Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me respond to the question. I do think the Senator is wrong in his understanding. First of all, let me make clear, my amendment does not exempt anything from the reporting requirements. The reporting requirements in the bill, where you have to estimate the costs and estimate where the costs would fall, remain in place. Those have to be obtained before any legislation comes to the floor, and none of that is changed under my amendment. What my amendment does say, though, is that in this very important area related to treatment or disposal of nuclear waste, in that very important area, if the Federal Government determines that some action should take place, you cannot raise a point of order that says it is out of order to consider the legislation, absent full funding by the Federal Government. That is all my proposed amendment does. The Senator was saying this would open up the possibility of the Federal Government saying to the States: Washington State, you are responsible for Hanford. That possibility exists today. That possibility will exist in the future. Theoretically, we could do that at any point, just to the same extent we do it today. That is the way the Constitution set up our Federal system. So that possibility is always there for the Federal Government to step in and do that kind of a thing. Clearly, though, that is not consistent with the way this country has viewed responsibility, sharing the responsibility for nuclear power.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering here is an amendment to exempt measures concerning the treatment and disposal of agency primarily responsible for this issue is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is one of the agencies that is not covered by title II of this legislation. This amendment I have offered here would have the effect of ensuring that both the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Congress can continue to have authority to take necessary action in this very important policy area. Without this amendment I have offered here, we are leaving the NRC with power to act in an area where it would also be out of order for this Congress itself to consider legislating. If a bill or an amendment is offered to increase the requirements to obtain a license under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that bill would be subject to a point of order. The NRC could do that by regulation without there being any objection raised. But if the Congress tried by statute to raise the requirements on a licensee under the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that would be subject to a point of order. As the bill now stands, my amendment would correct that. I believe it is important to look at this issue in a historical context. Research on nuclear energy started without congressional approval and in fact in great secrecy, and only a few select Members of Congress were kept informed about the Manhattan project during World War II, even though a large amount of taxpayer money was being spent to build the facilities needed at Los Alamos in my own home State, in Hanford, and at Oak Ridge. Moving quickly to assert its control over the nuclear program, Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which created both the Atomic Energy Commission in the executive branch, which was charged with managing the program, and it created a Joint Committee on Atomic Energy within Congress to oversee and direct the program. Moreover, because private ownership was prohibited in the 1946 act, the Federal Government maintained absolute control over nuclear materials and facilities. Consequently, the prospect of the nuclear program being transitional to the civilian sector was very faint, and, therefore, Congress was enforced to enact legislation to develop the civilian nuclear power program in 1954 with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Because that act was extremely vague in its efforts to define safety considerations and in its overall regulatory program, the AEC, the Atomic Energy Commission, was responsible for promulgating safety regulations, and they had broad discretion. In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia noted years later that the 1954 act created--here is a quotation from one of their decisions: The 1954 act created a regulatory scheme which is virtually unique in the degree to which broad responsibilities should pose in the administrative agency. And it has a prescription in its charter as to how it shall proceed in achieving the statutory objectives. Mr. President, today that same very broad discretion resides in the regulatory agency. The initial administrative regulations parallel the 1954 act, and the two were very loose. Nuclear power has proven to be extremely complex and increasingly demanding. Nuclear power plants have grown larger and more sophisticated, and they are requiring capable safety systems and backups. Very simply stated, the more complex these nuclear power systems have become and plants have become, the more things can go wrong. As a result, nuclear regulation has had to keep pace with industry advances in order to protect the public health and safety. Recent accidents only serve to remind us of the potential of not maintaining close scrutiny of this industry. Chernobyl raised the awareness of Russia and Eastern Europe where dozens of unsafe plants exist that fall way below the Western safety standards that have been promulgated by our own Federal Government. Under the provisions of the pending unfunded mandates legislation, many of the valuable laws that were created specifically in response to the public health and safety concerns in this area would have been improper for consideration. For instance, the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act could not have been considered by Congress absent the waiver of this unfunded mandates act. The low level waste act, passed in 1980, makes the States responsible for nuclear waste disposal; that is, waste that was generated within that particular State's borders. No Federal funding is provided in this program. Moreover, I must note that the National Governors Association requested this legislation. Indeed, the National Governors Association provided much input into it. Essentially, the Governors believed that the States were in a better position to select disposal sites within those States. Nonetheless, under S. 1, the low level waste program would come under the definition of a Federal mandate and would be subject to the requirements of title I of the bill. Additionally, in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, we authorized the Office of Nuclear Waste Negotiator to find a State or an Indian tribe to host a permanent repository for a monitored, retrievable storage facility for nuclear waste. This legislation we are considering today could frustrate his efforts if he were successful in identifying a potential host for such a facility. In my home State of New Mexico we are seeing an effort to site a nuclear waste repository facility on tribal land. And I feel strongly that we in the Congress must preserve our ability to legislate and regulate in this area to protect public health and safety. The reasons for this amendment are self-evident. Although I believe that the Senate should always keep in mind the costs incurred by the private and the public sectors by any of its actions, I believe, as reporting committees apparently do, that in some areas of the law they are simply too important to create points of order against consideration of legislation. I further believe that the treatment and disposal of nuclear waste falls within that category. Clearly, we have a responsibility to act and exert national leadership in an area that could have a profound impact on the health and safety of the American people, and in the future we may very well be called on to do so. We need to be sure that we will be able to do so and that procedural roadblocks cannot be raised. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to adopt this important amendment. I understand that the managers of the bill are agreeable to a time limit for additional discussion of this bill prior to its being voted on. I am glad to yield the floor or yield to questions. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent my own amendment be set aside temporarily, while I offer another amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we set aside whatever the pending business is. Is there a pending amendment?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, by my amendment by its language I am not exempting any piece of legislation from the requirements of cost estimates or reports from the CBO. What I am saying is that once those cost estimates and reports are obtained by the appropriate committee, if that committee determines that there is compelling national interest that needs to be considered here, then it has the right to say that in its report and to have the legislation considered on its merits on the Senate floor. And it does not have to get past any procedural hurdle that this proposed legislation would impose in terms of language that says it is out of order to consider the proposed bill. In my opinion, it is not wise for us to be writing legislation stating it is out of order to consider any and all Federal legislation where the Federal Government fails to pay the full cost of implementing the legislation. There are too many examples in our Nation's history where it has been appropriate for the type and where there has been a well-designed partnership between the Federal Government, State government, and local government to accomplish a recognized national purpose. I am trying to make it clear that where there is such a circumstance in the view of an authorizing committee, then that authorizing committee should have the right to have its legislation, its reported legislation, considered on its merits without having to overcome procedural points of order to do so. That is the intent of my legislation. It does not exempt any reported legislation from the requirements of reports or cost estimates by the CBO. I do believe those are appropriate, and clearly the failure to have those in some cases has worked a hardship on local governments, on State governments, on Indian tribes. I wanted to clarify what the import of my legislation is. And with that clarification, I hope that the Senator from Idaho, and all other Senators, can support it. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered today will allow a reporting committee--that is, any of the authorizing committees--to ensure that a measure that committee determines is necessary to serve a compelling national interest be given full consideration by the Senate. Mr. President, last week I raised several issues with my colleagues from Idaho and Ohio regarding Senate bill 1. Specifically, we discussed the fact that under S. 1, it would be out of order to proceed on any legislation that imposes a cost of more than $50 million on other levels of government unless the Federal Government is willing to pay the full costs incurred by those other levels of government. I realize a point of order would have to be raised by a Senator for the legislation not to be considered. Nevertheless, if the point of order is raised, then consideration of such a bill shall not be in order as I read the unfunded mandates legislation we are considering today. Mr. President, I believe that we go too far when we say that the Senate should not consider a measure, regardless of its importance, unless the Federal Government can cover all public costs associated with that measure. We can all think of cases of a compelling national interest with which we should proceed even if the Federal Government does not intend to cover all the costs. Some examples are control of nuclear waste, minimum wage laws, and the control of terrorism. These are clear examples that I think most Senators will agree with. In those cases, it is appropriate to provide a mechanism through which a committee reporting a measure, armed with the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate required by this legislation, can make a determination that it should be in order for the full Senate to consider the matter, and that no point of order should prevent that consideration. Our Federal system functions best when there is a partnership of effort by local, State, and Federal Government, and tribal government, in some cases. Many of the most successful programs that we have in this country have been pursued as a result of just such a partnership, constructed by the Federal Government. Examples are the Interstate Highway System, Federal housing assistance, and the unemployment insurance system. If partnerships involving cost sharing by the different levels of government are to occur, then under our Constitution, the Federal Government is set up as the final arbiter of the terms of those partnerships. It makes no sense for us to abdicate that responsibility entirely. Clearly, in any activity we choose to pursue in partnership with the States, local government, or Indian Tribes, the Federal Government should do its best to cover the costs that relate to the benefits that the country as a whole is to receive. Surely, the Federal Government should do a better job than it has in many cases in being sensitive to other governmental entities about costs they may occur. But we should not, in my opinion, make it out of order to consider any and all legislation that requires action by other levels of government unless the Federal Government agrees to pay the full cost of that action. Partnerships between the Federal, State, and local governments and Indian tribes will be needed in the future, and it may be appropriate in some cases for some of the costs of those partnerships to be borne by others than the Federal Government. Under my amendment, the cost estimates would still be done, and no one in the Senate would enter into the debate ignorant of the full costs. Indeed, if the full Senate felt that the cost should be paid for entirely by the Federal Government, an amendment to this effect could be offered. If the funding was not provided for all the costs, an estimate of which would be required under the amendment, the full Senate could vote the measure down after actual debate. A measure that a committee determined to be needed to serve a compelling national interest, however, would be assured a debate on its merits if it reached the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, this seems to be an imminently reasonable adjustment to the procedures outlined in S. 1. I urge the managers to support the amendment. I urge my colleagues to agree to its adoption. I may speak again in reference to this prior to final vote on the issue. I did want to put my colleagues on notice as to the import of this amendment. I have two other amendments, Mr. President, that I have reserved the right to offer, and I intend to offer those later this afternoon or early tomorrow. I do not have those with me at this moment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if it is in order, I ask unanimous consent that I set aside the pending amendment and any pending unanimous consent request.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask the manager, did the Senator intend to proceed with additional amendments now or prefer that we wait?

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to comment and thank my colleague from the State of Washington for his willingness to work with me to modify this amendment. I have devoted considerable time and effort to the National Education Goals Panel and I appreciate Senator Gorton's understanding of my concerns about the role of that Panel and especially about preserving the national character of the Panel and its work. In adopting with the current version of the national history standards, but we are also saying two very important things: First, that the U.S. Senate is not interfering with the National Education Goals Panel doing its work and performing its duties under the law; and Second, that the U.S. Senate is not interfering with the appointment of the work of the National Education Standards and Improvement Council or the performance its duties under the law. I think these are important points to make as we take this action. Again, my thanks to Senator Gorton for his courtesy and understanding with respect to this very important issue.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just ask one additional question. The education goals panel, to which we are here giving instructions prohibiting them from taking certain action, is scheduled to meet a week from Saturday here in Washington, with Governor Bayh--I believe he is the new Chair of the education goals panel. What is the Senator intending to do by this action, by this vote, by this amendment? What is he intending to tell that group of Governors, and others who sit on that panel, about what their responsibilities are for considering standards in the future? Should they wait until we get some reading from the Congress as to whether or not there has been too much public concern? I am just concerned that we are setting a precedent which essentially makes their job irrelevant or their role irrelevant if we are going to have public debates in the Congress and pass mandatory legislation dictating how they are to proceed every time a new set of proposals comes forward.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just make one additional point. I heard my good friend from Connecticut and my friend from Washington. I think it is particularly ironic that this amendment is being considered on the so-called Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. This bill that is being considered before the Senate today, the bill that is proposed to be amended, says in its preface: To curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State and local government; to strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State and local and tribal governments; to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, local and tribal governments. Mr. President, we did try to defer to the States when we set up the education goals panel in the legislation, the Goals 2000 legislation, last year. We established that panel with eight Governors, four State legislators. And those 12 who represent the States would be offset by six representing the National Government, two from the administration and four Members of Congress. Now we have taken this 18-member panel, the National Education Goals Panel, set them up and given them the responsibility to review proposals that Gorton's amendment, we are proposing to step in before any standards have been presented to them and to legislatively prohibit them from adopting a set of as yet unproposed standards. Now this is a Federal mandate, it is a mandate by this Senate, by this Congress to that National Education Goals Panel, made up primarily of State government representatives, and telling them what they shall and shall not do. I, quite frankly, think it is insulting to the Governors, who are giving of their very valuable time to serve on this National Education Goals Panel, for us to be rushing to the Senate floor and passing legislation of this type before they have even been presented with anything in the National Education Goals Panel. I am one of the two Senators that serves on the National Education Goals Panel. I represent the Democratic side. Senator Cochran represents the Republican side. We have not had a meeting to discuss these proposed standards. In fact, the proposed standards have not even been put on the agenda to be discussed at future meetings, and yet the Senate is considering going ahead and adopting an amendment by the Senator from Washington which says, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the National Education Goals Panel shall disapprove'' these standards in whatever form they ever come to us. Mr. President, I have no disagreement with my friend from Connecticut about the substance of the proposed standards that have been developed under the funding of the National Endowment for Humanities and the contract that Lynne Cheney let when she was in that position. I agree there are some serious problems there. But let us defer to that group primarily representing States and allow them at least to do some of their work before we step in and dictate the result. Particularly, let us not dictate the result as an amendment to a bill which is designed to end the imposition of Federal mandates on State, local and tribal governments. I think it is the height of irresponsibility for us to proceed to adopt this amendment at this stage. I really do think those Governors and State legislators who are serving on that National Education Goals Panel deserve the chance to do the job which they are giving of their valuable time to do before we step in and try to overrule them and second-guess something which they well may decide not to do. I have no reason to think they are less patriotic or less concerned about a proper depiction of U.S. history than we here in the Senate are. And I think we should give them a chance to do the right thing. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak against the Gorton amendment. I think the Gorton amendment fails to recognize the immense amount of work that has gone into trying to put this country on a road to having and pursuing higher national standards, higher standards in education throughout the country. This is work that has primarily been done by the Governors of this country. I will point out that it began in Charlottesville, when President Bush was there with our 50 Governors some 5 years ago. Today, the National Education Goals Panel is made up primarily of Governors. There are eight Governors on this panel, there are two administration representatives, and there are four representatives from Congress. But clearly the Governors are those who set up the National Education Goals Panel. They are the ones who have led the way for this country to pursue national education goals and standards. The Governors who currently serve on that are an extremely distinguished group: Governor Romer, Governor Bayh, Governor Fordice of Mississippi, Governor Hunt, Governor Engler, Governor Carlson, Governor Edgar, and Governor Whitman of New Jersey. They are a very distinguished group of Governors. The amendment of Senator Gorton, in my view, would be an insult, if we were to pass this amendment, given the current state of deliberations by the National Governors and by the National Education Goals Panel on national standards. Essentially, this amendment says the National Education Goals Panel shall disapprove some proposed standards which have not even been presented for consideration before the panel as yet. It completely puts the Congress in the position of preempting the National Education Goals Panel. It further puts us in the business of preempting the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, which has not even been established. The members of that group, NESIC for short--that is the acronym that has been applied to this National Education Standards and Improvement Council--have not even been appointed. Yet, we are here being asked to adopt legislation directing this unappointed panel not to certify certain standards which have not yet been presented to them since they are not in existence. It strikes me that this is the height of arrogance on the part of Congress, to be stepping into an area where we have not had the leadership. Just to the contrary, the Governors have had the leadership. And we are saying by this amendment, if we adopt it: Do not take any action to approve standards. You, the Governors and the other members of this panel, disapprove these proposed standards that have not yet even been presented to you. And second, if and when we get a National Education Standards and Improvement Council appointed, they are also directed not to certify any standards along the lines that have been proposed. I certainly agree that there are major problems with the national standards that were proposed on history. I do not think that is the issue that is before us today. This whole business of getting standards in history is something which was started by the former administration, during the Bush administration. I recall the then Chair of the National Endowment for Humanities, Lynne Cheney, let the contract at that time to have these national standards developed. She has also, I would point out, been the main spokesperson objecting to the standards that have come back, or the proposed standards. My reaction is that clearly she is right, that there are problems with what has been proposed, and we need to change what has been proposed or, on the contrary, we need to get some go ahead. But we are not in a position in my opinion as a Congress to be directing the National Education Goals Panel, made up primarily of Governors in this country, directing them as to what action to take or not to take on specific standards at this point. The whole standards-setting process I believe has been a very healthy, forward looking, progressive effort in this country, and it has been bipartisan. It was bipartisan when it was started in the Bush administration with the Governors. It has remained so since then. I have the good fortune of serving on a council that was established by the Congress to look at the whole issue of whether we should have national standards. That council came up with a report which said the high standards for student attainment are critical to enhancing America's economic competitiveness, the quality of human capital, and the knowledge of skills. The knowledge and skills of labor and management helps determine a nation's ability to compete in the world marketplace. International comparisons, however, consistently have shown the academic performance of American students is below that of students in many other developed countries. The standard setting process was a reaction to our concern in this area, and it is a reaction which the Governors took the lead in because of the primary responsibility for education has always been at the State and local level, and should remain there. But we found in that council that I served on--this is a quotation from the report they came out with: In the absence of demanding content and performance standards, the United States has gravitated toward having a de facto minimal skills curriculum. That is what the Governors were trying to deal with in the standard setting process. We should not allow our concern about some specific set of proposed standards which have not even been presented to the National Education Goals Panel for approval yet but we should not allow our concern about those specific standards to deflect us from the long- term objective of having standards, and holding ourselves accountable to reaching those standards. They are voluntary standards. They ought to be voluntary standards. But still they are standards. They are standards for which we believe certain benchmarks are appropriate. And clearly I believe that the standard setting process is an extremely important part of improving the American education system. It would be a tragedy for us to step in before the first set of those standards have been presented to the National Education Goals Panel for approval and pass legislation directing how the National Education Goals Panel and the Governors who make up the majority of that group, are to dispose of standards. So I hope very much that we will defeat the Gorton amendment. I know Senator Jeffords has an alternative which I will plan to support and speak for at that time. But I hope very much that the Congress does not overreach and try through this amendment that has been presented by the Senator from Washington to usurp the authority which I think has rightfully been seen as resting with the Governors of this country. I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say I think I understand that, and if I was on the Appropriations Committee, I probably would think this was a great piece of legislation, because it would mean everybody would go to the Appropriations Committee, to an even greater extent than they do now, when they want to see something legislated. This goes to the authorizing committees, and this says if you were to put together a piece of legislation that said everyone who has an airport in the country will put in metal detectors and the Federal Government will pay 90 percent and States will pay 10 percent, or localities will pay 10 percent, whoever owns the airport will pay 10 percent, that legislation is out of order. You are right, under this procedure, you can come to the floor and you can waive the point of order, but the way you have to draft it here, it is out of order for us to consider that legislation. Let us suppose the Commerce Committee, which I assume would have jurisdiction, wanted to bring a bill to the floor which had a sharing of cost between the Federal Government, State government and local government that involved air traffic safety. That would be out of order. Now, you say OK, well, you can waive the point of order. I am just getting to the point of should we be writing into law a statement that it is out of order for Congress to consider legislation unless we at the Federal level are proposing to pay 100 percent of the cost. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I guess, Mr. President, the point I am trying to make is that I think that is an appropriate and necessary and essential part of the discussion that ought to take place when that bill comes out on the Senate floor. I just do not know that I like the idea of putting in law a statement that it is out of order for us to consider the bill. I think it might be appropriate to say, if they get the studies done, if they determine and they say in their report that there is a compelling national interest that requires this to happen, then the Senate can agree or disagree and the Senate can say we do not believe it. We think this has to be amended; the Federal Government should pay 100 percent, not just 90 percent. That is what ought to happen in the debate on the bill. It should not be procedurally inappropriate or wrong for the Congress to consider legislation that imposes some share of the cost on State and local government in some instances where there is a compelling national interest, it seems to me.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the chairman or the ranking member will be willing to answer some questions at this point. I would like to ask a few questions, trying to understand the legislation, since I am not on the committee.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I guess I have heard the explanation, and I certainly agree with the basic thrust of the legislation, and that is to try to ensure the Congress knows what it is doing before it acts, gets the necessary information and looks at the cost that it is imposing on State and local governments. As I read it, though, the bill seems to do more than that. The bill-- and here I am referring to page 21 where it says: It shall not be in order for the Senate to consider any bill or joint resolution that is reported by a committee unless---- A statement has been provided. I understand that is getting the information. I certainly support that and believe that is entirely appropriate. But then it says: It shall not be in order for the Senate to consider * * * any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that would increase the direct costs of Federal intergovernmental mandates by an amount that---- Exceeds the threshold. As I read that, I understand that you can always come to the floor and say, ``In spite of this, we want to waive that provision of law and we want to go ahead.'' But I am just wondering if this is somewhat unprecedented--obviously, it is unprecedented--but is it an appropriate thing for us to be putting in statute a statement that it is out of order for us to consider any legislation for which the Federal Government is not willing to pay 100 percent of the cost on Government. That is what we are saying here, that it is out of order for us in the Senate to consider any bill unless we, the Federal Government, are willing to pay the entire cost to any level of government. Really what we are trying to say is we need to stop and we need to think and we need to get estimates before we do that, but it is appropriate for us to do it in some cases. Is there not a more artful way we can do this and really say we need the information before we proceed and we need to think seriously and carefully about what we are doing before we proceed, instead of just saying it is not in order for us to ever proceed unless we are going to pay 100 percent of the cost?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I certainly understand, as I say, the importance of getting the information. I support that. I support having the careful consideration of what we are doing. Let me give you an example that has come to my attention. We passed a bill a few years ago on air transportation security where we basically said anybody who runs an airport in this country shall make provision to essentially put in metal detectors because we have determined that there is a public safety compelling national interest here that requires us to have metal detectors at all of our airports. That is a mandate. That is saying to the city of Albuquerque, which runs our airport in Albuquerque, that is saying you have to put in metal detectors. Clearly, that costs them some money. The Federal Government did not pick up the tab. But I guess what I am saying is, should it be as an initial matter inappropriate for us to consider legislation unless we, the Federal Government, are willing to pay 100 percent of the cost in all cases?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I do not argue with that part of the bill. I have said so several times in the last 10 minutes----

Mr. BINGAMAN. That the Senate should be required----