share Balanced Budget resolution does not reduce these entitlements. It only slows their growth to inflation plus 1 percent. B. The Republicans cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim, on the one hand, that the Fair Share Budget's proposed slow-down in the growth of tax entitlements for the wealthy constitutes a tax increase, but, on the other hand, claim that their slow-down in the growth of the earned income tax credit [EITC] (which is also a tax expenditure) is not a tax increase. If they claim that the Fair Share Budget includes a tax increase on the rich and big corporations, they must also admit that the Republican budget plan includes a tax increase on lower-middle class and poor working families. While not perfect, this Democratic alternative plan achieves the goal of a balanced Federal budget without asking America's working families, seniors and students to bear all of the burden. But the Republican budget does not ask the wealthiest corporations and the wealthiest Americans to contribute one dime to balance the budget. Moreover, in order to secure a $170 billion reserve for tax cuts to benefit mostly wealthy people, the Republican budget trades away investments in our future--in education, infrastructure, and research and development-- investments in our children. Remember that the main reason given for eliminating the deficit is that we are doing it for our children. But, if we free our children from the burden of the Federal deficit by depriving them of the education and training that they will need to compete and succeed in the global and technologically driven economy of the next century, then we have not been responsible. Education programs, for example, are especially important to New Mexico. My State has the third highest rate of children living in poverty of any State in the Nation. More than one in four children in New Mexico live in families with incomes below the poverty line. One- third of the students in New Mexico's schools have limited proficiency in English. Its school-age population has grown tremendously, and a 12- percent increase in New Mexico's population of school-age children is projected over the next 7 years. The Republican budget will cut programs for New Mexico's schools by about 30 percent over the next seven years; that translates into tens of millions of dollars that New Mexico's schools will have to do without as they struggle with these special problems. By cutting programs to help the children of working families go to college by nearly a third, which is being proposed by the GOP, tens of thousands of New Mexico's students could lose the opportunity to go to college. That would be devastating to their futures and to the future of our State. In New Mexico, most higher education students receive Federal financial aid, including 33,000 students who receive Pell Grants. I do not believe that America will be well-served by the Republican budget, nor do I feel that most Americans would agree with the specific proposals contained within it. And that is why I am proud to have cosponsored the fair share balanced budget alternative and to vote for it today. In conclusion, I want to remind the Senate that the passage of any budget resolution today is only the beginning of a long process that will determine the priorities of our Government. The budget is only a framework for the appropriations committees to work with as they spend the summer determining specific spending levels for agencies and programs. Throughout this process, I pledge to continue to fight for proper funding for programs that will contribute to providing educational opportunities for our children, meet the health care needs of our senior citizens, and reward work and encourage innovation in the marketplace. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Oregon. Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from Oregon. I also want to point out that the problem he identifies with medical research funding is part of a larger problem that we are trying to address in another amendment that will come up for a vote later today. That is the amendment related to civilian research more generally. The Senator from Oregon made the point that the proposed budget as it now stands in the area of medical research is a prelude to disaster. I would say that the same point could be made about civilian research generally in this country. I would address people's attention to this chart which shows Federal civilian R&D as a percentage of the gross domestic product of this country from the period 1961 through the end of the century, the last portion, of course, being the projected level of funding for civilian research and development. This chart includes the figures for the National Institutes of Health, about which the Senator from Oregon is speaking. It shows that we will be dropping to an unprecedented low in our level of support for civilian research if we go ahead with the budget as it presently stands. The amendment the Senator from Oregon proposes will cure the problem as it relates to the National Institutes of Health. The larger amendment that I have proposed with Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller and Hollings and Biden deals with the larger issue of civilian research, and it is necessary also if we are going to avoid the same kind of precipitous drop in Federal support for civilian research that is contemplated in the present budget. I thank the Senator and I support his amendment strongly.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the very distinguished floor managers of the budget resolution, Senator Domenici and Senator Exon, for their willingness to work with me on this amendment, which would establish a temporary, nonpartisan advisory commission on accounting and budgeting. I appreciate their support for the amendment, and I am grateful to their staff, Austin Smythe and Jodi Grant, who have been extremely helpful and pleasant to work with. The amendment I am proposing modifies section 305 of the resolution currently before the Senate. Section 305 recognizes that unlike most private business and state governments, no uniform Federal accounting system exists for Federal entities and institutions. This lack of uniformity contributes to the difficulty of accurately reporting the financial condition of the Federal Government and achieving a balanced Federal budget. To help rebuild accountability and credibility in the Federal Government and advance the trend toward a ``private sector'' type financial management policy, section 305 calls for a uniform Federal accounting system that is consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and proposed Federal accounting standards recommended by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. Once in place, a uniform accounting system should enable us to better assess the full cost of Federal programs and activities. Actual costs will be consistently and accurately recorded, monitored, and uniformly reported by all government entities for budgeting and control and management evaluation. Mr. President, I believe to achieve the commendable goals set forth in section 305, we first must address the issue of the treatment of capital expenditures for Federal accounting and budgeting purposes. Private businesses throughout the country and many States already have in place accounting systems and budgets that deal with capital expenditures in realistic terms. I believe we in the Federal Government can learn from their experiences. I am proposing the establishment of a temporary advisory commission on accounting and budgeting that would study and make recommendations on the appropriate treatment of capital expenditures under a uniform Federal accounting system that is consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. Commission members, to be appointed on a nonpartisan basis, would include public and private experts in the fields of finance, economics, accounting, and related professions. By August 1, 1995, the Commission would report its recommendations to the President and the Congress. In the report, Commission members would set forth a detailed plan for implementation of their recommendations. It is my hope that if the Commission includes a recommendation on the use of a capital budget, its report will specify the components of such a budget in the context of a unified, balanced Federal budget. I understand many of my colleagues currently oppose the use of a Federal capital budget. I believe that as we take steps to streamline the Federal Government, improve efficiency, and operate Federal systems in a manner more consistent with the private sector, all options should be reexamined and given a fresh analysis. In my view, this is particularly relevant in the context of section 305 of the budget resolution, which as I stated earlier, calls for a uniform Federal accounting system consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. Mr. President, the commission I am advocating can serve a very important service to the Nation. The Commission will examine, in an objective, nonpartisan forum, the treatment of capital expenditures and long-term investments in the context of a uniform Federal accounting system. By reporting on this work to the President and the Congress within the time frame specified in the amendment, which I calculate to be before final reconciliation of the fiscal year 1996 Federal budget, the Commission's recommendations could serve as the basis for resolution of some the serious and divisive problems we in the Congress have encountered, and will continue to encounter, as we work through the budget process. I look forward to the results of the Commission's work, and again, I thank the distinguished floor managers of the resolution for their assistance with this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to speak just briefly on an amendment that I will be offering, along with Senators Lieberman, Rockefeller, Biden, Hollings, Byrd, and Kerry from Massachusetts for a vote later on today. The amendment attempts to restore some of the funds that are proposed to be eliminated in the civilian research and development accounts. This amendment is attempting to retain as much as we can of the U.S. science and technology enterprise which has brought such great results to our country and to the world. This chart, I believe, sums it up very well. This shows what has happened to Federal civilian research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product from 1960 until the end of this century if we were to take the budget proposal that is now pending on the Senate floor. As you can see, under the proposed GOP budget, there will be an additional dramatic drop off in Federal support for civilian research and development. This includes the National Institutes of Health funding which we earlier had a vote on, but it also includes many other areas of funding that the Federal Government supports in the research and development area. You can see the last year we had a balanced budget in this country, about 1968-1969, we were spending something in the range of 0.7 of our gross domestic product on civilian research and development. If this budget is adopted, we will be spending less than 0.3 percent, less than half of that. We will be spending substantially less as a country than our competitors in other parts of the world. I believe our amendment is important. I know Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller intend to speak on it later, as well. I have used my time and I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that it should be a high priority to maintain the overall fiscal year 1995 investment level, without adjustment for inflation, in research, technology, trade promotion, and trade law enforcement programs over the next 7 years. The amendment further expresses the sense of the Senate that the conferees should not agree to any tax cuts below current law unless the discretionary spending limits in the conference report permit the achievement of the above goal. The GOP budget will reduce civilian research and technology programs to a four decade low as a percentage of GDP and Federal spending. By 2002, Federal civilian research will be 0.26 percent of gross domestic product. The Bingaman amendment would effectively urge that this be raised to 0.31 percent of GDP. For comparison purposes in 1969, the last year we balanced the budget, civilian research was 0.76 percent of GDP. The lowest it ever was in the Reagan years was 0.38 percent of GDP in 1986. It is currently 0.46 percent of GDP. No one can claim that it is research that has caused our deficit. Quite the contrary. Almost every economist believes our investments in civilian research pay for themselves many times over in economic growth and the taxes that corporations pay on the fruits of our federally supported scientific enterprise. The governments of other industrialized nations, such as Japan and Germany, invest about six-tenths of 1 percent of GDP in civilian research. We are already below them, even if you include the Pentagon's dual-use basic and applied research investments. And we are pointing under the GOP budget to spending less than half of what our economic rivals spend. The cuts in Federal support of civilian research will not be made up by the private sector. The reason: they have an ever-shorter focus and an ever greater unwillingness to invest in long-term research projects, the benefits of which are uncertain and usually not capturable by a single firm. Every other nation is following the American model of the last half century. They are seeking to invest more, not less, in civilian research. Our model has succeeded. It put men on the Moon, revolutionized medicine, developed computers, communications, and advanced materials unimagined a half century ago. Vannevar Bush, the giant of the post-World War II generation, predicted just this in his monograph ``Science: the Endless Frontier'' that served as the basis of a social compact between government and the research community for the last half century. For the past half century, the Federal Government has acted on that vision to foster a science and technology enterprise in this country second to none. Government research funds have helped conquer diseases, win the cold war, and spur incredible advances in electronics, computers, molecular biology, communications, and materials science. These advances enrich our daily lives and are at the heart of our nation's status as an economic and military superpower. 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. As we enter the 21st century, we can not afford a Luddite approach. The scientific and technogical frontier is still endless. We risk condemning our children and grandchildren to a less prosperous, less healthy, and less secure future if we follow the course in the budget resolution. The Bingaman amendment is intended to provoke a debate and to serve as a warning. It does not fix the problem. Even if its prescription is followed, we will still be spending half of what our rivals spend in 2002. But it is a step in the right direction, a finger in a breaking dike. If action is not taken to deal with this, we will lose a generation of research and a generation of young researchers who will choose other professions. We will not be able to recover for years from this damage once the pendulum swings back in favor of Federal research investments as it will when the full damage of the GOP budget becomes clear. Almost a century ago in 1899 the head of the Patent Office, Charles Duell, proposed to close up shop because ``everything that can be invented has been invented.'' Luckily we did not follow such Know- Nothing advice as we prepared for the 20th century. A half century later Vannevar Bush laid out his vision for the Federal role in science and technology. Now we face a choice again between these competing visions, Duell's and Bush's. We must reject the notion the endless frontier is over, that every invention has been made, and continue to commit to a brighter future for our children. We cannot afford to short-change research if the 21st century is to be an American century as the 20th century was. I ask unanimous consent that several newspaper articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak on the Harkin-Hollings amendment during the remainder of this time between now and the beginning of the debate on that amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do not think anybody disagrees that we need to reduce dramatically the portion of our revenues that we expend on interest on the national debt. There is no disagreement that the current level of debt which was built up particularly in the 1980's and early parts of this decade needs to be brought under control. The interest on that debt is robbing us of the ability to invest in our children and in our future. We need to bring our annual deficits down to zero. We need to start to reduce the underlying debt in order to ensure that our children are not saddled with the interest burden that we bear today. [[Page S7082]] Mr. President, we can go about this task in a shortsighted way by just cutting programs, including education and training programs and investments in our future, and reducing taxes at the same time--that is essentially what the Budget Committee has proposed. It said we shall cut programs, we shall take the savings from those cuts and reserve them for a tax cut . Or we can take the responsible and long-term and comprehensive approach that the Harkin-Hollings amendment will propose. That amendment restores funding to the function of the budget that provides for education and training, including student loans. If we free our children from the burden of the Federal debt only by depriving them of the education and training they will need to compete and succeed in the global and technologically driven economy of the next century, then we have not been responsible. All we have done is trade one burden, which is debt payments, for another, which is inadequate skills. The budget resolution which has been presented does just that. It is anti-working-families and anti-seniors and anti- future. What the Harkin-Hollings amendment does is to take the $170 billion the committee has identified and earmarked for a tax cut, and applies $40 billion of that to restore some of the funding that has been cut by the Republican budget in the areas of education and training. The $40 billion is still far short of what we should be restoring to that vital function, but it will help significantly. When given the choice of a tax cut, which will go largely to wealthy taxpayers--at least the blueprint that the House has announced clearly intends that--or reinvestment in education and training for working citizens and for our neediest children, I do not think we should hesitate for a moment to forego the cut in taxes and seek the longer term benefit that we will reap from educating our children. Let me make one thing very clear. The Budget Committee resolution does drastically cut education and training programs. I have heard various proponents for the budget say that all they are doing is restraining the growth in spending and not really cutting. That argument does not apply to the budget for education. The GOP budget does provide for less funding in 1996 than we are spending in 1995. It provides for a decreasing amount thereafter. Over 7 years, 25 percent is taken out of the level of funding for these programs, the level that they receive today, when you measure that in constant dollars. Furthermore, the GOP figures make no adjustment for the fact that the population is growing. There will be 9 percent more children of school age in the next 7 years in this country. In my home State of New Mexico, the estimate is there will be 12 percent more children in school. But the GOP budget does not take into account that increase in the school age population. So the effect of the budget is to make States stretch dollars with a shrinking value over an increasing number of students. Let me be specific. My State of New Mexico has the third highest rate of child poverty of any State in the country. More than 1 in 4 children in my State live in families with incomes below the poverty line. One- third of the students in New Mexico's schools have limited proficiency in English. Our school-age population has grown tremendously. It has grown much faster than the school-age population in most parts of the country, and that growth is anticipated to continue. Against this background, we are facing actual decreases in funds for the programs that serve our students. The title I program, formerly known as chapter 1, provides about $850 per disadvantaged student to help them meet high standards in math and in reading. That is the 1995 number, the current fiscal year, before the rescission that we have voted on and that the President has indicated he will veto. The Budget Committee chairman has expressed an intent, expressed in this budget resolution, that title I funds not be cut but instead be frozen. If that intent is carried out by the appropriators and title I in fact is not cut the way that other education programs will be cut, the result for New Mexico is not that we will enjoy ``level funding'' of the program; no, it will mean that we receive the same number of dollars each year for the program. Those same number of dollars will buy less and less as the 7 years progress and the costs of education-- supplies, teacher salaries, and energy costs--all increase. So even if our population did not grow, we would be facing a decrease in the real buying power of the Federal dollars for education. But, of course, the population is growing. It is expected to grow over 12 percent in the next 7 years. So instead of 88,000 children being eligible for title I services in my State, as is the case today, there will be almost 99,000 eligible students by the year 2002. Today we serve 73 percent of the students eligible for title I. In 2002, that percentage will decline considerably to near 50 percent. That will mean almost 50,000 poor children from New Mexico who will not receive the services they need to meet high standards that we are setting for our children. It is clear that if the funding is frozen to 1995 levels, then almost 4 million needy children will be denied assistance nationwide. If programs are cut at even 25 percent across the board, then title I would leave another 1 million children unserved. What I just described assumes that title I will not be cut and that that proposal to not cut title I is carried out. If that assumption is correct, then all of the other programs will have to be cut drastically in order to achieve the overall decrease in the budget category that this budget requires. What are some of those other programs? Technology is one of the programs. The current programs which are attempting to bring technology to the classroom will have to be cut. Mr. President, these programs are very, very limited at the present time. In 1995, we have committed $40 million to this effort, assuming the rescission bill does not pass. But even that would be seriously jeopardized if this budget resolution is adopted. The Star Schools Program, again, would face a drastic cut. Obviously, we cannot tell just what the appropriators will do. The Star Schools Program tries to bring distance learning, technology-based education to our neediest schools, especially those in isolated rural areas, and those funds will likely be cut as well. Because of the nature of Federal programs--which are usually targeted to the neediest students--withdrawal of Federal aid will hurt those States that are least able to make up the shortfall themselves. New Mexico is one of those States. Let me talk for just a moment about higher education funding, Mr. President. The budget includes a $14 billion cut in student loan aid and an undetermined cut in Pell grants. Mr. President, Pell grants are critical to students in my State. I noted above that the poverty rate in my State is among the highest in the Nation. The way out of poverty is education. Yet many of our citizens are not able to afford that education. They depend upon Pell grants. They depend upon work-study and Stafford loans and State aid to pay for the increased cost of higher education. The GOP budget says that the Pell grants will remain at current funding--at least that is the apparent intent--but what does it mean? It means that the total Pell grant funding will remain at 1995 levels with no cuts or increase through the year 2002. That would mean that real funding, measured in constant dollars, would decline by reason of the growth of student population and by reason of inflation. Today, about 33,000 students in New Mexico receive Pell grants. I think it is pretty obvious that this budget is going to either cut the amount these students receive in Pell grants or result in a much smaller percentage of our young people who are eligible to apply and receive those Pell grants. It is clear to me that the budget is going to have a profound impact on students in my home State, even if you look just at the students who receive these Pell grants. When you look at other programs, you have to come to the same conclusion. The Federal work study program provides about $5.4 million in grants to 6,300 students in our State. The Federal supplemental opportunity grant program serves 6,500 students in our State. [[Page S7083]] Perkins loans serve over 5,000 students in New Mexico. The numbers they have provided in this budget resolution point in one direction, Mr. President. The numbers indicate that the Stafford program will not be impaired, but if, in fact, we are going to save the $14 billion that is contemplated in the budget resolution, we are going to have to cut that program. We are going to have to charge interest to those students from the time they take those loans just as the House has proposed to do. Mr. President, the proposal before us has as its purpose to cut the deficit. Clearly, we need to accomplish that. I am proud of the deficit reduction we have accomplished in the last 2 years. I am sorry we did not have the same zeal for deficit reduction by many of my colleagues when those votes were being cast in the last few years. But cutting investment in education and training for our children is not the right way to accomplish deficit reduction. If this Nation is to remain the world leader in the 21st century, we cannot cut investments in our most important resource; that is, in our children. The effect of this amendment that Senators Harkin and Hollings are offering would be to reduce the size of the proposed tax cut by $40 billion so we can return some reasonable level of support for education and training. It is an amendment that makes excellent sense for the future of America. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, to restore $100 billion of the $426 billion proposed cuts in the Medicare and Medicaid programs over the next 7 years. Mr. President, virtually everyone--Members of Congress, the President, program administrators and even current beneficiaries of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs--agree that changes, including slower spending, need to be made to the current system. The cost of health care is growing too fast and too high. Medicare, for example, currently is expanding by more than 10 percent per year, or three times CPI. These escalating costs simply are unsustainable. President Clinton and many of us here in Congress spent 2 years trying to deal with this problem in a responsible, comprehensive way. Had we been successful, the Medicare Program would be more secure and access to affordable health care would have been a reality for all Americans, young and old alike. But at the time, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were not interested in working with us to help make the Medicare Program secure. We heard repeatedly that there was no crisis, no need for Congress to act. So here we are, with the Medicare Program in real trouble and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee proposing to save it by cutting the program $256 billion over 7 years. Along with the Medicare cuts are $170 billion in cuts to the Medicaid program, which often serves as a long-term care safety net for seniors and the disabled. My first question is ``What do cuts of this magnitude mean to my homestate of New Mexico?'' Unfortunately, Mr. President, States like New Mexico are going to be hit especially hard. This is due to a combination of factors: First, New Mexico has a growing senior population. Second, New Mexico has a high poverty rate; a high rate of seniors living in or near poverty; and low per capita income level. Third, New Mexico's hospitals and providers are heavily dependent on Medicare and Medicaid revenue, more so than most other States. senior population--dependency on medicare In New Mexico, more than 212,000 seniors, disabled children, and disabled adults currently depend on Medicare. By 2002, more than 257,000 New Mexicans are anticipated to be eligible for the program. Looking at seniors alone, New Mexico's over-65 population grew by 37.8 percent between 1980 and 1990. The senior population is expected to grow by another 11 percent by 2000--to 204,000--and by more than 21 percent by 2010--to 247,000. Our over-65 growth rate, which is currently at 11 percent, is one of the highest in the country. What do the proposed cuts mean to these seniors? According to an AARP study, to the average Medicare beneficiary in New Mexico it means $3,237 more in out-of-pocket expenses over the next 7 years, or $462 per person per year. This is $462 per person more in higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher copays, and more services not covered. seniors in poverty--tie between medicare and medicaid A cost shift of this type is especially tough on New Mexico's seniors and their families because so many in my State are living at or near poverty. In fact, at 22.4 percent, New Mexico has one of the highest poverty rates in the country. One in every five New Mexicans--including about 26,000 seniors--lives in poverty. Mr. President, the majority of my constituents are barely making ends meet today. And then along comes the majority in Congress with an significant increase in the obligation of beneficiaries--all beneficiaries, regardless of income level--to pay more out-of-pocket for their health care. How can poor, elder New Mexicans possibly come up with an additional $3,200 for their health care? The simple answer is that they will not be able to. Through the Medicaid Program, the State typically would pick up the extra cost. But to do so, the State must raise additional revenue, either by cutting services elsewhere or by raising taxes. Under the budget plan before us today, the situation is even more grim for the States: before even beginning to address the new costs they will face, States must first come up with revenue to cover the initial shortfall they will face from the $170 billion in proposed cuts to the Medicaid Program itself. If New Mexico or any other State will not or cannot raise the revenue needed to keep the safety net in place without Federal assistance, the results will be tragically clear: hundreds of seniors will have to go without health care; and hundreds of families will be forced to shoulder even more of the costs and burdens of providing long-term care for an elderly parent or relative. Those least able to afford it and most vulnerable among us--the very poor, frail elderly--will be hurt most. The very bad news does not end there, however. I want to turn for a moment to the situation facing seniors with income levels above the poverty line. In New Mexico, our per capita income is $14,709, or more than $5,000 below the national average. Per capita income for New Mexico's seniors is even lower, estimated at around $12,000 per year by AARP, with between 20-25 percent being spent on health care. If Senator Rockefeller's amendment does not pass, the message to New Mexico's seniors will be that they will have to spend even more on their health care. The Senate will be telling New Mexico's seniors that they must spend more of their $12,000 to $14,000 annual income on health care. To many, this will simply be impossible. I have just described the impact of the proposed Medicare cuts on New Mexico's Medicare beneficiaries. The adverse impact on our State does not stop there. Just as the cuts hurt New [[Page S7073]] Mexico seniors more than seniors in many other States--because many of our seniors are living at or near poverty and our per capita income level is low--the cuts will also hit New Mexico's hospitals and health care providers harder than hospitals and providers in other States. new mexico's hospitals and providers The proposed Medicare and Medicaid cuts will be tough on our hospitals and providers, particularly in rural areas, because they are disproportionately dependent on Medicare and Medicaid for their revenue. Most NM hospitals/providers depend on the programs for 70 to 80 percent or more of their revenue. Nationally, 60 percent or less of all revenue comes from Medicare and Medicaid. A hospital with a 60 percent or lower Medicare revenue share can compensate for lost Medicare-Medicaid dollars by cost-shifting to private insurers. NM hospitals and providers cannot. They depend on reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid. Even a slight cut to rural providers could represent a serious financial threat to the providers and a very real threat to health care for rural New Mexicans. Mr. President, I believe we can find a more equitable way to achieve the kind of savings and fiscal accountability we need. We can agree, for example, that we can develop ways for fairly changing many variables contributing to higher health care costs. Fraud, waste, and inefficiency can all be identified, targeted, and changed. We can improve case management, increase use of cost-effective, quality managed care where appropriate, and focus more on prevention and early detection. I believe the amendment put forth by Senator Rockefeller represents a more equitable, more reasonable approach to the challenges we face. I will support it, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Anna Garcia, a fellow in my office, be allowed floor privileges during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment addresses a problem of increasing urgency in my part of the country, my home State of New Mexico. That is, the disposition of solid waste, along the United States-Mexico border. As the United States and Mexico move further into their trade relationship under the North American Free-Trade Agreement, increased development along the border is inevitable. With that development comes new challenges regarding the transport and disposal of solid waste. This is not just an issue for the Governments of the United States and Mexico, it is also an issue for the four border States of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. It is one that we need to deal with in this legislation, and capitalize on the opportunity offered by NAFTA. We are going to have to plan for this increased development. This means conducting necessary research on the scope of the problem. The amendment authorizes the Administrator of EPA to conduct a study of solid waste management issues associated with this increased use of the area along the border, in order that States and localities can properly plan for waste treatment, transportation, storage and disposal. The study will address six key issues. First, planning for additional landfill capacity; second, related impact on border communities of a regional siting of solid waste storage and disposal facilities; third, research on methods of tracking the transportation of materials to and from industries located along the border; fourth, the need for materials safety training for workers; fifth, the adequacy of existing emergency response networks in the border region; sixth, a review of solid waste management practices in the entire border region. It is my expectation that the Administrator, in order to fulfill the requirements of the amendment, would enter into contractual agreements with other entities such as States and universities and university consortia. Mr. President, I am convinced in the long run NAFTA will prove to be a good movement, a good initiative for economic opportunities for my home State of New Mexico and for the entire border region. This is only true if we manage these opportunities correctly and deal with the potential health and environment problems that the increased development will bring. This amendment helps to do that. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I understand the amendment has been reviewed by both the manager and the ranking member, and that this amendment is accepted.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 956, the Product Liability Act of 1995. I have closely followed the debate on this legislation over the past 2 weeks and I have come to the conclusion that despite the efforts of many of this Chamber, including my good friend from West Virginia, to craft a balanced bill, the bill we are voting on today falls short of that goal. Mr. President, the issues we have debated over the course of the past 2 weeks are complex and far reaching. Contrary to what some would have the American public believe, the solutions to the problems facing our legal system cannot be explained away in 30-second sound bites or by anecdotal evidence. Each day throughout this country, judges and juries struggle to determine what is meant by justice, and, I believe in the vast majority of cases, these people, our neighbors, friends, coworkers and family, do a remarkable job of determining what is fair and what is just. I have supported reforms to our legal system in the past and was prepared to support a reasonable reform measure at the end of this debate. I am a cosponsor of S. 240, the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, authored by my colleagues from New Mexico and Connecticut. I have supported my own State's efforts at reform in the area of product liability and medical malpractice, and I worked with my colleagues on the Labor and Human Resources Committee last year to fashion reasonable medical malpractice reform during the health care reform debate. Last week, I voted for an amendment by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, that was a reasonable approach to medical malpractice reform and would have protected the rights of States such as New Mexico to enact their own reform. Indeed, a proposal that would have significantly improved this legislation was considered by Senator Breaux. This amendment would have created a truly uniform statute of repose and addressed the concerns about the elimination of joint and several liability in a reasoned and balanced matter. The amendment also would have allowed a jury to determine whether or not punitive damages are warranted in a particular case and would have allowed the judge to determine the amount of punitive damages that should be awarded. Unfortunately, Senator Breaux did not have the opportunity to offer his amendment and the Senate did not have the opportunity to debate it as a result of cloture being invoked yesterday. I have come to the conclusion that the bill that we vote on today tilts the scales too heavily against protection of the rights of injured victims and against just punishment of dangerous practices. Also, Mr. President, I am concerned about the provision limiting the award of punitive damages in cases filed against a small business. I take a back seat to no one in my concern for small businesses and have worked throughout my career in the Senate to promote the growth and prosperity of small businesses especially in my home State. However, the provision contained in this bill is not well considered; I am afraid that it would lead to more litigation, not less, and arbitrarily eliminate the opportunity for injured plaintiffs to recover fair and just compensation for damages inflicted as a result of conscious and flagrant indifference to their safety. That is what we are talking about Mr. President, not simply a mistake, but a conscious and flagrant indifference to the safety of consumers. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, and my friend from Washington, Senator Gorton, that I commend them for their efforts during this debate to bring reason to our deliberations. I know that they have worked diligently and in good faith to develop meaningful and balanced legislation in this area. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the bill before us reaches those objectives and for that reason I intend to vote against this bill and urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few statements about the occasion of May 8, 1995, V-E Day. It is rather difficult to think of any event in the life of a nation more worthy of commemoration than the end of a world war. Remembrance and reflection are crucial if we are to maintain our sense of purpose as a nation, and our appreciation of what we value most. The service and sacrifice of those who bore the battle at home and overseas in the Second World War can never be overstated. It was that willingness to give unstintingly not only of effort but also, in many cases, their lives, that makes the war years such an extraordinary period in our Nation's history. Americans who fought the war came from every State in the country, and my home State of New Mexico certainly did its part. Our own friends and neighbors were heroic in their actions, in their service, and in their struggle. If not for their efforts, what would the world be like today? Franklin Roosevelt, whose death 50 years ago we commemorated on the 12th of last month, left a monumental legacy for this country. Words from a speech that he wrote for delivery on April 13, 1945, had he lived to give that speech, still sound out a challenge, one rooted in the experience of the war and pinned to his knowledge of his countrymen. He wrote for that speech: The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith. We did that in the Second World War. So we must, every day, move forward now from the conflict that threatened to consume the world half a century ago. Without the service and the sacrifice that we honor today, we would have had no future as a nation. It is our obligation to those who secured that future for us to build on it as we approach the new century. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I first want to say a few words about our policy toward a neighboring country, Cuba. The United States objectives in Cuba are not in dispute. Our primary objective is to move Cuba to a more democratic form of government and to a government with a greater respect for human rights. Also, of course, we want to see the lives of the Cuban people improve economically, and we want to see our historically close ties with this island neighbor restored. First, let us review some of the facts that led us to the present circumstances we find ourselves in. Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba some 34 years ago, when I was still in high school and before several Members of this Congress were even born. He quickly established an authoritarian and anti-United States regime. He declared himself a Marxist-Leninist in December 1961. Early in 1961, the United States broke diplomatic relations with Cuba. A year later, in February 1962, we imposed a comprehensive trade embargo. The reasons cited for that were three. First, Castro's expropriation without compensation, much property owned by U.S. citizens, in excess of $1 billion. Second, the Castro regime's obvious efforts to export revolution to other parts of the world. And, third, the increasingly close ties that existed then between Castro's Government and the Soviet Union. That was 33 years ago. During the past 33 years, we have maintained the trade embargo in place. In April 1961, we tried unsuccessfully in the Bay of Pigs to have Castro overthrown militarily. We began in 1985 to use Radio Marti to undermine Cuban support for Fidel Castro, and in the Bush administration just a few years ago we added TV Marti to the mix, as well. In 1992, we passed the Cuban Democracy Act in an effort to tighten our trade sanctions. This year, we are being urged by some in this body to pass a new and tough measure entitled [[Page S6234]] ``The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act'' in order to give Castro what the supporters of that legislation refer to as the ``final push.'' With all due respect to President Clinton and to many here in Congress, our policy toward Cuba today is still captive of the cold war mentality that created it in the first place. Simply put, the world has changed, and we continue to pretend otherwise. Mr. President, this is 1995. Our 34-year-old policy of trying to remove or alter the behavior of Fidel Castro by isolating him diplomatically, politically, and economically has failed. History has passed that policy by. And the cold war, which provided much of the rationale for our policy, is now over. We have normalized relations with China--Communist China, I point out. We have normalized relations with the countries of Eastern Europe and Russia, and with all the former States of the Soviet Union. This morning, President Clinton goes to Moscow to meet with Boris Yeltsin, not to find ways to isolate Moscow or to impose sanctions on Moscow for their human rights abuses in Chechnya or elsewhere; our President travels to Moscow to strengthen our relations with that important country. Mr. President, U.S. policy toward Cuba needs to adjust to this new reality, just as our policy toward those other nations has adjusted. For over three decades, we have tried to exclude Cuba from acceptance by other nations. But our policy of trying to isolate Cuba diplomatically has made the United States the odd man out in the world community rather than Cuba. Of the 35-member nations of the Organization of American States, all but 5 recognize the Cuban Government and have normal diplomatic relations with it. The Senator from North Carolina, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argues that the way out of this absurd situation is to turn up the pressure on Castro. As he says, ``It is time to give Castro the final push.'' Mr. President, the sanctions and the embargoes and the pressure that we put on Castro in the past 34 years have not undermined the support of the Cuban people for his Government as we have wished. In fact, a strong case can be made that the constant menacing by Uncle Sam has been used very effectively by Castro to divert the attention of the Cuban people from the shortcomings of his own Government and his own policies. Mr. President, this administration has been slow to face the need to change in our policy toward Cuba. But last week, we hopefully saw the beginning of a more rational policy toward that nation. Last week, the administration announced that in the future, illegal immigrants from Cuba will be treated as other illegal immigrants into this country, and I for one hope that more steps will follow. For example, as I stated here in the Senate several weeks ago, I believe the President should act to end the travel ban on Americans who wish to travel to Cuba. The President should also restore the right of Cuban-Americans to make small remittances to their families and to their relatives in Cuba. In my view, the time has also come when we should begin to normalize trade relations with that country. Mr. President, I realize that it is politically difficult to change a long-established policy. It is especially difficult given the political posturing that is preceding our upcoming Presidential election. But the time has come to acknowledge that our current policy toward Cuba has failed miserably. Newt Gingrich referred yesterday to Cuba as ``a relic of an age that is gone.'' I agree that Castro's Government is an anachronism. But it is no more so than our own misguided policy for dealing with that country. Most agree that President Nixon's greatest achievement was his decision to change United States foreign policy and move toward normal relations with Communist China. That was many years ago, when the cold war was still very much with us. Now the cold war is over, and a new and a reasonable policy for our relations with Cuba is long overdue. I for one believe that the responsible course for us to proceed with is to establish a new policy now.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for up to 15 minutes, until I conclude my statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to take final action on H.R. 1158, I rise to draw the attention of my colleagues to the provisions of the bill and the Dole-Daschle amendment making rescissions in U.S. foreign policy programs. Along with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Simpson, Chafee, Simon, and others, I believe a direct and substantial benefit flows to the United States from our modest investment in sustainable development and population efforts. I am pleased the Senate bill rejects specific cuts to these vital programs and instead attempts to minimize harm to on-going, cost- effective foreign assistance programs. Mr. President, I disagree with certain provisions of the bill before us. Nonetheless, I want to commend the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Democrat of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senators Hatfield and Byrd, and the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Senators McConnell and Leahy, for their very commendable effort to make equitable rescissions in U.S. foreign policy programs. It is significant that the cuts recommended by the Foreign Operations Subcommittee are not based on a fundamental dislike for particular programs. Nor are they driven by a belief that one or two foreign aid programs are unnecessary. Rather, the Subcommittee's recommendation of $100 million in general reductions to programs within its jurisdiction reflects the laudable belief that deficit reduction can be achieved in a manner which minimizes harm to all programs. Over the next few weeks, as my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee take this bill to conference with the House, I urge them to remain firmly committed to the Subcommittee's goal of making equitable rescissions in foreign policy programs. More specifically, I urge them to resist House efforts to target and cut vital population and development programs. Under the House-passed bill, population and development programs would disproportionately bear the burden of foreign policy rescissions. Development assistance would be cut by $45.5 million and population assistance would be targeted for $9 million in cuts. In my view, these cuts are extremely shortsighted. In the long- term, they could end up costing the U.S. far more than we would save in fiscal year 1995. The Senate should remain firm in its commitment to making foreign policy rescissions that are rationale and fair, and the House rescissions should be rejected in Conference. From my perspective, attention to global population issues and support for world-wide development is critical to our future successes here in the United States. Because I so strongly believe this, I joined with Senator Simpson--and Congressman Beilenson and Congresswoman Morella--to introduce legislation called the ``International Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Care Act,'' S. 1096, in the 103rd Congress. Our bill, which we are revising for re-introduction in this Congress, would have focused U.S. world population stabilization; encourage global economic development and self-determination; and improve the health and well-being of women and their children. I believe these three objectives are inextricably tied to one another. The way I see it, all U.S. efforts to help develop economies and promote democracy around the world will be futile if we do not first address the staggering rate of global population growth. How can we expect under-developed countries to pull themselves up when the world's population is growing at a rate of more than 10,000 people per hour? When the women and men who make up a nation's workforce 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? Fortunately, national and international awareness of two fundamental concepts is growing: (1) population, poverty, patterns of production and consumption, and the environment are so closely interconnected that none can be considered in isolation; and (2) sustained economic growth, sustainable development and population are fundamentally dependent on advances in the education, economic status and empowerment of women. Tonight, we in the Senate are re-affirming these principles, and we are rejecting the House's attempt to drag U.S. foreign policy backwards. I sincerely hope the Senate conferees carry this message into Conference. I urge them not to waiver from the Senate's position on this issue. amendment no. 445

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment by Senator Daschle, and I am doing so primarily because of my belief that we should not make as drastic cuts in the education accounts as the majority leader would have the Senate make. Let me put this in context, Mr. President. I know there is a lot of talk about, are you in favor of deficit reduction, or are you not in favor of deficit reduction? I honestly believe that all Members are in favor of deficit reduction here in the Senate. We want to find an appropriate way to accomplish that. In my opinion, the test of whether we are serious about deficit reduction will come in two areas. First, our willingness to curtail spending in a whole range of areas--not just the areas being addressed by this bill, but all areas-- defense, intelligence, community funding, agricultural subsidy funding, foreign aid funding, as well as the domestic accounts. Entitlements are a key part, when we are serious about constraining spending. The second area in the test of whether we are serious is whether or not we will reject the siren call to cut taxes. There is a major effort, on the other side of the Hill this week to try to go ahead and cut everybody's taxes, particularly the taxes of the wealthy. In my view, that is not a responsible action if we are serious about deficit reduction. It does not make any sense to give speech after speech after speech here in the Congress about our concern about the deficit and then turn around and cut taxes and reduce the revenue that the Government is receiving to keep that deficit from escalating. Those are the real issues. Now I want to talk for a few moments about the impact of the proposed rescissions on education, because I believe very strongly that not only should we try to maintain funding in education but wherever possible we should try to increase funding. As I travel around my State, Mr. President, and ask people in town hall meetings, ``What percentage of the Federal budget do you believe is committed to improving education?'' Some say maybe 5 percent, others say, maybe 10 percent, and we get into discussions over how much money is spent on education. I respond, ``Let me tell you, it is 1.7 percent of the Federal budget that is committed to improving education in this country.'' That is a figure which is down substantially from what it was a decade ago. In 1985 we committed 2.5 percent of our Federal outlays to improving education. This last year, it was 1.7 percent. Mr. President, education is not the cause of our large Federal deficit. It has been taking its share of cuts all along and, in fact, even if the amendment of Senator Daschle is approved, there will be substantial cuts in education as part of this rescission bill. We are willing to accept that. There are 19 different programs that the Department of Education operates dealing with education. The proposed amendment of Senator Daschle would try to restore funding to the level we appropriated and authorized last year in 7 of the 19--not in all of them--but in 7 of the 19. Programs such as the title I grants which go to schools with disadvantaged children; the school-to-work opportunities, which help students to transition from school into employment; the Safe and Drug- Free Schools Program; and the Immigrant Education Program, aimed at those people who are legally here in the United States legally working with green cards and their children need to be educated. The Head Start Program. Mr. President, there are many students, many children in my State who would like to participate in the Head Start Program. However, there is inadequate funding for them to do that. In most cases, these are children of very low-income families. I think that the Head Start Program is a good investment for our country. I think we can legitimately be for deficit reduction without cutting back on the funding for the Head Start Program. I want to urge my colleagues to think about priorities as we go about this cutting exercise. It does not do any good to rush ahead with cuts in all areas. The American people want Members of Congress to be very selective in the cuts that we make. The Wall Street Journal and NBC News did a poll recently that said that 79 percent of Americans believe that cutting Federal direction. That is exactly what the majority leader is proposing that we do here today. He is proposing that we go ahead with major cuts in the Federal funds for education. I think it is a shortsighted approach. I think we will at some stage down the road regret our action. This year, we are spending 1.7 percent of the Federal budget on education. We can continue to ratchet that down. We can get it down to 1 percent. We can get it down below 1 percent and we will still have a very large Federal deficit. Mr. President, we are kidding the American people if we suggest to them that cutting our funds for Head Start is going to solve the deficit problem. It is not going to solve the deficit problem. We need to acknowledge that upfront and go after some of the areas where real money is being spent in our Federal budget. There are many of those areas. I urge my colleagues to join in some of the other proposals which will undoubtedly be made as we get into consideration of the budget resolution, which involves serious cuts in Federal spending for the future. Mr. President, it is not as easy as just saying ``Cut, cut, cut,'' regardless of the impact on whoever in our society, and ``Cut, cut, cut'' regardless of what priority is thrown out the window in the process. We need to be specific about where cuts make sense and where they do not make sense. Clearly we need to find ways to conserve funding and to restrain Federal spending. I expect by the end of this legislative session, I will have done at least as much as most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support cuts in funding for a variety of Federal activities. However, cuts in education at this stage in our Nation's history do not make sense. They are not supported by the American people. Senator Daschle tries to restore a few of the funds that are otherwise proposed to be cut. I support him in that effort. I wish we could restore more. However, we are not able to. Even if the amendment of Senator Daschle is adopted, there will be rescissions in virtually all the programs, lesser rescissions than are proposed by the majority leader but rescissions still. There are 12 of the 19 programs that are in the Education Department which will take significant cuts even if the Daschle amendment is adopted. Mr. President, I will not belabor the point, but I do think the least we can do here in the U.S. Senate this evening is to try to maintain last year's level of funding in some of these key programs that relate to education. That is what Senator Daschle's amendment does. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Domenici to authorize the Forest Service to acquire land and easements adjacent to the Santa Fe National Forest in New Mexico. The purpose of this legislation is to preserve the Atalaya Mountain area, east of the city of Santa Fe, NM. The tracts of land in question comprise a portion of the eastern scenic backdrop of Santa Fe which provide the physical and visual edge of the city. They are logical additions to the Santa Fe Forest. The expanded boundary will adjoin existing city-owned lands, and will connect with and contribute to the city's open space plan. This boundary adjustment will provide a more logical exterior boundary for the Santa Fe National Forest, thereby also facilitating management and administration of these Federal lands. This property possesses outstanding scenic qualities that are presently enjoyed by the general public traveling in the vicinity. In addition, these lands are crossed by historic wood gathering trails, used by Santa Fe residents for over 300 years, and could provide permanently protected public access corridors. Over the last several months, broad community concern has been expressed over the prospect of development of the west face of Atalaya Mountain. There is strong public support for preserving this property in an undeveloped state for public use and enjoyment. The purpose of this legislation is to protect Atalaya Mountain through acquisition of land and conservation easements by the Forest Service, thus returning the land to the public as open space. This from selling this land and endangering it to development in the future. It is our intent that this legislation spur Forest Service acquisition and provide the extra protection that the mountain so richly deserves. This effort represents a high level of cooperation and compromise among several parties--the current owners of the land in question, Santa Feans concerned about the preservation of open space, and local and Federal governments. I am pleased to support this effort through introduction of this legislation, which will ensure that Atalaya Mountain, one of Santa Fe's natural treasures, will be protected. Let me take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for his cosponsorship of this legislation. Congressman Richardson has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. It is my hope that we will be able to move swiftly to pass this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask that the full text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Daschle and Simon. It is an amendment to restore the funding for the Community Services Block Grant for homeless assistance. This funding, which flows through the States to community action agencies, accomplishes many badly needed services throughout the Nation. It is my understanding it is particularly important in addressing the problem of homelessness because it is one of the few sources of funds that can be used to prevent homelessness before it occurs. It can and is, however, used in a variety of ways by the different States. In my home State of New Mexico, for example, this funding was used to help over 260 families and individuals last year in cases in which at least one family member had a job but could not yet obtain housing without assistance. Grants were made to help these families make one-time deposits for utilities or for rent. The assistance helped provide the stability of a permanent home and thus helped to ensure that the persons assisted would be able to keep their jobs and stay out of homelessness. This sort of help is especially important in States--like New Mexico--which have a shortage of transitional housing because most shelters have time limits on the time that one could stay there. Families could face constant relocation while they save for the necessary deposits to move into a permanent living situation. In New Mexico this use has proven to be cost effective. The average one-time grant under this program has been about $500. While the cost to house and feed a single individual has been at least $600 a month in my State, a family would be more expensive, of course, to house and to feed. Other States do equally good things with this homeless assistance funding. Massachusetts, for example, in addition to paying for rent deposits, also used funding of this type last year to prevent evictions, to prevent utility shutoff, to purchase blankets and heaters, provide counseling to children in domestic violence situations involved with the homeless. The other States have accomplished other worthy purposes with this relatively small amount of funding. Mr. President, it appears to me that this block grant program which benefits the neediest in our society is exactly the sort of program that many of our colleagues, particularly on the House side but here in the Senate as well, have been arguing for. It flows the money through to the States, and allows the States to dedicate it as they think it should be dedicated within the larger framework of homeless assistance. It is particularly surprising to me that it is one of the programs that has fallen victim to the present budget-cutting efforts under the pretense that we need to make this cut in order to meet the emergency needs in California from the last earthquake or the last flood. I believe that we need to restore this funding. Many States such as mine have not yet completed the fiscal year 1995 funding application procedure. Let me go through the list of States that will be hurt if this rescission is allowed to stand. These are the States that have not yet filed their application for funding in this fiscal year. They are still working on that application. They still hope to access these funds for their homeless populations. The States that stand to gain from the restoration of these funds and from the adoption of my amendment are Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, my home State of New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Mr. President, other States, in addition to this list, may also face funding cuts as a result of the rescission that is proposed in the bill if we do not adopt my amendment. There is no doubt in my mind that the rescission is likely to result in increased human suffering that can easily be prevented or reduced through programs like the one we have in New Mexico if we just continue the funding for the program. I would like to briefly mention the offset because I know there is a great concern which I share that we find offsets in these various areas. I have offered to restore this funding, this $13 million that is involved here. The Defense environmental restoration and waste management fund, as noted by the committee itself in its report on this legislation, has a very large amount of unobligated funding in a total program of $5 billion. Furthermore, a special commission, the Galvin Commission, has found that this money is not accomplishing its mission in an efficient manner and that we as a country, and the Department of Energy more specifically, should delay or modify this planned expenditure of funds. I will read a very short excerpt from the so-called Galvin Report on Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National Laboratories. On page 30 of that report in talking about various environmental cleanup activities funded under this pot of money that I am going to get the $13 million from, the Galvin Commission said: Other activities should be delayed or modified so as to await more effective and less costly technologies. Mr. President, what we are proposing here in this offset is taking $13 million out of a combined fund of approximately $5 billion, or essentially one-third of 1 percent. It is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the total funding flow. The committee itself has recognized that $100 million should be taken out of that. This amendment would simply increase that rescission from $100 million to $113 million so that we could go ahead and use the funds for homeless assistance, as we had planned to do when we authorized and appropriated funds last year. Although that $13 million will be a mere drop in the bucket of the Defense environmental restoration and waste management fund, it is two- thirds of the total 1995 funding for the CSBG homeless assistance program. Mr. President, I think that fairly accurately describes what my amendment does. I think it is an excellent amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. I think that the shift of funds to this purpose and the maintenance of effort in this purpose is essential. I conclude my remarks at this point and reserve any time. I believe there is a time limit. Mr. President, let me ask if we are operating under a time limit at this time.