[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 60 (Monday, May 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             MFN FOR CHINA

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is now clear that the United States must 
do the right thing with respect to MFN for China: unconditional 
extension and abandonment of the failed linkage to human rights. The 
time is past for bluster and threats and feel-good pronouncements.
  With only days remaining before he must decide, the President should 
simply make the announcement, immediately if possible, that he will 
unconditionally extend China's most-favored-nation trade status. He 
should candidly say what most of us have known for a long time: Tying 
trade to human rights does not work. The policy has failed, the 
President should admit it and move on.
  Too many other issues, important issues including Chinese cooperation 
with regard to North Korea's nuclear program, are at stake for this 
charade to continue any longer. Unconditional extension of MFN is the 
right thing to do. No purpose is served by waiting.
  Let me say, Mr. President, the Chinese record on human rights is 
indeed appalling. We all agree that it should improve. But the answer 
is not to deprive Americans of jobs, and American companies of 
opportunity in the fastest growing emerging economy in the world by 
cutting off trade. Even partial extension of MFN--trying to target only 
the so-called state-run enterprises--will have the same result--China 
will surely retaliate against United States exports and companies.
  The policy of tying human rights to trade in China has failed. We 
have other methods of influencing China's behavior on human rights. 
Look at establishing a human rights commission charged with 
investigating and reporting on human rights abuses in China. Look at 
lending by multilateral banks to China. Look at restrictions on high-
level visits.
  I do not support destroying our trade relationship only to discover 
that we have alienated China, that China's behavior has not changed, 
and that other countries and other companies have taken our place in 
China.
  Last Thursday's Washington Post calls for the President to change his 
mind and de-link human rights from trade. I agree--it is time to stop 
making excuses and do the right thing.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post editorial be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Mr. Clinton's Choice on China

       As President Clinton approaches his decision on trading 
     with China, it's important to state the choice clearly. It's 
     not whether to support human rights in China but how best to 
     do it. A year ago Mr. Clinton said that if China did not 
     improve its performance he would withdraw the trading 
     privilege known as most-favored-nation treatment, in effect 
     shutting its exports out of the United States. China's 
     progress in human rights since then has been disappointingly 
     modest. But ending trade with China is too sweeping and 
     disruptive a remedy for the president's purpose. That purpose 
     is right, and the United States has a moral obligation to 
     pursue it. The most effective means are the same diplomatic 
     strategies that this country uses in dealing with other 
     countries.
       A compromise, much discussed in past weeks, might be to try 
     partial sanctions that ban, for example, only goods produced 
     by state-owned enterprises, or by factories run by the 
     Chinese army. Administering that sort of a partial cutoff 
     would be, as a practical matter, difficult to the point of 
     impossibility. Many of the Chinese products coming into the 
     United States arrive by way of Hong Kong or other 
     transshipment points and have often passed through many hands 
     before getting here. Tracing these exports back to their 
     origins in China would not be simple, and attempting it would 
     merely be an invitation to complicated games of deception.
       Few people have ever considered trade sanctions to be the 
     ideal lever to move China's Communist rulers toward a greater 
     regard for their people's rights. The attempt to use 
     sanctions originated after the government's bloody 
     suppression of the democracy movement five years ago. 
     Democrats in Congress, outraged by President Bush's limp 
     acceptance of that exercise in despotism, tried to legislate 
     trade retaliation because it was the only weapon legally 
     available to them. This newspaper had much sympathy for their 
     effort. But with a president in office who takes human rights 
     seriously, the case for resorting to trade sanctions is 
     greatly diminished. That's why there has been little 
     inclination in Congress this year to push for them.
       The greatest threat to a centralized Communist regime in 
     China is not a human rights campaign run from Washington but 
     the profound social change within China generated by 
     extremely rapid economic growth. It would be incautious to 
     assume that it will necessarily lead to democracy. But in 
     most countries rising incomes, better education and good 
     communications tend over time to create a climate hospitable 
     to human rights. That's not a bad reason to keep the trade 
     flowing. Rather than going through the contortions of trying 
     to bend present policy to meet past statements, Mr. Clinton 
     would be wise simply to say that while his intention to keep 
     pressing the principle of human rights remains strong, he has 
     changed his mind regarding tactics.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for no more than 10 minutes on the subject just addressed by 
the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Dole.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Utah is recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, in January, under the leadership of 
Bennett Johnston, the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, I and a 
number of other Senators went to China to meet with Chinese leaders and 
discuss with them the various problems and challenges that they have 
with respect to their energy needs.
  In the course of that visit, I became acquainted with the challenges 
facing the two countries as we near the time of having to decide 
whether or not the United States will renew the most-favored-nation 
status for China.
  As I was in my office and listening to the distinguished Republican 
leader, Mr. Dole, talk on this subject, I felt it would be well for me 
to come to the floor and add a few comments based on that firsthand 
experience with the Chinese leaders. Perhaps more importantly, Mr. 
President, in terms of this issue, I had firsthand experience with 
American leaders who are currently doing business in China.
  I know there are a number of people talking about the financial 
impact of most-favored-nation status. I will leave that debate to those 
who can expand more accurately than I on the specifics.
  The thing that struck me about my visit to China was that we have 
made substantial human rights advances in China because of the presence 
of American business interests there.
  Let me give you some examples. Again, Mr. President, I am not talking 
about the business aspect of this. I am talking about the human rights 
aspect of this.
  Because we have American companies in China, we have American 
companies recruiting Chinese students as they graduate from Chinese 
universities. This is a tremendous departure from past Chinese 
practice. Prior to the arrival of American companies there, a young 
Chinese student, male or female, would be told where to go to school, 
what to study, and what company he or she would have to work for upon 
graduation. Comes the American company which says, ``We want to 
interview your top graduates.'' The Chinese university says, ``Nobody 
ever does that. People go where they are told.''
  ``No,'' says the American company, ``We are in the process of 
interviewing and hiring here in China and we want to interview your top 
graduates.''
  As a result of that simple change, Chinese students are now able to 
go to work wherever they want to go to work and, more importantly, live 
wherever they want to live in China. Under the old regime, they had to 
have a job card that was issued by the Government, and therefore the 
Government could control them.
  Now, they can go to work for an American company and move wherever 
they want, and the Government loses track of them because they do not 
control their employment. The right to work where you wish and live 
where you wish is a very basic human right, and China has made gigantic 
human rights strides in this area.
  Why? Because we have granted them most-favored-nation status, and we 
have American companies there. If we revoke most favored nation for the 
Chinese and upset that pattern, we will be doing serious damage to the 
cause of human rights in China.
  There are many other aspects of this. If we have American companies 
in China, you have to have contracts. If you have contracts, you have 
lawyers, and a legal system, and a judicial system. The Chinese did not 
have that in terms we would recognize before. If we cause American 
companies to be forced out of China in retaliation to our withdrawing 
the MFN status, we will seriously undermine the status of the legal 
system within China.
  It comes as no surprise to the distinguished President pro tempore of 
this body to remember that if you have legal rights for contracts, you 
also have legal rights for individuals. And by establishing a legal 
system in China to respond to our needs, the Chinese have opened the 
door for individual rights to be enforced through the courts. It is a 
major human rights stride to have had this happen. For us to consider 
canceling MFN status would reverse that stride and bring greater 
hardship to the average Chinese.
  I wish to end, Mr. President, by quoting from the final work of 
Richard Nixon in his book ``Beyond Peace.'' Mr. Nixon has been properly 
commemorated at the time of his death. Some have said we have gone over 
far in our praise of Mr. Nixon, but even his strongest enemies would 
grant that of all things to be given favorable to Richard Nixon, his 
actions with respect to China give him the right to be quoted as one of 
our strongest leaders and statesmen in this area.
  If I may quote from his final book that was published just days 
before he fell, talking about China. I believe this is the appropriate 
summary to this debate. Mr. Nixon says:

       While most Americans give China high marks for its free 
     market economics, they rightly criticize the Government's 
     continuing denial of political freedom to the Chinese people. 
     However, cutting back our trade with China by revoking 
     China's most-favored-nation status would be a tragic mistake. 
     We cannot improve the political situation in China through a 
     scorched earth economic policy. Revoking China's most-
     favored-nation status would hurt the free market reformers 
     and entrepreneurs who hold the key to China's future. Not 
     only would it devastate the mainland's economy, it would lay 
     waste to the surrounding region as well. No other nation in 
     Asia supports our linking MFN status to human rights.
       Today China's economic power makes United States lectures 
     about human rights imprudent. Within a decade, it will make 
     them irrelevant. Within two decades, it will make them 
     laughable. By then the Chinese may threaten to withhold MFN 
     status from the United States unless we do more to improve 
     living conditions in Detroit, Harlem, and South Central Los 
     Angeles.

  So, Mr. President, I wish to rise and echo the sentiments offered by 
the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Dole, and urge the President 
to recognize the larger picture of human rights and realize that the 
strongest and best thing we can do to advance human rights in China 
would be to continue the MFN status between our two countries.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum having been 
suggested, the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens].


                           Amendment No. 1709

       (Purpose: To provide for reserve fund allocation to Indian 
     tribes and Alaska Native villages for improvement of dire 
     water system conditions on Indian reservations and in Alaska 
     Native villages, and for other purposes)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk I would 
like to present at this time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, Mr. 
     Inouye, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1709.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 11, line 18, after ``graph (1)'' insert the 
     following: ``may, at the election of the Governor of such 
     state, be reallocated in the form of additional grants 
     pursuant to subsection (f)(1) for eligible projects. 
     Otherwise such amount''.
       On page 11, line 20, after ``subsection (b)'' and before 
     the period insert the following: ``, except that the 
     Administrator shall reserve and allocate 10 percent of such 
     remaining amount for financial assistance to Indian tribes in 
     addition to the amount allotted under section 1472(c)''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am indebted to the managers of this 
bill and their staffs for having worked with my staff and that of 
Senator Inouye, Senator McCain, and Senator Murkowski. We present this 
amendment jointly.
  This is to prepare for a situation where some States may not use the 
allocation that is available to them on a mandatory basis under these 
amendments. What this will do is say, from the amount of money that 
comes back to the Administrator's control based upon the failure of any 
State to use the full allocation that is available to that State, the 
Administrator shall set aside 10 percent of that money for use by 
Indian tribes and that that would be in addition to the minimum 
allocation that is available to the Indian tribes in the Nation.
  I do not think anyone will quarrel with my statement if I say that 
the major needs of this country, in terms of water facilities, still 
remain to be on the reservations and the villages of our American 
Indians and Alaska Natives. Their demands for funds to meet these needs 
are almost insatiable.
  There is, however, at times, available a residue of funds that are 
not used by other States. And it was the desire of the Senators who 
offer this amendment that a greater amount of that be set aside in 
order to start the process for the subsequent year as far as the Indian 
reservations and the Alaska Native villages.
  It will not be much money, I do not think, but it will be more money 
than would be available to the Natives and the Indians on a mandatory 
basis under the terms of the bill.
  I am hopeful that both the managers of the bill and the Administrator 
will accept the concept that, of the financial assistance available 
after the first run-through for all the States, an increased amount 
should be made available to those who are most in need as far as this 
kind of Federal assistance.
  So I offer this amendment on my own behalf, and for the Senator from 
Hawaii [Mr. Inouye]; the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain]; and my 
colleague, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski].
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus].
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment is a good amendment. 
Essentially, there was an earlier request by the Senator from Alaska 
that perhaps we should increase the present 1\1/2\ percent of the State 
revolving loan funds for safe drinking water up to 3 percent. Although 
a laudable goal, it seemed to be unworkable in the whole context of the 
act.
  The Senator, therefore, has come back with another suggestion which I 
think is a good suggestion; namely, that the funds that are allocated 
under the State revolving loan funds to States that are not used by 
States for the drinking water revolving loan fund, up to 10 percent of 
that unused portion can be delegated to tribes for the purposes 
enunciated by the Senator from Alaska.
  I think it is a good amendment. It is a good way to address a part of 
the country that is in desperate need.
  Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger].
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, on behalf of the minority members of 
the committee, I rise to compliment our colleagues from Alaska, Senator 
Stevens and Senator Murkowski; our colleague from Hawaii, Senator 
Inouye; and our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, for their 
sensitivity to the special needs of Indian tribes and Alaska Native 
villages.
  Obviously, this is not going to meet all the demands, as the Senator 
from Alaska has pointed out. But it is a very logical way in which to 
contribute some of the remaining reserve funds.
  On behalf of the minority members, we recommend the adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I may be recognized for one further 
comment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens].
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the managers of the bill 
for their statements.
  This is a use it or lose it allocation concept under this bill. I 
know of no instance in which the allocations to Alaska Natives and 
American Indians have ever gone unused. But there are circumstances 
under which some States do not use their allocations. This will give a 
greater allowance to Indians and Alaska Natives whose areas need these 
facilities more than anyone else in the country.
  It is true, our original endeavor was to get a higher basic 
allocation to start with. But, as a compromise, I congratulate the 
staffs of both the committee and the four of us, working together. I 
think our staffs have found a solution that will increase the money to 
the American Indians and Alaska Natives from time to time.
  I am grateful to the chairman and ranking member for their assistance 
in this regard.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the adoption of the 
amendment offered by Mr. Stevens, the Senator from Alaska.
  The amendment (No. 1709) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum having been 
suggested, the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1710

(Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
   Agency to submit to Congress the drinking water needs survey and 
                       assessment every 2 years)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Graham, of Florida, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Graham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1710.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 21, lines 5 through 8, strike ``4 years'' and all 
     that follows through ``part.'' and insert the following: ``2 
     years thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to Congress 
     a survey and assessment of the needs for facilities in each 
     State eligible for assistance under this part. The survey 
     shall be submitted in even-numbered years so as to alternate 
     annually with the estimate and comprehensive study of costs 
     required to be submitted to Congress in each odd-numbered 
     year under section 516(b) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1381(b)).''

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment, a very 
important one. Essentially, under the bill, we set up a safe drinking 
water revolving loan fund. Currently, the Clean Water Act has a State 
revolving loan fund. Under that State revolving loan fund, the U.S. 
Government makes certain contributions to State revolving loan funds. 
Then States use those dollars, which are matched by State 
contributions. The States then make loans to cities and towns for waste 
water treatment plants.
  Currently, there is no similar revolving loan fund under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. Those communities which need to upgrade their 
drinking water systems do not have the benefit of a revolving loan fund 
similar to the one that now exists under the Clean Water Act for 
municipal waste water and sewage treatment plants.
  Having said that, Mr. President, a question arises. Under what 
formula should amounts be distributed under the new Safe Drinking Water 
Act revolving loan fund provided in this legislation?
  In the bill, we provide that the allocation be based on the public 
water supply supervision program money. The current provision allows 
the U.S. Government to make grants to the States to develop their safe 
drinking water programs. These are not capitalization grants through 
the State revolving loan fund. Rather, they are grants to States to 
develop their safe drinking water program. The money goes to technical 
assistance, funding personnel, and so forth.
  As you might guess, Mr. President, those dollars are distributed 
according to an allocation formula. In this legislation, we provide 
that under the new safe drinking water revolving loan fund the 
allocation to States for the revolving loan fund be based on the same 
proportion as the dollars that are currently allocated under the State 
public water supply supervision program grant formula.
  Fewer dollars are available under that second program. I think $60 
million was appropriated for the current fiscal year; whereas, the safe 
drinking water revolving loan fund includes $600 million in the first 
year, and then $1 billion to be authorized in subsequent years.
  (Mrs. BOXER assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BAUCUS. This is a long way of saying, Madam President, that we 
have to find the right allocation to distribute the dollars, and in 
addition, that allocation has to be brought up-to-date in a reasonable 
period of time.
  The Senator from Florida suggests that we update the allocation among 
the various States every 2 years. In the legislation before us, Madam 
President, we provide for an updated assessment and allocation every 4 
years after 1998. It is the allocation according to the State program 
grant formula up to 1998, and after 1998, every 4 years the EPA will 
ask the States what their needs are under their safe drinking water 
programs. Then dollars will be distributed according to needs as 
determined by the various States and also under the program as 
administered by the EPA.
  Senator Graham has suggested that the 4-year period be shortened to 2 
years. Instead of the needs formula being brought up-to-date every 4 
years, it will be brought up-to-date, under the Graham amendment, every 
2 years. I think that is a very good idea, to change from 4 years to 2 
years. After all, we are quite a mobile country. People move to 
different States. Some States grow at rapid rates. Some States lose 
population at a slow rate, others at a rapid rate.
  In any event, the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida is a 
good one, and I urge the Senate to adopt it.
  Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, I understand that the amendment by 
our colleague from Florida is acceptable to Members on the minority 
side.
  I will just make a realistic comment, which I hate to do. But we were 
just talking a little bit ago about, are there any States that do not 
take the money. And we found out that, yes, some do not. In fact, one 
of our States does not take it at all. The States find that, given the 
way some things work, they are better off meeting their own needs in 
their own ways, and assessing their own needs, and determining the best 
way to do it.
  The Federal needs assessment system is set up, and has been set up, 
on an every-4-year basis, so that in meeting the needs of the Nation, 
we can find ways to balance specific interests. The reality is, 
however, that the lag time between the time a need is determined and 
decisions are made, and when the money actually gets invested, can be 
as long as 15 to 20 years. I think 2 percent of the money goes out the 
first year, and 6 percent goes out the second year.
  So I guess, by our support of this amendment, I would not want 
anybody to think we are going to meet the needs of Florida, California, 
Minnesota, or Montana twice as fast, because we will not. We are going 
to spend more money to do this every 2 years rather than every 4 years. 
But I am not sure that anybody should interpret the impact of this 
amendment as a more effective use of the moneys which have been 
allocated.
  Having said that, and knowing that EPA has a base on which it can 
build, perhaps we will find an appropriate way, or maybe a more 
appropriate way, in which to do the needs assessment. Members on this 
side recommend the adoption of the amendment by the Senator from 
Florida, as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I have a minor technical correction for the Record.
  Earlier, I said that the allocation would be on a 2-year basis after 
1998. I misspoke. I meant the needs assessment would be on a 2-year 
basis after 1996, not 1998.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1710) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                the critical aquifer protection program

  Mr. WARNER. I would like to ask the chairman to clarify the 
relationship between section 1427, the Critical Aquifer Protection 
Program and the new section 1420, Source Water Quality Protection 
Petition Program.
  If a critical source protection area is designated pursuant to 
section 1427 and assistance is sought through the source water 
protection petition process, then my understanding is that the 
requirements of the petition process apply when a local government or 
community water system seeks resources to address problems identified 
in a petition.
  Is the situation I have described also the chairman's understanding 
of how these two sections would compliment each other?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would agree with the Senator from 
Virginia. The petition process will identify problems with contaminants 
entering waters that serve as drinking water supplies and provide a 
means of directing resources to tackle these problems.
  However, some States may find that the most cost-effective approach 
is to pursue prevention-oriented approaches. Nothing in the amendment 
offered by the Senators from Virginia and North Dakota or other 
provisions of the bill is intended to dissuade States from pursuing 
such approaches.


                        origins of contaminants

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to clarify in plain English 
our intent in using the phase ``the origins of drinking water 
contaminants of public health concern, including to the extent 
practicable the specific activities that affect the drinking water 
supply.''
  It is my understanding that this means that through the petition 
process every reasonable effort will be made to identify what the 
problem is and if there is a problem with a contaminant entering a 
source water, to identify, as precisely as possible, where it is coming 
from.
  Would the Senator from Virginia confirm if my understanding is 
correct?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman's understanding of the intent 
of the phrase in our amendment is correct. It is essential that the 
contaminant which may be causing a violation of a maximum contaminant 
level or a public health threat be identified and that every reasonable 
effort be made to determine where it is coming from. This is necessary 
if we are to achieve effective source protection response through 
voluntary, incentive-based partnerships. Scarce resources must be 
targeted to where problems exist.


              priorities in sourcewater protection efforts

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate approved the Warner-
Conrad amendment regarding sourcewater protection. The amendment 
encourages communities to work cooperatively with the State and parties 
in the sourcewater area to pursue cost-effective pollution prevention 
actions.
  Because all parties involved have limited resources, it only seems 
logical that those resources be directed first at the areas with the 
greatest potential for source protection. In the case of nonpoint 
source pollution, I believe that farmers and other land users who have 
already implemented management measures should not be asked to 
implement additional measures unless it is clear that such action would 
actually help address the specific drinking water problem. In addition, 
I would expect those involved to seek first to work in partnership with 
land users who may not already have taken steps to reduce pollution. 
Would Senator Conrad agree?
  Mr. CONRAD. I strongly agree with the chairman's interpretation. 
Every effort should be made to first in partnership with parties that 
may not already have taken steps to reduce pollution. We need to 
concentrate our efforts on areas that will provide the most pollution 
prevention benefits.

                          ____________________