Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just respond and be sure the Senator understands my point. We are also saying in the bill that it is out of order to consider any bill where the Federal Government does not pay 100 percent of the cost; any bill that imposes an obligation on State and local government, where the Federal Government does not pay 100 percent of the cost, that is out of order. Now, you are right, we can come to the floor and we can vote to waive the point of order. But we are putting in law a statement that it is out of order for us to consider any piece of legislation unless we, the Federal Government, are paying 100 percent of the cost.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I understand that. But I am just saying that if a reporting committee, if the Commerce Committee determined that there was a compelling national interest for us to have metal detectors at our airports around the country and that the appropriate sharing of cost was 90 percent by the Federal Government, 10 percent by the person who owns the airport--and clearly we should require them to get the report as to what this is going to cost, what it is going to cost States and localities, what it is going to cost everybody up and down the line. But once they get that information, if they still believe there is a compelling national interest, should they have to, when they bring that bill to the floor, face the statutory provision you are putting here which says it is out of order to consider this bill?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator one other example that has occurred to me. There is a bill that Senator Inouye and Senator McCain had been considering in the last Congress--I believe they introduced it. They certainly had various hearings on it--to put in place a more extensive regulatory mechanism for controlling gaming on Indian land. This legislation, of course, would make that out of order. Any bill that imposed an additional cost on the tribal government would be out of order under your legislation, as I understand your legislation, because you would be saying, if you want to engage in gaming on Indian land, you have to do certain things to ensure that organized crime does not get involved, that people who gamble at your facilities are treated fairly, et cetera, et cetera. Now, am I confused on this? As I understand the bill pending before the Senate today, it would say that bill is point of order can be raised that that bill is out of order because it requires tribal governments that want to participate in gaming to incur costs.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. May I just ask the Senator from Ohio a question when the Senator from Minnesota has completed his question?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if I may just ask the Senator from Ohio, as to this whole issue of frequent flier miles and all, I have difficulty understanding the disagreement that exists. As I understand it, you are talking about a public property here, which is these so- called frequent flier miles that have been accumulated with taxpayers' dollars being converted to personal use. I always thought that was against the law to take public property and convert it to personal use. I do not understand why we are having to pass laws on this issue. I did not realize that it was just a question of which rule you wanted to adopt. I always thought it was against the law to take public property and convert it to private use. Am I missing something?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment for myself and Senator Levin that I believe is acceptable to both sides. I thank the distinguished managers of the bill, Senator Grassley and Senator Glenn, and the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Ford, for this assistance with this amendment. Last year, Congress enacted a bipartisan bill to put an end to antiquated and expensive procurement rules that governed the way Federal agencies buy goods and services. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, spearheaded by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn and the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth, repealed or modified more than 225 outdated laws. The goal of the legislation was simplification, and much to the credit of Senators Roth and Glenn, it is being realized today. Already, dozens of Federal agencies are changing the way they do business. They are functioning like cost-conscious private businesses, getting rid of old rules that, more often than not, led to ``spending millions to save thousands and thousands to save hundreds.'' In the Senate, our offices may not spend millions to save thousands, but I would bet that we often spend ``hundreds to save tens'' and ``tens to save pennies.'' Take my office in Santa Fe, NM, for example. When my staff runs out of staples, how do they purchase refills? The logical, economical course of action would be to run over to Woolworths, only two blocks way. But under our interpretation of current Senate regulations, they cannot do that. Senate rules prohibit it. Instead, my New Mexico staff must call my office here in Washington; a member of my staff here must make a purchase from the Senate; then he or she must ship the staples to Santa Fe. The cost of a $1.50 box of staples just rose to at least $10. The same antiquated and expensive rules apply to purchases of paper, envelopes, pens, clocks, computers, and teleconferencing equipment-- virtually everything a small office needs to function day-to-day. I believe it is time to put an end this costly practice. S. 2, which is before us today, provides the ideal opportunity. Today, while we are taking action to make other laws applicable to the legislative branch, we should do the responsible, economical thing and make the cost-saving goal of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act applicable to the U.S. Senate. My amendment would help us accomplish this task in a short and straightforward manner. The amendment simply expresses the sense of the Senate that the Senate Rules Committee should review rules applicable to purchases by Senate offices to determine whether they are consistent with the acquisition simplification and streamlining laws enacted in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. I believe this amendment will help bring simplified, cost-effective purchasing procedures to all Senate offices. In the end, everyone from Senate staff to America's working families will benefit from the cost- savings we can achieve. Again, I thank the distinguished managers of the bill, and the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee for their assistance with this amendment. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, in reintroducing the Comprehensive Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention Act. Through this legislation, we are proposing a comprehensive, coordinated, national effort to prevent one of the leading causes of birth defects in this country: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. The need for this legislation is well documented. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome [FAS] is the Nation's primary known cause of mental retardation; yet it is completely preventable. According to a 1993 report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of reported FAS cases has tripled over the past decade. The CDC reports that in 1992, nearly 4 infants out of every 10,000 births were born with FAS, suffering irreversible physical and mental harm. In 1979, the first year CDC collected information on the incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, it estimated the number of reported FAS cases at only 1 per 10,000 births. Adding to the extent of the problem are estimates which indicate that each year 10,000 to 12,000 infants are born with lesser, though still serious, alcohol-related birth defects known as Fetal Alcohol Effects [FAE]. In my home State of New Mexico, the number of infants born with FAS has exceeded the national average for a number of years. Each year, more than 36 babies are born in New Mexico with FAS, and more than 80 are born with FAE. Some experts believe our FAS rate has been consistently higher than the national average because our doctors, who have benefitted from a significant amount of State-based FAS research, are more familiar with its signs and symptoms. If this is true, then nationally the number of FAS and FAE births could be higher than today's estimates. In fact, the CDC believes this to be the case. According to Dr. David Erickson, the chief of the CDC's Birth Defects and Genetic Diseases branch, the new CDC count--which we need to remember is a threefold increase over the 1979 estimate-- probably is a substantial undercount. It is an undercount for a number of reasons, but chief among them is undoubtedly lack of awareness. Although the exact number of infants and families impacted by FAS and FAE is not entirely certain, there is no question that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is a national problem. It can impact any child, any family, and any community. But I am especially troubled about the threat FAS poses to the Navajo, Apache, and Pueblo children and families in New Mexico and to American Indians throughout the Nation. New Mexico health officials estimate that the combined FAS rate for our State's 22 Indian Tribes is two to five times that of the national average. According to the Indian Health Service, the prevalence of FAS is significantly higher among American Indians and Alaska Natives than nationally. I have been told that in some American Indian and Alaska Native communities, as many as one in four newborns may be affected by FAS or FAE. Mr. President, the real tragedy of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects is that both are completely preventable. Not one more infant would be born with FAS or FAE if every pregnancy was an alcohol- free pregnancy. If we could get the message out that alcohol and pregnancy do not mix, if we could explain the compelling need for every mother to stay away from alcoholic beverages while she is pregnant, then we could eliminate this disease. The key is prevention through education. Prevention through education is the cornerstone of the Comprehensive Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention Act. As I mentioned earlier, this bill will create a comprehensive, coordinated program within the Department of Health and Human Services to help prevent FAS and FAE. Specifically, this bill: Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: coordinate and support national and targeted public awareness, prevention, and education programs on FAS-FAE; coordinate and support basic and applied epidemiologic research on FAS-FAE; assist states in establishing FAS- FAE surveillance programs; focus efforts on the needs of at-risk populations, and American Indians and Alaska Natives in particular. Establishes an Inter-Agency Task Force on FAS-FAE: to coordinate all Federal agencies that conduct or support FAS-FAE research, programs, and surveillance or otherwise meet the general needs of populations actually or potentially impacted by FAS-FAE. I believe one of the most important provisions of this bill is the section that would help states and local communities develop targeted campaigns to increase public awareness of the symptoms and impact for preventing FAS and FAE. The central focus of every campaign will be clear, effective, and culturally-sensitive methods and messages for FAS and FAE prevention. Initially, Federal efforts will focus on the needs of at-risk populations, and in particular, American Indians and Alaska Natives. I urge my colleagues to study this legislation and lend it their support. As I mentioned earlier, FAS knows no boundaries. It can, and does, impact children and families in every State in this country. It is a problem so pervasive, yet so readily preventable, that it requires a broad-based, concerted, and coordinated effort for elimination. Existing FAS-FAE prevention programs need increased funding, and we need to work to make this happen. But money alone is not the answer. We need a firm commitment from the Federal Government, the States, local governments, Indian tribes, schools, community-based organizations, and families to assume responsibility and work together, in a coordinated manner, for the benefit of our children. If we have this commitment, we can improve the quality of life for children already afflicted with FAS, and we can put an end to this terrible, and 100-percent preventable, disease.