Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. So you are saying that there are conditions which would be enrolled separately from the appropriation itself and which would go to the President, and he could either defer to the Congress and say they do not want me to do anything more on the Endangered Species Act, therefore, I will sign their bill; or he could say, I am going to veto that part and use the money that they have appropriated as I see fit?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, we could do that now. This amendment, as I read it, and this bill, as I read it, calls for the separate enrollment of the specific dollar allocations or appropriations, so that the President can cross out the allocations or appropriations. There are a lot of conditions we stick into appropriations bills which are not tied to a specific allocation or appropriation. When we adopted, last Thursday, the prohibition against doing anything more to enforce the Endangered Species Act--or whatever the precise language of the Hutchison amendment was--why would that not be a separate item?

Mr. BINGAMAN. But, Mr. President, the condition that we are talking about has to be enrolled someplace, if it is going to become law. It has to be sent to the President if it is going to become law, and he has to sign it if it is going to become law. I am just asking, is there anything in this amendment or this bill which keeps us, the Congress-- or the appropriators, more specifically, because they are the ones who determine this--from just saying, OK, we are going to take all of these restrictions and we are going to package them together and send them up there and call them a bill, just like we call each item a bill? That would be a natural thing to do if we want to get it to the President for signature.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, where in the amendment or the bill does it say what the Senator from Alaska just described? As I see it, the condition that none of the funds in this bill can be spent to support activities in Bosnia, or whatever the condition would be, might just as easily be separately enrolled, along with a lot of other conditions. I do not see why you could not have, as a result of this process, in the defense area, for example, 2,000 bills go to the President. Each one of those would be bills that qualified under the definition in here for ``item.'' Then you could have another bill go to the President which incorporated all of the various conditions that Congress has put on the President in the expenditure, and one of them would say you cannot do anything more to enforce the Endangered Species Act. We adopted that last Thursday. Another would say you cannot spend more on the B-2. Another would say you cannot go into Bosnia. We can add those together and put them into a bill--I think that is permitted under this--and send it to the President and the President could veto it. He gets his money and he does not get any restrictions. What is wrong with that? Does it say that cannot be done?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, can I just ask a follow-up question?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I just had a few questions to ask to try to understand amendment No. 406. I was hoping to address those questions to one or any of the sponsors. I note the Senator from Michigan is here. He has previously indicated he would be glad to try to respond to these questions. So let me just state those questions and then, if the Senator from Michigan or anyone else would want to respond, I would appreciate it. Let me first just put this in some context, because I am trying to understand the bill that is pending and also understand it in light of this amendment. As I understand the bill that is pending, it essentially tries to focus in on items of appropriation and provides that an item of appropriation has to be separately enrolled and sent to the President in separate form so that the President has the discretion to either sign or veto that item of appropriation. I recognize that it is both items of appropriation, and then it is direct spending and one other matter which is covered. But I guess my concern is this: When we get back to the finding of what an item of appropriation is, what does the term ``item'' mean? We say that it means any numbered section, any unnumbered paragraph, any allocation or suballocation of an appropriation. And then the amendment that we are now discussing tries to write in an exception to that and say, as to items of appropriation, that an item: Shall not include a provision which does not appropriate funds, direct the President to expend funds for any specific project, or to create an express or implied obligation to expend funds and-- (i) rescinds or cancels existing budget authority; (ii) only limits conditions, or otherwise restricts the President's authority to spend otherwise appropriated funds; or; (iii) conditions on an item of appropriation not involving a positive allocation of funds by explicitly prohibiting the use of any funds. That is complicated to me, Mr. President. I may be the only Member of the Senate who has difficulty understanding that, but, I have to tell you, I have some difficulty. Let me just ask a couple of questions. First of all, what happens to all of these that we are talking about here, all the items which are not included in the definition of items? For example, what happens to the limits, conditions, or other restrictions on the President's authority to spend otherwise obligated funds? If those are not to be enrolled as separate items and sent to the President for his signature, what does happen to them? Is there anybody--the Senator from Michigan or anyone else--who would like to respond to that question?

Mr. BINGAMAN. And therefore a 5-year budget resolution is what would be the determining factor, is that right, in whether or not a rescission would be exempt from the definition of ``item'' for purposes of this section?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I do not know. I am trying to understand what the President is ultimately going to be presented with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. To do anything--of money appropriated herein--to do anything in Bosnia, and we are saying that is something that would not be submitted to the President as a separate bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in recent days three of the announced candidates for President on the Republican side have announced their intention and commitment to eliminate the Federal Department of Education if they are elected. In my view, Mr. President, that is a sad commentary on the priorities that some of those in leadership positions have in this country today. I remember when President Reagan ran in 1980, part of his platform was to eliminate the Federal Department of Education. I thought the suggestion was misguided at that time. I strongly believe that it is even more misguided here in 1995. This is the last decade of those who are falling over themselves trying to take education off the national agenda. This retreat from leadership in perhaps the most critical area of our national interest--education--is clearly wrongheaded. Overwhelmingly, Americans tell pollsters that education is one of their major concerns. Over 80 percent of Americans say they support a Federal Department of Education. And it is not surprising that they do. Americans recognize that education is central to the strength of our Nation, especially as information becomes the most valuable currency in the world. When ``A Nation At Risk,'' the report issued by former Secretary of Education under President Reagan, Terrel Bell, appeared in 1983 it commented on the poor state of American education by observing, ``If an unfriendly foreign power had imposed our schools upon us, we would have regarded it as an act of war.'' The analogy to national security was appropriate then, and I believe it is still appropriate. Our security, whether you define it in economic terms or in military terms, is absolutely dependent upon the quality of the education that we provide to our children and to our citizens. How can we have a national interest in agriculture but not in our children? How can we talk about our industrial strength and not talk about the education of our work force? We do not question the Department of Defense, but what about the know-how that our people need to staff that Department? Still, as we approach this new century, there are those who say that education is purely a State and local matter; let us get the Federal Government out of it; let us eliminate the Secretary of Education, get that person out of the President's Cabinet. Mr. President, I have seen in the last few years the proposed elevation of the EPA to Cabinet status, which I have supported. The Department of Veterans Affairs we now have in the Cabinet; clearly, I support that. That is an important priority for the country. I now read in the paper that we are going to have the CIA in the President's Cabinet. That also may be an appropriate thing to do. But to suggest that we should have each of those individuals in the Cabinet next to our President to set national policy but not have a Secretary of Education there to speak up for the future of our children is, I think, misguided. Clearly, there is a priority here which we should not dissipate among various and sundry departments and agencies around the Federal Government. We need a central focus for leadership in education in this country. The Secretary of Education fulfills that role. What is that role? Ask the 7 million students who attend colleges and universities thanks to loans and grants provided through Department of Education programs. The Department supplies 75 percent of all post- secondary student aid, continuing a national commitment dating back to the GI bill. Or ask the 6 million disadvantaged students who each year receive help through Federal programs to meet higher academic standards. Ask their parents. Ask their teachers. Scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the national test administered by the States and the Department of Education, show that the gap between the achievement scores of white and black students has decreased by about 40 percent since 1975. The narrowing of that gap coincides with the very significant Federal investment in K-12 education for the disadvantaged. The combination of the Federal investment in these students plus leadership from the department which has sought for several years, from Secretary Bell through our current Secretary, Secretary Riley, to encourage high standards for all students in our schools--that combination is bringing about more equality of educational results and improved results for all of our students. Ask the teachers and the administrators in the States about the value of Department of Education's work. Its research and dissemination of the results of that research are immensely helpful to local schools and districts. Now that schools are coming on line and becoming technologically more sophisticated, teachers can access information about the newest techniques, materials, and research, straight from their own desks or their own faculty rooms and obtain that information to a large extent through the Department of Education. Ask American business whether they want national leadership to improve education in this country. I have heard business leaders in my State say over and over again that there is an unbreakable link between our Nation's economic competitiveness and the quality of our educational system. Our global competitors are doing a better job in many cases of preparing their young people for this new technologically rich and information-laden future than we are. We obviously need national leadership to help States provide their students with what it takes to compete in this new world. As we go into the next century we face numerous challenges. We will have a growing population of young people as we hit the echo from the baby boom. We will continue to have many young immigrants. Many of the children I am speaking about will be born into poverty. They will speak languages other than English. Technology will continue to change the way that people work and the way people learn. The increased demands of a global economy will make it imperative that we provide high standards to our children and assessments to measure their progress toward meeting those standards. States want and deserve Federal help and Federal leadership to meet these challenges. I am especially aware of the need for strong Federal leadership in the area of technology for education. Only through leadership at the national level can we have a coordinated effort to bring the benefits of telecommunication and the computer revolution to all our schools and all our students. States are struggling with these issues. They welcome the help and expertise the Department of Education has been able to bring. I just went through a campaign this fall. I traveled all over my State of New Mexico. I talked to many thousands of people. I heard lots of complaints about the Congress, complaints about the Federal Government, and about State government, and about local government, and many other things people found objectionable. But I did not hear the voters saying they wanted less attention to education, less funding for education, less of a Federal role or less priority given to that important area. I heard quite the opposite. The American public sees education as having been neglected at all levels of government. As I have traveled around New Mexico during the last several years-- not just in the last campaign--I have asked folks at town hall meetings to express their opinions as to how much of our Federal budget they believe is committed to improving education. Usually people in the audience guess somewhere in the 10 to 15 percent range. Mr. President, they would guess that 10 to 15 percent of our Federal budget is probably committed to education. When I tell them that less than 2 percent of our Federal resources each year goes to support education at the national level, it is something of a surprise and a disappointment to a lot of the people in my State. If some want to walk away from the Federal responsibility for education they certainly have that option, but I believe taking education off our national agenda and taking the Secretary of Education out of the President's Cabinet, will be sending exactly the wrong signal not only to the people of this country but throughout the world. That is the wrong message. Our future lies with our young people. I know that is a cliche but it is the truth. A Federal Department of Education can help us prepare our young people for that future. It is the right priority for this country as we approach this new century. I hope very much we will retain the Department of Education for a very long time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to just speak for a very brief time about this amendment that is pending by the Senator from North Carolina. I have just been trying to read through it. It is a 37-page amendment, which is essentially a bill which I gather he introduced earlier, called the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1995. To my knowledge, there have been no hearings on this bill, and the Senator from North Carolina is the chairman of the committee before which hearings would be held. I have great difficulty understanding why the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction would want to have the issue dealt with without hearings. It seems to me it is a very important issue, a very important issue of public policy for our country, and one that needs to be thoroughly debated and discussed. Clearly, that cannot be done as an amendment to a supplemental appropriations bill pending before the Senate today. So I hope very much that we will not proceed to actually enact something like this without having the wisdom to go back and subject it to scrutiny in the hearing process in the committee, in the committee of jurisdiction, which the Senator from North Carolina now chairs. I think that would be the appropriate course to follow. I have not had a chance to do a detailed analysis of this legislation, but I do think that it would be foolhardy in the extreme for us to proceed and try to adopt it as an amendment at this point. I did want to make a couple of other points on the general subject of our relations with Cuba, because I know it has been in the news this week. I have been noticing that there are suggestions in the news that the President is considering going back on a couple of things that he did by Executive order this last August. Let me just recount for the Senate what I understand the history of that to be. We had a very major problem that occurred this last August where the Cuban Government stopped preventing Cubans from fleeing to the United States by boat. This change in Cuban policy on about the 15th of August caused a surge of migration to the United States. It was the largest since the Mariel boat lift of 1980. With this situation occurring, 5 days later the President acted to try essentially, as I understood it, to build some leverage for more negotiations with the Cuban Government, and he put in place four measures against the Cuban regime. First, cash remittances to Cuba would no longer be permitted. Previously, United States citizens could provide up to $300 each quarter to their relatives in Cuba, which is not, as the President would understand, an excessive amount to send. That works out to about $100 a month. And I do not think that is an excessive amount to be sending. But we stopped that. The President stopped it by Executive order. Second, chartered flights between Havana and Miami were to be restricted for those designed ``to accommodate legal migrants and travel consistent with the Cuban Democracy Act.'' Third, the United States would use all appropriate means to increase and amplify its broadcasts to Cuba. And, fourth, the United States would continue to bring before the nations and other international organizations evidence of human rights abuses. Now, the recent news accounts indicate that the President is considering advice from some of his advisers that the first two of those, the prohibition against cash remittances to relatives in Cuba and the prohibition against travel to Cuba, be relaxed again. I believe the thinking there is that on September 9 of last year the United States and Cuba signed a migration agreement that stemmed the flow of Cubans flowing to the United States by boat. So the immediate crisis, the crisis which had caused the President to put in place those Executive orders, has gone and is now no longer facing us, and the President was considering, or at least his advisers were urging him to consider, a change in that policy back to what it had been before. Mr. President, I for one hope the President will take the advice that evidently he is receiving from his advisers. I can honestly say to my colleagues here in the Senate that it strikes me as contrary to our own interests to have in place, to continue in place, the policies that are now being discussed in the White House. To say that Cuban-Americans cannot send, cannot remit to their relatives in Cuba up to $300 per quarter strikes me as unduly onerous and is hurting the very people who we proclaim we are trying to help with all of these sanctions against Cuba. The distinction which needs to be kept in mind, Mr. President, is how can the Government there? And I would say, if there is one way we can help the people of Cuba without giving assistance to the Government, it would be to allow their relatives in this country to remit to them very small amounts as they see fit up to $300 per quarter. This is not going to threaten the future of our Republic. I think this is an eminently responsible course for the President to take, to go ahead and repeal or rescind that portion of the Executive order and go on with allowing remittances to relatives in Cuba. The other issue, Mr. President, also strikes me as one that should be clearly changed by this President, and that is the prohibitions against travel to Cuba. One of the great constitutional rights which I think has been recognized since the beginning of our Republic is the right to travel, the right of Americans to travel. Now, I understand that there are exceptions. There are occasions where we are in hostility with another government and it is not appropriate for U.S. citizens to travel to that country, or where those citizens are in danger and we do not want to see them travel to another country because of the risk of international incident that that would create. But I do not believe either of those circumstances adequately prevail at the present in this situation to justify prohibiting travel to Cuba. I would also point out, Mr. President, that the present law which is on the books prohibiting travel to Cuba is not enforced. I picked up the New York Times Sunday Magazine 3 days ago and was reading through it, and there was a big advertisement: ``10-day excursion to Cuba.'' That is not something which is being advertised for Canadians or for Germans. That is for Americans who want to go to Cuba for 10 days and view downtown Havana and old town Havana and all the other things that are available there. I know Members of this body have traveled to Cuba. This is a law which is not being enforced. In my view, it is a law which does not make sense at this time in our history, and it is a law which causes all who look at it to wonder about our resolve in enforcing any of our laws relative to Cuba. So I think that for the President to rescind that portion of his Executive decree would make good sense. I for one believe that is the proper course to follow. At a later time I hope we can have an extended debate about this whole embargo issue. I know it is of great concern on all sides to a lot of people in this country whether we should retain an embargo of Cuba. However, today I at least want to go on record as indicating that remittances of small amounts of cash to relatives in Cuba should be permitted, in my opinion; travel to Cuba by American citizens should generally be permitted. In fact, it is being permitted today, since everyone seems to be winking at it or looking the other way or finding ways not get your passport stamped or some other subterfuge so that the penalties which are in the law are in fact not applied. This is a law that does not make sense. We should recognize that the President should rescind those portions of his Executive decree. Again, getting back to that which I guess is the specific issue pending before the Senate, that is, the proposed amendment by the Senator from North Carolina, again I hope very much we do not take it upon ourselves to legislate a whole new regime of sanctions and embargoes and onerous provisions at this time as an amendment to an appropriations bill. It strikes me as an act which would not be responsible, and I very much hope colleagues would see it that way as well and that the amendment, if it is brought to a vote, would be defeated. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Nunn of Georgia, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, who was the chairman of the committee at the time that we began these programs several years ago while President Bush was in the White House. Let me just go through a few statements to indicate the broad range of support for the general principle that I am talking about here. First, let me cite from the report of the task force that former Senator Rudman chaired, a Senate Republican Task Force on Adjusting the Defense Base. The report was published in June 1992. It was a report which was well received. Senator Pryor championed and chaired a similar group on the Democratic side. Let me just cite a few sentences from the report of the Rudman committee. The task force believes that increased funds should be devoted to the development of so-called dual-use technologies--that is, technologies that have application both for defense and commercial markets--by entering into partnerships with the private sector. Dual-use technologies will be increasingly important to ensure efficient use of defense procurement resources, and advances in this area will have the added benefit of strengthening the U.S. commercial sector. In order for these projects to be effective, there should be a requirement that half of the funding be provided by non-federal participants. I also want to cite a statement issued by the White House in September 1992. This was, of course, while President Bush was in the White House. This was, I believe, a statement that that administration and that President felt strongly that these were worthwhile activities. On the 15th of September the statement was issued by the President's Press Office. The President today transmitted to the Congress budget amendments for the Department of Defense that would reallocate $250 million of the Department's fiscal year 1993 request to defense advanced technology programs. The reallocated funds would be used in the areas of communications, high performance computers, small satellites, sensors to identify environmental contamination and manufacturing technology. These areas are essential to national security, and also have dual-use civilian applications. The funds for these advanced technology programs would be reallocated from lower priority defense programs. Madam President, the views that were expressed in 1992, both by the group of Senators who participated in the Rudman task force and by the White House under President Bush, were echoed very recently in a hearing we had before the Armed Services Committee where I asked, first, General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, what his view was on the value of these types of programs and where they fit in the priorities of the administration today. He said, and let me quote his response to my question. Senator Bingaman, I am first of all extraordinarily enthused about the possibilities that exist out there for us to take a major step forward and a major step forward in comparison to all of our potential adversaries in this area that you described, dominant battlefield awareness. Through our advances in microelectronics, satellite technology and what not, we have the ability to see and be aware of what is going on on the battlefield to a degree that will literally, I believe, revolutionize warfare. So this is not just making sure that we have the next best tank or the next best destroyer. This is an effort to really take a major step forward. Now, much of the technology for that, we believe, probably already exists out there in the commercial world, and certainly those companies like AT&T, and others that are working on projects, where these same pieces are necessary commercially, that we need to be aware of it, capture it, integrate it into the work that we do so that we not only capture the very best that is out there, but do not spend taxpayers' money trying to reinvent the wheel in our own laboratories. Let me cite one other authority in this field, Madam President. This comes from sometime further back in our history. The year is 1946. We have a memo from the Chief of Staff of the Department of the War. He says in that memo. This is, of course, following the Second World War. The Armed Forces could not have won the war alone. Scientists and businessmen contributed techniques and weapons which enabled us to outwit and overwhelm the enemy. Their understanding of the army's needs made possible the highest degree of cooperation. This pattern of integration must be translated into a peacetime counterpart which will not merely familiarize the Army with the progress made in science and industry but draw into our planning for national security all the civilian resources which can contribute to the defense of the country. That is a statement, of course, from General Eisenhower shortly after the Second World War. So the concept that we are arguing for here-- integration of our military and commercial technology bases--the importance of this principle, I think has been recognized for a long time. The superpower, in a defense sense, the superpower in the 21st century will be that nation that best leverages its national technology and industrial base to achieve critical defense goals. Dominant battlefield awareness is one of those recognized goals of our Defense Department today, and clearly emphasis on these dual-use technologies is important for us to achieve that dominant battlefield awareness. That is the view of General Shalikashvili. DOD-industry partnerships have been successful. Our $700 million investment in SEMATECH over the past 8 years, which has been matched by industry, has been an enormously more productive investment than some of our earlier investments in defense-specific semiconductor research. Secretary Perry also has come out very strongly in support of this. Let Madam President, because he spoke well the other day about the importance of these programs. I asked him where these stood in his list of priorities, and he said, and I quote: I consider it [the Technology Reinvestment Project] one of our highest priority programs. I hope I have the opportunity with the Congress to defend--to vigorously defend--the importance of this program. I think some of the moves to rescind it and criticize it are made from some confusion as to what the program is. It is being confused with some of the technology earmark programs which have been added by Congress in past years. I would remind all of this committee-- That was the Armed Services Committee. that all TRP programs are competitive. Indeed, they are highly competitive. There are many--indeed, sometimes dozens of--companies submitting proposals on them. So we get the best out of many different proposals. And secondly, all of them are funded 50 percent by industry; at least 50 percent by industry. So they are very highly leveraged. We get quite a good benefit from this. We depend in the future on being able to integrate our defense technology base into the national technology base and this TRP program is an absolute key to doing that, and any individual TRP program is a good deal in and of itself. Madam President, that sums up the case. I think the procedural situation we find ourselves in has been alluded to before. Let me just reiterate it. We have a proposal from the House of Representatives which would rescind the $502 million in the TRP; the entire amount. The appropriators here on the Senate side have concluded that they have to, because of the other pressing needs of the Defense Department, rescind $200 million. Quite frankly, that is a very, very major cut in this program which I think will undoubtedly do damage to the program. But I am willing to defer to their judgment. I am willing to do as all of us will have to do in the coming months; that is, tighten our belts to deal with our budgetary problems. I am willing to take their commitment that they will go to conference and fight as best they can to maintain the Senate position and keep this program alive and healthy. This is a very high priority for our Department of Defense. I believe it is a high bipartisan priority for many here in the Congress. Madam President, before I conclude and sit down, let me just indicate, as cosponsors on the amendment that I have sent to the desk, I want to list Senators Nunn, Lieberman, Rockefeller, and Bob Kerrey from Nebraska.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I wish to speak briefly to support the statements the Senator from Alaska has made and the position the Appropriations Committee has come to the floor with in this area. As I think the Senator from Arizona pointed out, his amendment would do two things, two very different things. It would, first of all, cut and eliminate the technology reinvestment project by rescinding all of the funds in that program, which I think would be a very misguided action by this Congress. Second, it would restore some of those funds to the environmental cleanup activity. The Senator from Arizona pointed out that he himself has not been known as a wild-eyed environmentalist. I think that was the phrase he used. I certainly think there is some truth to that. Earlier, after this last election, on December 5, 1994, he and Senator Warner sent a letter to President Clinton urging that much of the funding be dropped in the defense budget and specific programs be eliminated, and in that list of programs he sent to the President he himself proposed that DOD and DOE defense environmental programs be reduced by $930 million in fiscal year 1995. The proposal of the subcommittee is to reduce them by $400 million total, and I think that is a much more reasonable level of funding in those areas. Let me also talk a moment about the TRP. I think the Senator from Alaska did a good job of pointing out that there are many useful defense-related programs going forward with TRP funding. Let me just cite a couple of them. One of the programs is the multichip module program. The breakthrough in the 1960's was the microchip where many, many transistors could be put on one small piece of silicon to dramatically reduce the size, weight, and cost of electronics. The military was the first user of microelectronics and this was the technology that made the ICBM and all later advanced weapons possible. Of course, now the commercial demand for this technology dwarfs the military market. But that does not diminish its importance to the Defense Department. The breakthrough of the 1990's is the multichip module technology where many, many chips are put on one common substrate to dramatically increase once again military system performance and lower their costs. TRP is meeting this challenge by cost sharing an effort with the consortium that brings together the emerging participants in this new industry in an effort to lower equipment manufacturing costs by making all needed technology advances simultaneously. Members include GM Hughes Electronics, IBM, Micromodule Systems, Motorola, nChip, Polycon, and Texas Instruments. Sandia National Laboratories will establish a test bed to support the effort. Madam President, there are a couple of items that I received from the Department of Defense to make the point. This is a printed circuit board which shows the circuitry needed for an advanced weapons system and the multichip module which is being developed through TRP funding to replace it--this much smaller item. That is the kind of a breakthrough we are trying to finance and accomplish and bring about through use of this dual-use technology. Let me cite one other example, and this is the TRP precision laser machining project. Let me again show a very small, little item to my colleagues. This sample illustrates the initial results under this TRP project. Graphite composite material similar to that used in stealth aircraft has 1,600 laser-drilled holes which were accomplished in only 10 minutes. The TRP will develop further this technology to be able to achieve a much faster hole drilling rate, up to 10,000 holes per second, without sacrificing the unprecedented hole quality already achieved and illustrated here. airframes in about 1 day, enabling laminar flow control by these holes in critical airflow surfaces. This performance-enhancing flow control is impractical to manufacture with current technology, and the laser hole drilling provides not only the speed but the quality required to make the process practical and cost effective. The Department of Defense points out that the result will be substantial from their perspective of enhanced military aircraft component performance and improved fuel efficiency by more than 3 percent, saving about $400 million per year. This technology will also reduce life cycle costs by about $100,000 per engine by using these precise laser beams to drill holes with the highly increased precision and reproducibility shown in this sample. Madam President, let me just conclude by pointing out again the statement by Secretary Perry before the Armed Services Committee, which my colleague from Arizona serves on with me, where, when asked about the TRP, he said, ``I hope I have the opportunity with the Congress to defend, to vigorously defend the importance of this program.'' Madam President, if we adopt the amendment by the Senator from Arizona we are not giving the Secretary of Defense that opportunity. There has been no hearing that can be cited by the Senator from Arizona here. He is proposing or suggesting that the Senate, in our ultimate wisdom, should substitute our judgment for that of the Secretary of Defense, for that of the Under Secretary of Defense, for that of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In my view this would not be wise. We need to keep funding in the TRP, keep this a program that continues to go forward in these very important areas. As the Senator from Alaska pointed out, the additional funding that is being transferred to environmental activities is just not needed this year. Madam President, I hope very much this amendment will not be agreed to and that we can support the position of the Appropriations Committee. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, to the first amendment of the committee, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me very briefly describe the amendment and yield to my colleague, Senator Nunn, who wants to make a brief statement also. Then I will describe it in a little more depth for my colleagues. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate--and that is all it is, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment--that cost-shared partnerships to develop dual-use technologies are important and increasingly important to ensure the efficient use of our defense resources. It specifies that these partnerships, including the technology reinvestment project, need to become the norm for conducting much of our applied research in the Pentagon. This language came out of the work of two different task forces, the Democratic task force back in 1992, which Senator Pryor chaired, and the Republican task force which Senator Rudman chaired. Members of this body who were part of that Rudman task force include, of course, Senator Stevens, Senator Lugar, Senator Cohen, Senator Hatch, Senator Domenici, Senator McCain, Senator Lott, Senator Warner, and there were others as well. Out of the work of the two task force groups we developed a bipartisan consensus which began during the Bush Presidency and has continued through the Clinton Presidency that this way of funding for defense purposes was an important effort to pursue. I believe this amendment helps to reaffirm that principle, and for that reason I offer the amendment. As I pointed out, it is a sense of the Senate. It does not try to change the dollar figures as they come out of the supplemental agreement. I want to compliment the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii in the work they have done in the subcommittee to try to do what they could to ensure that this important program, the technology reinvestment project, continue, and also to find the funds necessary to meet the needs of our Department of Defense at this crucial time. I will explain the amendment in some more detail in a moment. I would like at this point to yield the floor and allow the Senator from Georgia to go ahead and speak.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe a unanimous-consent request is pending. Is that the order of business?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be added as a cosponsor of the previous amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I spoke yesterday about my concerns regarding the context in which we find ourselves debating the constitutional amendment to balance the budget this year. I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to elaborate on those concerns and to announce how I will vote when this matter comes to a vote, finally, next week. Mr. President, during the time I have served here in the Senate, from January 1983 until the present, one of the great shortcomings in our national policy has been our failure to pursue sound fiscal policy. During the 1980's and continuing now into the 1990's the Federal Government, each year, has operated substantially in deficit. During the last 12 years there have been several serious efforts to deal with that problem and I have supported each of those. The deficit reduction efforts in 1987, 1989, 1990, and 1993 have all had my support. Those were deficit reduction efforts under President Reagan and President Bush, and now under President Clinton. If another serious deficit reduction effort occurs, as I hope it will during this term of my service in the Senate, I expect to support that as well. I share the goal of most Americans to reach a balanced budget at the earliest possible date. But the question we have to answer is: Will the passage of this amendment in the context it is presented today advance our prospects for achieving sound and fair fiscal policy, or retard those prospects? As I stated yesterday, the amendment comes to us in a very politicized environment where many of its proponents clearly see the amendment as a way to advance their political agenda of less taxation for certain taxpayers. In the much discussed Contract With America the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives promised to pass the balanced budget amendment with a three-fifths supermajority requirement for any tax increase. That supermajority requirement was not in fact included in the amendment sent to the Senate by the House in the form of House Joint Resolution 1. However, those who put the Contract With America together have not abandoned their commitment. There are troubling indications that the effort still goes forward not only to reach a balanced budget, which we all support, but to reach it in a particular way, and to reach it in a way that shields certain Americans from sharing equitably in that pain. I discussed at length yesterday the House rule adopted before the balanced budget amendment was sent to the Senate--which requires three- fifths supermajority vote to raise income tax rates and income tax rates alone. Under the House rule other taxes can still be raised by a simple majority--taxes that impact many of the people I represent most heavily--the working families of my State. The gas tax, for example, the social security tax, various excise taxes. In order for a bill to become law it must pass in both houses. This House rule gives the minority in the House a veto over efforts by either house to use the income tax our most progressive tax to raise revenues for deficit reduction. This rule undermines genuine efforts at deficit reduction. The purpose of this rule is clearly to protect individuals and corporations in the upper tax brackets and to regain any increases in revenue to occur by increases in regressive taxes that affect middle income families most directly. I proposed yesterday to amend the proposed constitutional amendment to correct this problem--but unfortunately my amendment was defeated. So with that defeat, we are faced with a proposed constitutional amendment being presented while the House has in place a rule which makes it clear that middle-income families will likely see their taxes raised to balance the budget--but unlike that wealthy individuals and corporations will share in that sacrifice to the same extent. A second troubling indication that the balanced budget amendment is seen by its proponents as a device to pursue a political agenda to advantage certain groups in our society--is the commitment of the Republican leadership in the House to bring the proposed constitutional provillion four three-fifths supermajority requirement for tax increases to the House floor for a vote prior to April 15 of next year. And in fact yesterday there was a colloquy here on the Senate floor where the Senator from Utah agreed to proceed here in the Senate with hearings on a constitutional amendment imposing that same supermajority requirement for tax increases. So the context in which we are considering this amendment has changed from what it was in previous Congresses. We now are not just talking about how to balance the budget, we are now talking about writing into the constitution, provisions which will determine whose ox will be gored as we proceed to balance the budget. In this context and with these ground rules in people--those who pay the most gas taxes, the social security taxes, and those who pay excise taxes. What are the consequences that would flow from the balanced budget amendment in this new environment with this new change in the House rules. I believe we can predict 3 consequences from proceeding with the amendment given percent ground- works. First, with a three-fifths super- majority requirement in place to raise income taxes it will be much more difficult for us to reach the goal of a balanced budget by 2002. As I stated yesterday, almost all the experts who have looked at the issue seriously agree that a balanced budget will only be reached as other deficit reduction efforts have been achieved, with a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. And with this provision in place those revenue increases will come from regressive taxes, rather than from the only progressive tax we have, the income tax. Second, if we do take steps to reach a balanced budget, with that supermajority for income tax increases in place, most of the burden of deficit reduction will fall on working families who can least afford to carry that additional burden. And the third consequence is that States like my home State of New Mexico with relatively low per capita income will be those most badly hurt. At this very time our State legislature in Santa Fe is struggling with the question of a gasoline tax. A balanced budget amendment adopted, with the House Rule in effect protecting incomes taxes from change, almost certainly insures that we in Washington will be adding substantially to the gas tax as one of the only available sources of revenue. The same can be said of Social Security taxes and other regressive taxes. Mr. President, if I represented a wealthy State with many high income taxpayers, I could see an argument for why I should vote for the amendment--in spite of the House rule. But my State is not wealthy and we have very few taxpayers who will be treated fairly under this new set of ground rules. conclusion Mr. President when the final vote is called on the balanced budget amendment next week I will vote ``no.'' I will do so because I believe we should leave the question of how to achieve sound fiscal policy to a vote of a majority here in Congress at any particular time. We should not try, by rule or other provision, to determine how future Congresses choose to reduce the deficit: We should not dictate whether they cut spending or raise taxes. We should not try to predetermine for future Congresses which group of taxpayers will pay the taxes and which group will suffer the spending cuts. The Framers of the Constitution were wise to limit the use of the supermajority requirement in the Constitution. They chose to leave the Constitution neutral as to how we accomplish sound fiscal policy at any particular time in our history. We are well advised to defer to their good judgment on that subject, to cease our efforts to solve this problem by changing the Constitution, and, instead, to solve it as all previous generations have, by demonstrating the political courage to make unpopular decisions about spending cuts and taxes. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. Dorgan addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I withhold.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have been advised by the Cloakroom that there are certain Senators who expect to have this vote at 10:30. I do not need to keep all my time but perhaps we should check on that before I yield back the remainder of my time.