[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 123 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9879-S9900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2001--CONFERENCE REPORT--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A conference report to accompany H.R. 4578, an act making
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related
agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for
other purposes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senate Agenda
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the situation we are in right now is
interesting. It is different from any similar period I can recall in
nearly 26 years in the Senate. We are at the end of the fiscal year--we
have actually gone beyond the end of the fiscal year--and nothing seems
to be happening. I voted against the continuing resolution, not because
I do not think we should keep the Government going--of course we
should; it is unfortunate to close down the Government--but more to
express my concern that we are not doing our business.
We have not passed our appropriations bills as we should. We all talk
about how we make Government more efficient or how we make Government
better. But imagine if you are running one of these Agencies or one of
these Departments and you have to make the decisions for the year, and
Congress, which has a mandate under law to pass the appropriations
bills by September 30, we are here on October 5 and are nowhere near
completing the bills.
Yet in a Congress that spends more time investigating than
legislating, we are perfectly willing to have investigations and
actually bring a lot of these Departments to a halt while we ask them
question after question, even if the questions have already been asked,
and yet we are unwilling to do our own work on time. It is not the way
it can be done, and it is not the way it should be done.
I strongly urge Senators to consider next year when we come back, no
matter who wins the Presidency, no matter who wins seats in the Senate
or in the other body, that we spend more time trying to do things that
actually help the country, that we set aside some of the partisanship
and bitterness that has marked this Senate actually since impeachment
time, which in itself was marked by partisanship when impeachment was
rushed through in a lame duck House of Representatives and then passed
over to this body. It appears in many ways we lost our footing at that
time and never got back on course.
There are bills that have bipartisan support. There was one I was
discussing on the floor a few minutes ago with the distinguished
Senator from Colorado, the Campbell-Leahy bulletproof vest bill. This
is a bill that provides money for bulletproof vests for law enforcement
officers.
Senator Campbell and I served in law enforcement before we came to
Congress. We served at a time when much of law enforcement did not face
the danger it does now, but we kept enough of our ties to law
enforcement and so we know how difficult it is. We know that the men
and women we send out to protect all of us are themselves so often the
victims of the same criminals from whom they try to protect us.
Bulletproof vests are a $500 or $600 item. They wear out in 5 years.
A lot of departments, especially small departments in States such as
Vermont or rural areas like Texas, cannot afford these vests. I have
letters from hundreds of law enforcement people from around the country
who tell me that under the original Campbell-Leahy bill, they finally
have a sense of security because they have bulletproof vests. We want
to extend that for a couple more years. Yet we cannot even get a vote
on it.
This is a bill which, if it is brought to a vote in this Chamber, I
am willing to bet virtually every Senator, Republican and Democrat,
will vote for. How can one vote against it? Yet there has been one hold
on the Republican side of the aisle, and we cannot bring up this vital
law enforcement piece of legislation.
I wanted to be sure--I am hearing from law enforcement agencies all
across the country: Why can't you pass it?--so I actually made the
point of checking with all 46 Democratic Senators: Do any of you have
any objection to voting on this on a second's notice? They said: No,
pass it by unanimous consent, if you want.
I ask whoever is holding it up on the other side not to continue to
hold it up.
Mr. President, I return to ask the Republican leadership what is
holding up enactment of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of
2000? This is a bill I introduced with Senator Campbell and others last
April. The Senate Judiciary Committee considered and and reported the
bill unanimously to the full Senate back in June. I have since been
working to get Senate consideration, knowing that it will pass
overwhelmingly if not unanimously.
Unfortunately, an anonymous ``hold'' on the Republican side prevented
enactment before the Senate recessed in July. I have been unable to
discover which Republican Senator opposes the bill or why, and that
remains true today.
We have been working for several months to pass the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Act of 2000. It has been cleared by all Democratic
Senators.
That it has still not passed the full Senate is very disappointing to
me, as I am sure that it is to our nation's law enforcement officers,
who need life-saving bulletproof vests to protect themselves.
Protecting and supporting our law enforcement community should not be a
partisan issue.
Senator Campbell and I worked together closely and successfully in
the last Congress to pass the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of
1998 into law. This year's bill reauthorizes and extends the successful
program that we helped create and that the Department of Justice has
done such a good job implementing.
I have charts here that show how successful the Bulletproof Vests
Grant Program has been for individual states. In its first year of
operation in 1999, the program funded the purchase of 167,497 vests
with $23 million in federal grant funds.
For the State of Alabama, the program funded the purchase of 2,287
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in 1999. For the State
of California, the program funded the purchase of 28,106 bulletproof
vests for law enforcement officers in 1999. For the State of Colorado,
the program funded the purchase of 1,844 bulletproof vests for police
officers in 1999.
For the State of Idaho, the program funded the purchase of 711
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in 1999. For the State
of Michigan, the program funded the purchase of 2,932 bulletproof vests
for law enforcement officers in 1999. For the State of Minnesota, the
program funded the purchase of 1,052 bulletproof vests for law
enforcement officers in 1999. For the State of Mississippi, the program
funded the purchase of 1,283 bulletproof vests for law enforcement
officers in 1999. For the State of Missouri, the program funded the
purchase of 2,919 bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in
1999.
[[Page S9880]]
For the State of New York, the program funded the purchase of 13,004
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in 1999. For the State
of Oklahoma, the program funded the purchase of 3,042 bulletproof vests
for law enforcement officers in 1999. For the State of Rhode Island,
the program funded the purchase of 792 bulletproof vests for law
enforcement officers in 1999. For the State of Utah, the program funded
the purchase of 1,326 bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in
1999. For my home State of Vermont, the program funded the purchase of
361 bulletproof vests for police officers in 1999. For big and small
states, the program was a success in its first year.
I have a second chart that shows how successful the Bulletproof Vests
Grant Program has been for individual states in its second year of
operation. In 2000, the program funded the purchase of 158,396 vests
with $24 million in federal grant funds.
For the State of Alabama, the program funded the purchase of 2,498
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in 2000. For the State
of California, the program funded the purchase of 27,477 bulletproof
vests for law enforcement officers in 2000. For the State of Colorado,
the program funded the purchase of 2,288 bulletproof vests for police
officers in 2000.
For the State of Idaho, the program funded the purchase of 477
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in 2000. For the State
of Michigan, the program funded the purchase of 3,427 bulletproof vests
for law enforcement officers in 2000. For the State of Minnesota, the
program funded the purchase of 709 bulletproof vests for law
enforcement officers in 2000. For the State of Mississippi, the program
funded the purchase of 1,364 bulletproof vests for law enforcement
officers in 2000. For the State of Missouri, the program funded the
purchase of 1,221 bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in
2000.
For the State of New York, the program funded the purchase of 11,969
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in 2000. For the State
of Oklahoma, the program funded the purchase of 3,389 bulletproof vests
for law enforcement officers in 2000. For the State of Rhode Island,
the program funded the purchase of 313 bulletproof vests for law
enforcement officers in 2000. For the State of Utah, the program funded
the purchase of 1,326 bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers in
2000. For my home State of Vermont, the program funded the purchase of
175 bulletproof vests for police officers in 2000. For the second year
in a row, the program was a great success.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two charts listing
the number of bulletproof vests purchased and the Federal grant amounts
for each state in 1999 and 2000 under the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Grant Program be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEAHY. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 builds
on the success of this program by doubling its annual funding to $50
million for fiscal years 2002-2004. It also improves the program by
guaranteeing jurisdictions with fewer than 100,000 residents receiving
the full 50-50 matching funds because of the tight budgets of these
smaller communities and by making the purchase of stab-proof vests
eligible for grant awards to protect corrections officers in close
quarters in local and county jails.
We have 20 cosponsors on the new bill, including a number of
Democrats and Republicans. This is a bipartisan bill that is not being
treated in a bipartisan way. For some unknown reason a Republican
Senator has a hold on this bill and has chosen to exercise that right
anonymously.
More than ever before, police officers in Vermont and around the
country face deadly threats that can strike at any time, even during
routine traffic stops. Bulletproof vests save lives. It is essential
the we update this law so that many more of our officers who are
risking their lives everyday are able to protect themselves.
I hope that the mysterious ``hold'' on the bill from the other side
of the aisle will disappear. The Senate should pass without delay the
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 and send to the
President for his signature into law.
Before we recessed last July, I informed the Republican leadership
that the House of Representatives had passed the companion bill, H.R.
4033, by an overwhelming vote of 413-3. I expressed my hope that the
Senate would quickly follow suit and pass the House-passed bill and
send it to the President. President Clinton has already endorsed this
legislation to support our Nation's law enforcement officers and is
eager to sign it into law.
I find it ironic that the Senate in July passed the Federal Law
Enforcement Animal Protection Act, H.R. 1791. That bill increased the
penalties for harming dogs and horses used by federal law enforcement
officers. President Clinton signed that bill into law on August 2nd.
The majority acted quickly to protect dogs and horses used by law
enforcement officers but has stalled action on legislation to provide
life-saving protection for law enforcement officers themselves. The
Senate should have moved as quickly in July to pass the Bulletproof
Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 and sent it to the President for his
signature into law.
Several more months have come and gone. Unfortunately, nothing has
changed. Not knowing what the misunderstanding of our bill is, I find
it is impossible to overcome an anonymous, unstated objection. I,
again, ask whoever it is on the Republican side who has a concern about
this program to please come talk to me and to Senator Campbell. I hope
that the Senate will do the right thing and pass this important
legislation without further unnecessary delay.
Exhibit 1
BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT--YEAR 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Total vests Approved amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................. 2,287 $230,343.84
Alaska................................... 395 90,309.65
Arizona.................................. 1,705 334,099.97
Arkansas................................. 778 180,830.13
California............................... 28,106 2,843,427.56
Colorado................................. 1,844 303,622.83
Connecticut.............................. 3,637 547,507.96
Delaware................................. 1,526 69,533.76
District of Columbia..................... 844 44,899.70
Florida.................................. 9,641 985,708.59
Georgia.................................. 4,067 528,480.98
Guam..................................... 145 6,000.00
Hawaii................................... 330 100,865.57
Idaho.................................... 711 101,673.49
Illinois................................. 9,035 1,337,252.98
Indiana.................................. 5,375 774,582.31
Iowa..................................... 1,954 441,262.08
Kansas................................... 1,257 195,605.72
Kentucky................................. 1,510 234,990.82
Louisiana................................ 3,112 330,409.06
Maine.................................... 626 161,374.59
Maryland................................. 3,772 329,998.45
Massachusetts............................ 2,255 274,032.76
Michigan................................. 2,932 658,931.12
Minnesota................................ 1,052 146,378.98
Mississippi.............................. 1,283 201,931.59
Missouri................................. 2,919 478,933.33
Montana.................................. 435 101,647.37
Nebraska................................. 905 127,329.90
Nevada................................... 394 84,441.26
New Hampshire............................ 450 143,632.09
New Jersey............................... 5,336 838,439.10
New Mexico............................... 1,388 321,910.87
New York................................. 13,004 1,240,481.60
North Carolina........................... 5,974 750,998.79
North Dakota............................. 397 81,443.98
Northern Mariana Islands................. 375 38,000.00
Ohio..................................... 5,506 1,084,863.95
Oklahoma................................. 3,042 348,374.03
Oregon................................... 1,847 342,712.74
Pennsylvania............................. 8,360 1,018,781.60
Puerto Rico.............................. 1,496 212,091.20
Rhode Island............................. 792 192,873.46
South Carolina........................... 2,286 451,685.53
South Dakota............................. 228 57,206.42
Tennessee................................ 2,576 331,638.90
Texas.................................... 9,245 1,350,816.23
Utah..................................... 1,326 325,181.42
U.S. Virgin Island....................... 356 6,000.00
Vermont.................................. 361 96,386.81
Virginia................................. 3,559 426,197.77
Washington............................... 1,840 387,177.81
West Virginia............................ 645 128,878.93
Wisconsin................................ 2,065 441,721.01
Wyoming.................................. 221 49,814.46
------------------------------
Total.................................. 167,497 22,913,725.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT--YEAR 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Number vests BVP funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................ 2,498 333,476.91
Alaska................................. 202 38,435.26
Arizona................................ 2,569 474,444.89
Arkansas............................... 408 164,433.89
California............................. 27,477 2,983,332.71
Colorado............................... 2,288 388,322.15
Connecticut............................ 1,904 308,881.86
Delaware............................... 2,214 216,210.35
District of Columbia................... 1,580 171,768.76
Florida................................ 11,769 1,433,916.06
Georgia................................ 4,780 749,046.97
Guam................................... .............. ...............
Hawaii................................. 2,331 388,037.21
Idaho.................................. 477 120,627.95
Illinois............................... 6,761 923,328.88
Indiana................................ 3,842 513,415.07
Iowa................................... 1,011 210,632.67
Kansas................................. 1,048 201,192.38
Kentucky............................... 1,363 241,682.86
Louisiana.............................. 3,510 421,933.86
Maine.................................. 576 120,651.83
Maryland............................... 2,782 265,643.15
Massachusetts.......................... 3,582 754,073.82
Michigan............................... 3,427 622,564.00
Minnesota.............................. 709 234,776.23
Mississippi............................ 1,364 239,899.81
Missouri............................... 1,221 224,177.96
Montana................................ 271 80,877.76
Nebraska............................... 622 90,276.24
Nevada................................. 1,176 141,612.32
New Hampshire.......................... 489 118,470.26
New Jersey............................. 5,579 1,227,933.41
[[Page S9881]]
New Mexico............................. 1,195 200,141.76
New York............................... 11,969 1,817,314.92
North Carolina......................... 3,183 530,987.91
North Dakota........................... 352 43,284.36
Northern Mariana Islands............... 355 107,033.50
Ohio................................... 5,015 950,198.19
Oklahoma............................... 3,389 562,865.11
Oregon................................. 2,456 416,464.24
Pennsylvania........................... 8,260 1,577,238.20
Puerto Rico............................ 1,337 147,861.47
Rhode Island........................... 313 84,417.94
South Carolina......................... 1,727 256,551.50
South Dakota........................... 157 27,845.87
Tennessee.............................. 2,154 286,436.37
Texas.................................. 5,962 802,886.82
U.S. Virgin Island..................... 341 45,361.11
Utah................................... 837 171,546.50
Vermont................................ 175 43,806.27
Virginia............................... 3,415 446,645.52
Washington............................. 2,690 525,935.54
West Virginia.......................... 512 75,650.56
Wisconsin.............................. 2,418 437,207.69
Wyoming................................ 159 44,134.89
--------------------------------
Total................................ 158,396 24,005,803.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial Nominations
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today is October 5, the first anniversary
of an event I hope I will not see again in the Senate. I have spoken
many times about the Senate being the conscience of the Nation, and it
should be. A year ago today, I believe the country was harmed by a
party-line vote. That party-line vote defeated the nomination of
Justice Ronnie White to the Federal district court in Missouri. Justice
White, on the Missouri Supreme Court, had the highest qualifications.
He passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee. He had the highest
ABA ratings. He is a distinguished African American jurist. Yet when it
came to a vote, every Democrat voted for him and every Republican voted
against him. I believe that was a mistake and one we will regret. I
spoke on this nomination on October 15 and 21 of last year and more
recently this year.
Fifty-one years ago this month--I was 9 years old--the Senate
confirmed President Truman's nomination of William Henry Hastings to
the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. That was actually the first
Senate confirmation of an African American to our Federal courts--only
51 years ago. Thirty-one years ago, the Senate confirmed President
Johnson's nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the U.S. Supreme Court.
When we rejected Ronnie White, I wonder if we went backward or we moved
forward.
This year, the Judiciary Committee has even refused to move forward
with a hearing on Roger Gregory or Judge James Wynn to the Fourth
Circuit. It is interesting--talk about bipartisanship--one of these men
is a distinguished African American, a legal scholar, strongly
supported by both the Republican and Democratic Senators from his
State. Senator Warner, a distinguished and respected Member of this
body and a Republican, strongly supports him. Senator Robb, an equally
distinguished and respected Member of this body and a Democrat, a
decorated war hero, also supports him, and the President nominated him.
We cannot even get a vote.
I hope this does not continue. I suggest, again, whoever wins the
Presidency, whoever wins seats or loses seats in the Senate, that we
not do this next year.
This year, the Judiciary Committee reported only three nominees to
the Court of Appeals all year. We denied a committee vote to two
outstanding nominees who succeeded in getting hearings. I understand
the frustration of Senators who know Roger Gregory, Judge James Wynn,
Kathleen McCree Lewis, Judge Helene White, Bonnie Campbell, and others
should have been considered and voted on.
There are multiple vacancies on the Third, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
Ninth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits; 23 current vacancies.
Our appellate courts have nearly half of the judicial vacancies in the
Federal court system. That has to change. I hope it will.
I see my distinguished colleague and friend from Texas on the floor.
I want to assure her I will yield the floor very soon.
But I hope we can look again and ask ourselves objectively, without
any partisanship, can we not do better on judges?
I quoted Gov. George Bush on the floor a couple days ago. I said I
agreed with him. On nominations, he said we should vote them up or down
within 60 days. If you don't want the person, vote against them. The
Republican Party should have no fear of that. They have the majority in
this body. They can vote against them if they want, but have the vote.
Either vote for them or vote against them. Don't leave people such as
Helene White and Bonnie Campbell--people such as this--just hanging
forever without even getting a rollcall vote. That is wrong. It is not
a responsible way and besmirches the Senate, this body that I love so
much.
I consider it a privilege to serve here. This is a nation of a
quarter of a billion people; and only 100 of us can serve at any one
time to represent this wonderful Nation. It is a privilege that our
States give us. We should use the privilege in the most responsible way
to benefit all of us.
When Senators do not vote their conscience, they risk the debacle
that we witnessed last October 5th, when a partisan political caucus
vote resulted in a fine man and highly qualified nominee being rejected
by all Republican Senators on a party-line vote. The Senate will never
remove the blot that occurred last October when the Republican Senators
emerged from a Republican Caucus to vote lockstep against Justice
White. At a Missouri Bar Association forum last week, Justice White
expressed concern that the rejection of his nominations to a Federal
judgeship will have a ``chilling effect'' on the desire of other young
African American lawyers to seek to serve on our judiciary.
President Clinton has tried to make progress on bringing greater
diversity to our federal courts. He has been successful to some extent.
With our help, we could have done so much more. We will end this
Congress without having acted on any of the African American nominees,
Judge James Wynn or Roger Gregory, sent to us to fill vacancies on the
Fourth Circuit and finally integrate the Circuit with the highest
percentage of African American population in the country, but the one
Circuit that has never had an African American judge. We could have
acted on the nomination of Kathleen McCree Lewis and confirmed her to
the Sixth Circuit to be the first African American woman to sit on that
Court. Instead, we will end the year without having acted on any of the
three outstanding nominees to the Sixth Circuit pending before us.
This Judiciary Committee has reported only three nominees to the
Courts of Appeals all year. We have held hearings without even
including a nominee to the Courts of Appeals and denied a Committee
vote to two outstanding nominees who succeeded in getting hearings. I
certainly understand the frustration of those Senators who know that
Roger Gregory, Judge James Wynn, Kathleen McCree Lewis, as well as
Judge Helene White, Bonnie Campbell and others should have been
considered by this Committee and voted on by the Senate this year.
There continue to be multiple vacancies on the Third, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits. With 23 current
vacancies, our appellate courts have nearly half of the total judicial
emergency vacancies in the federal court system. I note that the
vacancy rate for our Courts of Appeals is more than 12 percent
nationwide. If we were to take into account the additional appellate
judgeships included in the Hatch-Leahy Federal Judgeship Act of 2000,
S.3071, a bill that was requested by the Judicial Conference to handle
current workloads, the vacancy rate on our federal courts of appeals
would be more than 17 percent.
The Chairman declares that ``there is and has been no judicial
vacancy crisis'' and that he calculates vacancies at ``less than
zero.'' The extraordinary service that has been provided by our corps
of senior judges does not mean there are no vacancies. In the federal
courts around the country there remain 63 current vacancies and several
more on the horizon. With the judgeships included in the Hatch-Leahy
Federal Judgeship Act of 2000, there would be over 130 vacancies across
the country. That is the truer measure of vacancies, many of which have
been long-standing judicial emergency vacancies in our southwest border
states. The chief judges of both the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have had
to declare their entire courts in emergencies since there are too many
vacancies and too few circuit judges to handle their workload.
The chairman misconstrues the lessons of the 63 vacancies at the end
of
[[Page S9882]]
the 103rd Congress in 1994. I would point out that in 1994 the Senate
confirmed 101 judges to compensate for normal attrition and to fill the
vacancies and judgeships created in 1990. In fact, that Congress
reduced the vacancies from 131 in 1991, to 103 in 1992, to 112 in 1993,
to 63 in 1994. Vacancies were going down and we were acting with
Republican and Democratic Presidents to fill the 85 judgeships created
by a Democratic Congress under a Republican President in 1990. Since
Republicans assumed control of the Senate in the 1994 election the
Senate has not even kept up with normal attrition. We will end this
year with more vacancies than at the end of the session in 1994. As I
have pointed out, the vacancies are most acute among our courts of
appeals. Further, we have not acted to add the judgeships requested by
the Judicial Conference to meet increased workloads over the last
decade.
According to the Chief Justice's 1999 year-end report, the filings of
cases in our Federal courts have reached record heights. In fact, the
filings of criminal cases and defendants reached their highest levels
since the Prohibition Amendment was repealed in 1933. Also in 1999,
there were 54,693 filings in the 12 regional courts of appeals. Overall
growth in appellate court caseload last year was due to a 349 percent
upsurge in original proceedings. This sudden expansion resulted from
newly implemented reporting procedures, which more accurately measure
the increased judicial workload generated by the Prisoner Litigation
Reform Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, both
passed in 1996.
Let me also set the record straight, yet again, on the erroneous but
oft-repeated argument that ``the Clinton Administration is on record as
having stated that a vacancy rate just over 7 percent is virtual full-
employment of the judiciary.'' That is not true.
The statement can only be alluded to an October 1994 press release.
It should not be misconstrued in this manner. That press release was
pointing out that at the end of the 103rd Congress if the Senate had
proceeded to confirm the 14 nominees then pending on the Senate
calendar, it would have reduced the judicial vacancy rate to 4.7
percent, which the press release then proceeded to compare to a
favorable unemployment rate of under 5 percent.
Unfortunately, the chairman's assertions are demonstrably false.
Contrary to his statement, the Justice Department's October 12, 1994
press release that he cites does not equate a 7.4 percent vacancy rate
with ``full employment,'' but rather a 4.7 percent rate. Additionally,
the vacancy rate was not reduced to 4.7 percent in 1994, and stands at
three times that today.
The Justice Department release was not a statement of administration
position or even a policy statement but a poorly designed press release
that included an ill-conceived comment. Job vacancy rates and
unemployment rates are not comparable. Unemployment rates are measures
of people who do not have jobs not of Federal offices vacant without an
appointed office holder.
When I learned that some Republicans had for partisan purposes seized
upon this press release, taken it out of context, ignored what the
press release actually said and were manipulating it into a
misstatement of Clinton administration policy, I asked the Attorney
General, in 1997, whether there was any level or percentage of judicial
vacancies that the administration considered acceptable or equal to
``full employment.''
The Department responded:
There is no level or percentage of vacancies that justifies
a slow down in the Senate on the confirmation of nominees for
judicial positions. While the Department did once, in the
fall of 1994, characterize a 4.7 percent vacancy rate in the
federal judiciary as the equivalent of the Department of
Labor `full employment' standard, that characterization was
intended simply to emphasize the hard work and productivity
of the Administration and the Senate in reducing the
extraordinary number of vacancies in the federal Article III
judiciary in 1993 and 1994. Of course, there is a certain
small vacancy rate, due to retirements and deaths and the
time required by the appointment process, that will always
exist. The current vacancy rate is 11.3 percent. It did reach
12 percent this past summer. The President and the Senate
should continually be working diligently to fill vacancies as
they arise, and should always strive to reach 100 percent
capacity for the Federal bench.
At no time has the Clinton administration stated that it believes
that 7 percent vacancies on the federal bench is acceptable or a
virtually full federal bench. Only Republicans have expressed that
opinion. As the Justice Department noted three years ago in response to
an inquiry on this very questions, the Senate should be ``working
diligently to fill vacancies as they arise, and should always strive to
reach 100 percent capacity for the federal bench.''
Indeed, I informed the Senate of these facts in a statement in the
Congressional Record on July 7, 1998, so that there would be no future
misunderstanding or misstatement of the record. Nonetheless, in spite
of the facts and in spite of my July 1998 statement and subsequent
statements on this issue over the past three years, these misleading
statements continue to be repeated.
Ironically, the Senate could reduce the current vacancy rate to under
5 percent if we confirmed the 39 judicial nominees that remain bottled
up before the Judiciary Committee. Instead of misstating the language
of a 6-year-old press release that has since been discredited by the
Attorney General herself, the chairman would have my support if we were
working to get those 39 more judges confirmed.
I regret to report again today that the last confirmation hearing for
federal judges held by the Judiciary Committee was in July, as was the
last time the Judiciary Committee reported any nominees to the full
Senate. Throughout August and September and now into the first week in
October, there have been no additional hearings held or even noticed,
and no executive business meetings have included any judicial nominees
on the agenda. By contrast, in 1992, the last year of the Bush
administration, a Democratic majority in the Senate held three
confirmation hearings in August and September and continued to work to
confirm judges up to and including the last day of the session.
I continue to urge the Senate to meet its responsibilities to all
nominees, including women and minorities. So long as the Senate is in
session, I will urge action. That highly-qualified nominees are being
needlessly delayed is most regrettable. The Senate should join with the
President to confirm well-qualified, diverse and fair-minded nominees
to fulfill the needs of the Federal courts around the country.
As I noted on the floor earlier this week, the frustration that many
Senators feel with the lack of attention this Committee has shown long
pending judicial nominees has simply boiled over. I understand their
frustration and have been urging action for some time. This could all
have been easily avoided if we were continuing to move judicial
nominations like Democrats did in 1992, when we held hearings in
September and confirmed 66 judges that Presidential election year.
I regret that the Judiciary Committee and the Senate is not holding
additional hearings, that we only acted on 39 nominees all year and
that we have taken so long on so many of them. I deeply regret the lack
of a hearing and a vote on so many qualified nominees, including Roger
Gregory, Judge James Wynn, Judge Helene White, Bonnie Campbell, Enrique
Moreno, Allen Snyder and others. And, I regret that a year ago today,
the Senate rejected the nomination of Justice Ronnie White to the
Federal District Court of Missouri on a partisan, party-line vote.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LEAHY. I yield for a question.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Vermont, the bulletproof vest bill
that you wrote and that you have spoken about here on the floor this
morning--is that right?
Mr. LEAHY. That is right.
Mr. REID. It would greatly benefit rural Nevadans; is that not right?
Mr. LEAHY. There is no question it would benefit rural Nevada. Of
course, the distinguished deputy leader was in law enforcement himself.
He knows the threat that police officers face. That threat is not
exclusive to big cities, by any means.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the lead Democrat on the Judiciary
Committee, Nevada is an interesting State. Seventy percent of the
people in Nevada live in the metropolitan Las
[[Page S9883]]
Vegas area. Another about 20 percent live in the Reno metropolitan
area. The 10 percent who are spread out around the rest of the State
cover thousands and thousands of square miles, and there are many small
communities that do not have the resources that the big cities have to
provide, for example, bulletproof vests.
I say to my friend from Vermont, do you agree that people who work in
rural America in law enforcement deserve the same protection as those
who work in urban centers throughout America?
Mr. LEAHY. There is no question about it. In fact, in the 1999 bill
they were able to purchase nearly 400 vests, many of those in the rural
areas. If we get this through, now they can purchase 1,176 vests.
I say this because the Senate moved very quickly to pass a bill that
increased the penalties if we harmed dogs or horses used by law
enforcement. In other words, we could quickly zip this through and pass
a bill saying the penalty will be increased if one harms a dog or horse
used by law enforcement, but, whoops, we can't pass a bipartisan piece
of legislation protecting the law enforcement officer himself or
herself. I think of Alice in Wonderland, I have to admit, under those
circumstances.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, I am happy we are looking out for
animals. I support that and was aware of that legislation, but I think
it is about time we started helping some of these rural police
departments in Nevada that are so underfunded and so badly in need of
this protection.
Mr. LEAHY. I say to my friend from Nevada, I, too, support the bill
protecting animals in law enforcement. But I wish we could have added
this other part. If you have the police officer out with the police
dog, that police officer deserves protection. If you have a police
officer out there with a horse--in many parts of both urban and rural
areas horses are still used for a number of reasons by police
officers--then let's also protect the police officer.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of
the leader, at 1 o'clock today, the Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Fitzgerald, be recognized to make closing remarks on the Interior
appropriations conference report for up to 45 minutes, and following
the use or yielding back of time, the cloture vote occur,
notwithstanding rule XXII, and following that vote, if invoked, the
conference report be considered under the following time restraints: 10
minutes equally divided between the two managers, 10 minutes equally
divided between the chairman and ranking member of Appropriations; 30
minutes under the control of Senator Landrieu, 15 minutes under the
control of Senator McCain.
I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of
time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report,
without any intervening action or debate.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator
would be kind enough to change the time until 2 o'clock. I think that
has been agreed to on your side. I did not hear. Senator Fitzgerald is
to be given 1 hour rather than 45 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, that is acceptable. We could change
the time to start at 2 o'clock today, with Senator Fitzgerald having 1
hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. In light of this agreement, Mr. President, the next
vote will be at approximately 3 o'clock.
Let me revise, once again, the unanimous consent request to begin at
1 o'clock, leaving the 1-hour timeframe for Mr. Fitzgerald; therefore,
in light of the agreement, the vote would occur at approximately 2
o'clock, with another vote on adoption of the conference report at 3:30
today. If I could wrap all of that in together as a unanimous consent
request, that would be my hope. I make that unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. The confusion is not on the part of the Senator from Texas.
It is my confusion. I apologize for inserting that 2 o'clock time.
There was some confusion on my part. The debate will start at 1 and we
will vote around 2.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Judicial Appointments
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, having heard my distinguished
colleague from Vermont talk about the judicial selection process, I
rise to commend Senator Hatch and his leadership of the Judiciary
Committee.
It is very difficult to accommodate all of the requests and
responsibilities that are entailed in a lifetime appointment to the
Federal bench. I think Senator Hatch has done the very best job he
possibly could in getting appointments through, appointments that are
reflective of Clinton administration priorities. The vast majority of
Clinton appointees have gone through. In my home State of Texas, we
have had 20 nominations. Senator Gramm and I have supported 18 of
those, and 17 have gone through. There is still one pending that we
support.
I think Senator Hatch has bent over backwards to do his due diligence
but to respect the wishes of the Democratic side and the
administration. I don't want to leave unchallenged some of the comments
made that indicate that serious consideration has not been given to
every single Clinton appointee and that in most cases those appointees
have been put forward.
It is important that a lifetime appointment be scrutinized because
there is no accountability of that lifetime appointment. We need to
look at all of the factors surrounding a particular nominee, knowing
the power that a Federal judge has and that the accountability is
limited.
I applaud Senator Hatch. I think he has done a terrific job under
very difficult circumstances. I hope he will continue the due diligence
and also continue apace with the nominations process.
Hospital Preservation Act
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Hospital
Preservation Act that Senator Abraham and I introduced last year. We
achieved partial relief for hospitals last year, but we have
reintroduced it this year in an attempt to get more relief for the
beleaguered hospitals of our country.
Today we have both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate
Finance Committee working on this very important legislation. We will
have legislation that will, at least for this year, restore the cuts
that are being made to our hospitals in Medicare payments, but I am
hoping we can get more. In fact, there are many areas of our health
care system that have been undercut by a combination of the Balanced
Budget Act and have actually been cut even more forcefully by the
Health Care Financing Administration than was ever intended by
Congress.
When we passed the Balanced Budget Act, we said we would look at the
effects, and if we needed to refine it in any way, we would do that.
Congress has met its responsibility in that regard. We had the Balanced
Budget Act Refinement Act passed. We have come back and restored cuts
that were too much. That is what we are doing in the bill that is
before us or will be before us very soon, that is now being considered
by the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance
Committee. In fact, the legislation would increase payments to
hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies, managed care
organizations, and other health providers that are paid under Medicare.
This legislation is needed especially for our hospitals because they
are the front line of our health care delivery system. This legislation
builds on legislation Congress passed last year that reversed some of
the cuts in provider payments that did result from the Balanced Budget
Act and from excessive administrative actions taken by the Health Care
Financing Administration.
Last year's bill contained important provisions that have helped
preserve the ability of American hospitals to continue to provide the
highest level of health care anywhere in the world. The Balanced Budget
Refinement Act that
[[Page S9884]]
Congress passed last year did make the situation a little brighter for
some of these struggling hospitals. It eases the transition from cost-
based reimbursement to prospective payment for hospital outpatient
services. It restores some of the cuts to disproportionate share
payments, and it provides targeted relief for teaching hospitals and
cancer and rehabilitation hospitals.
I was proud to have been the prime advocate in the Senate for one of
the provisions in that bill that restored the full inflation update for
inpatient hospital services for sole community provider hospitals,
those located primarily in rural areas that provide the only
institutional care in a 35-mile geographic area. However, last year's
bill was really just a start. I think we have all heard from hospitals
that they are really hurting. Hospitals are actually beginning to
close, in Texas and all over the Nation. Independent estimates are that
this trend will only get worse unless something is done.
I and many of my colleagues in Congress continue to hear from
hospital administrators, trustees, health professionals that they were
struggling to maintain the quality and variety of health services in
the face of mounting budget pressures. With the statutory and HCFA-
imposed cuts that they were seeing, many efficiently run hospitals
began for the first time to run deficits and threaten closure. For many
of these hospitals to close, particularly those in rural areas, would
mean not only the loss of life-saving medical services to the residents
of the area but also the loss of a core component of local communities.
Jobs would be lost. Businesses would wither, and the sense of community
and stability a local hospital brings would suffer.
My colleague, Senator Spence Abraham of Michigan, and I began the
task of looking for the best way to provide significant assistance to
these hospitals to make sure the payments they were receiving for
taking Medicare patients were fair and adequate to enable them to
continue serving our Nation's seniors, and also to have the support
they need to run their hospitals. We decided to try to expand the sole
community provider hospital provision to all hospitals.
The bill we have introduced will make sure that Medicare payments for
inpatient services actually keep up with the rate of hospital
inflation. We will restore the full 1.1 percent in scheduled reductions
from the annual inflation updates for inpatient services called for by
the Balanced Budget Act. Moreover, rather than just applying to a small
group of hospitals, this legislation would benefit every hospital in
America, providing an estimated $7.7 billion in additional Medicare
payments over the next 5 years.
Now, you may ask, where is that $7.7 billion going to come from?
Well, when we passed the Balanced Budget Act, we projected savings of
$110 billion over the 5-year period that should have occurred from the
cuts we put in the Balanced Budget Act. But, in fact, instead of $110
billion, we are now projecting $220 billion in savings. So the $7.7
billion just for this part of the bill has already been saved, and $100
billion more is estimated when you take into account the whole 5 years.
So the bottom line is, we cut too much; we are going to restore part
of those cuts; and we are still going to be approximately $100 billion
ahead. So we will have saved $100 billion, as we intended to do, but we
will restore the cuts that have caused such hardships to the hospitals
throughout our country.
The bill that is being considered by the House Ways and Means
Committee contains a full 1-year restoration in the inflation update
for hospitals. The pending Senate Finance Committee bill would restore
the cuts in 2001, but it only delays the 2002 cuts until 2003. This is
progress.
I so appreciate Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan's efforts in the
Senate Finance Committee. But I don't want to delay those cuts. I want
to restore the cuts for the full 2 years. I hope that in the end we can
go ahead and do that because these hospitals need to know that there is
a stability in their budgeting, that they will be able to look at the
restoration in the cuts for the next 2 years. They need to be able to
plan. They need to know they will have the adequate funding for
Medicare that they must have to give the services in the community and
to support the hospital for all of the people and the health care needs
of the community.
So we are not doing anything that would bust the budget or go into
deficits. The fact is, this is a refinement. We have cut $100 billion
too much, and we are restoring $8 billion of that.
In the bill that is being considered by the Senate Finance Committee,
we also will strengthen the Medicare payments for the disproportionate
share hospitals, for home health care agencies, for graduate medical
education, and for Medicare+Choice plans. We are not out of the woods,
but we are taking a major step in the right direction.
I commend Senator Roth for his leadership of the committee, along
with Senator Moynihan. I implore Congress to move swiftly on this very
important legislation. We cannot go out of session without addressing
the issue of keeping our hospitals from suffering disastrous cuts in
Medicare--cuts that they cannot absorb and cuts that are not warranted.
This is our responsibility, Mr. President.
I thank my colleague, Senator Abraham, for helping me so much on this
issue. He has been a leader. After listening to hospital personnel in
his home State of Michigan, he came to me and said, ``We have to do
something; let's do it together,'' and I said, ``Great,'' because we
must act before we leave this year in Congress. We cannot go forward
without addressing this very important issue for the hospitals and
health care providers of our country.
Certification of Mexico
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution I have introduced on behalf of myself and
Senators Grassley, Gramm, Kyl, Domenici, Dodd, Feinstein, Hollings, and
Sessions.
We have submitted this sense-of-the-Senate resolution to deal with
the issue of the certification of Mexico. Several of us introduced a
bill earlier in the session after the election of the new President of
Mexico, Vicente Fox, to try to address the issue of two new
administrations in both of our countries that will be faced with the
automatic certification of the issue of how we are dealing with illegal
drug trafficking as a bilateral effort in our two countries, but with
two administrations that have not had time to sit down and come up with
a plan that would cooperate fully in this very important effort.
Since time is so short, we have come up with a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution that I think will at least say it is the will of the Senate.
If we can pass this before we adjourn sine die, I think it will be a
major step in the right direction to give some relief to the two new
Presidents who will be sworn in for both of our countries and to say,
first of all, we in the Senate take this very seriously. One of the
most important issues for our countries is dealing with illegal drug
trafficking between Mexico and the United States. Realizing that
neither President could be held accountable yet for the programs that
should be put in place, we are going to have a 1-year moratorium.
This is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution:
Whereas Mexico will inaugurate a new government on 1
December 2000 that will be the first change of authority from
one party to another;
Whereas the 2nd July election of Vincente Fox Quesada of
the Alliance for Change marks an historic transition of power
in open and fair elections;
Whereas Mexico and the United States share a 2,000 mile
border, Mexico is the United States' second largest trading
partner, and the two countries share historic and cultural
ties;
Whereas drug production and trafficking are a threat to the
national interests and the well-being of the citizens of both
countries;
Whereas U.S.-Mexican cooperation on drugs is a cornerstone
for policy for both countries in developing effective
programs to stop drug use, drug production, and drug
trafficking; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
(a) The Senate, on behalf of the people of the United
States
(1) welcomes the constitutional transition of power in
Mexico;
(2) congratulates the people of Mexico and their elected
representatives for this historic change;
(3) expresses its intent to continue to work cooperatively
with Mexican authorities to promote broad and effective
efforts for the health and welfare of U.S. and Mexican
citizens endangered by international drug trafficking, use,
and production.
[[Page S9885]]
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the incoming new governments in both Mexico and the
United States must develop and implement a counterdrug
program that more effectively addresses the official
corruption, the increase in drug traffic, and the lawlessness
that has resulted from illegal drug trafficking, and that a
one-year waiver of the requirement that the President certify
Mexico is warranted to permit both new governments time to do
so.
I appreciate very much Senator Grassley working with me on this
sense-of-the-Senate resolution. All of my cosponsors represent a
bipartisan effort across the borders and across both sides of the
aisle.
Mr. President, I want to just say I went to Mexico leading a
delegation of Members of Congress. It was the first congressional
delegation to visit Mexico with the new President-elect, and we were
able to sit down and visit with both President Zedillo, the President
of Mexico, and the President-elect, Vicente Fox. I want to say how
encouraged we were with the dynamism of President-elect Fox, with his
absolute assurance that this drug issue is one of the most important of
all the issues between our two countries, and they promised to work
hand in hand with the new administration that will be elected in the
United States in November, and with Members of Congress to do
everything they can working with us to cooperate in stopping the cancer
on both of our countries that this drug trafficking is causing.
When we have a criminal element in Mexico and a criminal element in
the United States, that is bad for both of our countries. It is preying
on the ability of our country to have full economic freedom, to grow
and prosper, and to have friendly relations across our borders. The
drug trafficking issue is the big cloud over both of our countries. I
believe that President-Elect Fox is going to pursue this vigorously.
I also want to say that President Zedillo has taken major steps in
that direction for his country. He, first of all, laid the groundwork
for the democracy that clearly was shown in this last election. Instead
of handpicking a successor and not allowing free primaries, he did the
opposite. He allowed the free primaries and he said in every way they
were going to have open and free elections. President Zedillo has made
his mark on Mexico. He was a very important President for recognizing
that the time had come for free and open elections in Mexico. He is to
be commended, and I think he will go down in the history books as one
of the great Presidents of Mexico.
In addition, President Zedillo tried very hard to cooperate in the
effort that we were making in drug trafficking. I would say that no one
believes that we are nearly where we need to be in that regard. But I
think he took some very important first steps.
I see a ray of sunshine in Mexico. Our country to the South is a very
important country to the United States. They are our friends. We share
cultural ties. We share family ties.
It is in all of our interests that we have the strongest bond between
Mexico and the United States--just as we have with Canada and the
United States. These are our borders. I have always said that I believe
the strengthening of our hemisphere is going to be a win for all three
of our countries.
I want to go all the way through the tip of South America in our
trading relations and in the building of all of our economies because I
think that is our future. Our countries depend on each other. We are
interdependent, and our friendship and our alliances will be important
for the security and viability of all of our countries in the Western
Hemisphere.
I am very pleased that we have introduced this sense of the Senate. I
urge my colleagues to help us pass this sense of the Senate so that we
will be able, next session, to say that the Senate has spoken, and that
we want to give some time to certification so that our countries can go
forward with our two new Presidents and have a strong working
relationship.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to
speak for no more than 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Energy Policy
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my attention was drawn this morning to an
article in the Washington Times where our Secretary of Energy, Bill
Richardson, defends energy policy by saying something that I found
fascinating, to the point of absurdity. He says, ``We are not in an
energy crisis.''
I am not quite sure how Mr. Richardson defines ``crisis,'' but I do
know Mr. Richardson has recognized, at least for 12 months, a problem.
Am I to understand that the reason for the absence of an energy policy
in the Clinton administration is that we recognize a problem, but we
are not going to do anything about it until it becomes a crisis?
Home heating oil last year, in the Northeast, began at 80 cents to 90
cents a gallon. It went to nearly $2 before that season was over. It
was contracted this summer at $1.19, and it is now selling at $1.40. I
call that a crisis if I am low income and I want a warm home this
winter. I call it a crisis if I want to travel cross-country and I
can't afford to fill my gas tank. I call it a crisis if I am a trucker
and I can't up my contracts to absorb my fuel or energy costs and I
must turn my truck back in, as thousands are now doing--turning their
trucks back in on the lease programs under which they acquired them
when they planned to move the commerce of America across this country.
Mr. Secretary, earlier this year, you flew numerous times to the
Middle East with a tin cup in hand, begging the sheiks of the OPEC
nations to turn the valve on just a little bit and let out a little
more oil, hopefully dropping the price of crude and therefore lowering
the cost at the pump. For a moment in time it worked. Then the price
started ratcheting up as the markets began to understand that what had
happened was pretty much artificial and pretty much rhetorical in
nature and that, in fact, the supplies had not increased to offset the
demand.
While all of that was going on, underneath the surface of this issue
were a few basic facts. We have lost over 30 refineries in the last
decade because they couldn't afford to comply with the Clean Air Act;
they couldn't retrofit in a profitable way. They were not given tax
credits and other tools because it was ``big oil'' and you dare not
cause them any benefits that might ultimately make it to the
marketplace so the consumer could ultimately benefit. Those refineries
went down.
Here we are at a time when the price of crude oil peaked and the Vice
President ran to the President and said please release SPR, and that
has been done, or at least it is now being organized to be done, and it
may lower prices. Yet that was a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was
destined to be used only for a crisis. And the Secretary of Energy says
no crisis. He himself said yesterday before the National Press Club
there is no energy crisis in this country. But there was a crisis last
week and the President agreed to release the oil out of SPR.
I don't get it. I do not think I am that ignorant. I serve on the
Energy Committee. We reviewed this. We have argued for a decade that
there is a problem in the making, but this administration will not put
down a policy, even though they see a problem, unless the problem
becomes a crisis.
But now there is not a crisis, so why are we releasing the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, which was designed not only for a crisis but for a
national emergency, one that was inflicted upon us by a reduction or a
stoppage of the flow of foreign crude coming into our economy that
might put our economy at risk.
The Secretary says we have a short-term problem and we will work it
out in time.
Mr. Secretary, what does ``working it out'' mean? Have you proffered
or proposed a major energy policy before the Congress of the United
States? No, you
[[Page S9886]]
have not. Have you suggested an increase in production of domestic
resources so we could lower our dependency on foreign oil? No, you have
not, Mr. Secretary.
So the American public ought to be asking of this administration, the
Vice President, the President, and the Secretary of Energy: Mr.
Secretary, Mr. President, and Mr. Vice President, if there is no
crisis, then why are you tapping the very reserves that we have set
aside for a time of crisis? Somehow it doesn't fit.
There were political allegations 3 or 4 weeks ago when the Vice
President was asking the President to release the petroleum reserve. He
was saying there was a crisis, or a near crisis. That got done. And
yesterday,
In remarks before the National Press Club, [Secretary]
Richardson said the ``political campaign'' was behind Gore's
accusations against [big] oil companies and that a surge in
demand for oil in the United States and abroad is the real
reason gasoline, heating-oil and natural-gas prices have
soared this year. ``We are not in an energy crisis.''
Mr. Secretary, if you are traveling or if you are not wealthy and you
have to pick up the 100 percent increased cost in your energy bills and
your heating bills, I am going to tell you that is a crisis. But my
guess is, it is typical of this administration, a problem is a problem
until there is a crisis, and then you find a solution; 8 years without
a solution to this problem spells crisis.
I am sorry, Mr. Secretary, but your rhetoric doesn't fit the
occasion, nor does it rectify the problem.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for 10 minutes, and I ask to be followed by the
Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, who will speak on the same
subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The ``Captive Shipper'' Problem
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr.
Rockefeller and I, along with the Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, have
been working on legislation dealing with our railroad service in this
country. We have introduced legislation, S. 621, entitled the Railroad
Competition and Service Improvement Act which addresses problems
associated with shippers who are ``captive'' or dependent on one
railroad for their shipping needs. Mr. President, I have with me a
letter from over 280 chief executive officers of American corporations
writing about this subject.
I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record following my
presentation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. DORGAN. These CEOs of some of America's largest companies, and
companies all across this country, join us expressing concern about
what has happened to America's railroads. There is no competition in
the railroad industry in this country. The deregulation of the rail
industry occurred, now, over 20 years ago. At that point, we had 42
class I railroads. Now we are down to only about four major railroad
operations in this country--two in the East and two in the West. Rather
than encouraging some competitive framework in the rail industry, the
deregulation of the railroad industry has resulted in a handful of
regional monopolies. They rely on bottlenecks to exert maximum power
over the marketplace.
These megarailroads dominate railroad traffic, generating 95 percent
of the gross ton miles and nearly 94 percent of the revenues, and they
control 90 percent of all coal movement in this country, 70 percent of
all grain movement in America, and 88 percent of all chemical movement
in this country.
It is quite clear what consolidation has meant to all Americans. Let
me give a practical example. If you are a farmer in my State of North
Dakota and you want to sent a load of wheat to market and you put that
load of wheat on a railcar in Bismarck, ND, and send it to Minneapolis,
MN, a little over 400 miles, you will pay $2,300. If you are going to
ship that same carload of wheat from Minneapolis to Chicago, about the
same distance, you do not pay $2,300, you pay less than $1,000.
Why the difference? Why are we charged more than double as North
Dakotans to ship wheat about the same distance? Because there is no
competition on the line from Bismarck to Minneapolis, but there is
competition between Minneapolis and Chicago, so the prices are
competitive. Where there is competition, there are lower rates. Where
there is no competition, there are monopoly prices. They say to
businesses and farmers: Here's the charge; if you don't like it, don't
use our service.
What other service exists? There is only one line, only one railroad.
There is a monopoly service, and they are engaged in monopoly pricing,
and we have no regulatory authority to say this is wrong.
We have what are called ``captive shippers.'' These are Main Street
businesses, family farmers, big companies, small companies, and they
are held captive by the railroad companies that say to them: We have
the rails, we have the cars, we have the company, and here's what the
service is going to cost you; if you don't like it, tough luck.
In the circumstance I just described, the railroad says to a North
Dakota farmer: We're going to charge you double what we charge other
people. Why? Because we choose to. Why? Because we want to; because we
have the muscle to do it, and if you don't like it, take a hike.
That is what is going on in this industry where there is no
competition and where we have shippers being held captive all across
this country.
Do rail costs matter much to my part of the country? Let me give
another example.
Grain prices have collapsed. A farmer does not get much for grain
these days. If you take wheat to an elevator in Minot, ND, that
elevator pays about $2.40 a bushel for it, which is a pittance--it is
worth a lot more than that--the cost to ship that $2.40 a bushel wheat
to the west coast is nearly $1.20 a bushel. Half the value of that
wheat on the west coast ends up being transportation costs by the
railroad industry.
How can they do that? It's pricing gouging and nobody can do much
about it because there is no regulatory authority to say it is wrong.
They hide behind the Staggers Rail Act which deregulated the railroads,
gave them enormous power, and resulted in a substantial concentration.
The result is, all across this country we have shippers who are now
held captive, they are locked in by an industry that says: This is what
we are going to charge you; if you don't like it, that's tough luck.
What happens if someone believes this is really arbitrary, really
unfair and they intend to complain about it? We had what was called the
Interstate Commerce Commission. That was a group of folks who had died
from the neck up. Nobody told them, but they were dead from the neck up
and had one big rubber stamp down there. It said: ``Approved'' They had
one big rubber stamp and one big ink pad. Whatever the railroads
wanted, the ICC said: ``Approved.''
We got rid of the ICC. Now we have a Surface Transportation Board,
and we have someone at the Surface Transportation Board, Linda Morgan,
to whom I pay a compliment. She put a moratorium on mergers. We had
another proposal for a merger, and she slapped on a moratorium. That
merger fell apart. Good for her. It is the first good sign of life for
a long while among regulators. Good for her. But all of the merger
damage is pretty well done. Linda Morgan is fighting a lonely battle at
the Surface Transportation Board.
Let me show you what happens when somebody files a complaint for
unfair rail charges. You file a complaint, and here are the steps.
First of all, you need to ante up some money. The filing fee for the
standard procedure of complaint will be $54,000. It differs in some
cases. If you have a beef with the railroad, first of all, understand
you are taking on somebody with a lot more money and muscle than you
have, No. 1. No. 2, you are going to pay a filing fee to file a
complaint against the railroad freight rates, and then when you file
the complaint, you ought to expect to live a long time because you are
not going to get a result for a long, long time. In fact, some folks in
Montana filed a complaint against a railroad. It took 17 years--17
years--for the complaint to go through the process, and then it never
really got resolved in a
[[Page S9887]]
satisfactory way. That is why rail shippers understand it does not make
much sense to take the railroads on.
You have the railroad with the muscle to make these things stick, and
then you have regulators who have largely been braindead for a long,
long time and do not want to do much. The exception again is we have a
new Surface Transportation Board. Linda Morgan showed some courage, so
there is some hope with the current STB.
What is happening in this country must change. Senator Rockefeller,
who has been a leader on this issue, and I have held hearings on it. We
both serve on the Senate Commerce Committee. We are joined by Senator
Burns in our efforts. It is a bipartisan effort.
We want to pass the S. 621, but we are not going to get it done by
the end of this year. What we are hoping for is that the 280 plus CEOs
of companies across this country, large and small, who wrote this
letter saying they are sick and tired of being held captive by shipping
rates imposed by railroads that are noncompetitive--a rate that does
not often relate to value for service--will get the attention in
Congress that they deserve. We hope these CEOs continue to weigh in, in
a significant way, with those who matter in this Congress to say:
``Let's do something serious about this issue.'' This is a tough issue
but it is one Congress has a responsibility to tackle.
I pay credit to my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller.
He has been working on this issue for a long time. I have been
privileged to work with him. We know that which is worth doing takes
some time to get done often, but we are not going to quit. The message
to the 280 companies that have signed this letter, the message to our
friends in Congress is: We have a piece of legislation that tries to
tackle this issue of monopoly concentration and inappropriate pricing
in the railroad industry. It tackles the issue on behalf of captive
shippers all across this country--family farmers and Main Street
businesses and others--and we are not going to quit.
We hope as we turn the corner at the start of this next Congress that
we will be able to pass legislation that will give some help and some
muscle to those in this country who are now paying too much. They
expect to be able to operate in a system that has competition as a
regulator in the free market, and that has not existed in the rail
industry for some long while.
I yield the floor, and I believe my colleague from West Virginia will
also have some things to say.
Exhibit 1
September 26, 2000.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Ernest Hollings,
Ranking Member, Senate Commerce Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCain and Senator Hollings: We are writing
to ask that shipper concerns with current national rail
policy be given priority for Commerce Committee action next
Congress. The Staggers Rail Act was enacted in 1980 with the
goal of replacing government regulation of the railroads with
competitive market forces. Since that time, the structure of
the nation's rail industry has changed dramatically. Where
there were 30 Class I railroad systems operating in the U.S.
in 1976, now there are only seven. While major railroads in
North America appear poised to begin another round of
consolidations in the near future, the Surface Transportation
Board continues to adhere to policies that hamper rail
competition. Structural changes in the rail industry combined
with STB policies have stopped the goal of the Staggers Rail
Act dead in its tracks.
We depend on rail transportation for the cost-effective,
efficient movement of raw materials and products. The quality
and cost of rail transportation directly affects our ability
to compete in a global marketplace, generate low cost energy,
and contribute to the economic prosperity of this nation.
Current rail policies frustrate these objectives by allowing
railroads to prevent competitive access to terminals,
maintain monopolies through ``bottleneck pricing,'' and
hamper the growth of viable short line and regional railroads
through ``paper barriers.''
We applaud the Commerce Committee's leadership on behalf of
consumers concerning proposed mergers in the airline
industry. America's rail consumers also need your support and
leadership to respond effectively to the dramatic changes
that are underway in the rail industry. Bipartisan
legislation is currently pending in both the Senate and House
of Representatives that takes a modest, effective approach in
attempting to remove some of the most critical impediments to
competition. Please work with us and take the steps that are
needed to create a national policy that ensures effective,
sustainable competition in the rail industry.
Sincerely,
Fred Webber, President and CEO, American Chemistry Council;
Glenn English, CEO, National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association;
Alan Richardson, Executive Director, American Public Power
Association;
Tom Kuhn, President, Edison Electric Institute;
Henson Moore, President and COE, American Forest and Paper
Association;
Kevern R. Joyce, Chairman, President and CEO, Texas-New
Mexico Power Company;
Jeffrey M. Lipton, President and CEO, NOVA Chemicals
Corporation;
Robert N. Burt, Chairman and CEO, FMC Corporation;
Allen M. Hill, President and CEO, Dayton Power and Light
Company;
Paul J. Ganci, Chairman and CEO, Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corporation;
David T. Flanagan, President and CEO, CMP Group, Inc;
Charles F. Putnik, President, CONDEA Vista Company;
Thomas S. Richards, Chairman, President and CEO, RGS Energy
Group, Inc;
W. Peter Woodward, Senior Vice President, Chemical
Operations, Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC;
Phillip D. Ashkettle, President and CEO, M.A. Hanna
Company;
Eugene R. McGrath, Chairman, President and CEO,
Consolidated Edison, Inc.;
David M. Eppler, President and CEO, Cleco Corporation;
Robert B. Catell, Chairman and CEO, KeySpan Energy;
Thomas L. Grennan, Executive VP, Electric Operations,
Western Resources, Inc,;
Joseph H. Richardson, President and CEO, Florida Power
Corporation;
Wayne H. Brunetti, President and CEO, Xcel Energy, Inc.;
Myron W. McKinney, President and CEO, Empire District
Electric Company;
Erle Nye, Chairman, TXU Corporation;
Corbin A. McNeill, Jr., Chairman, President and CEO, PECO
Energy Company;
James E. Rogers, Vice Chairman, President and CEO, Cinergy
Corp.;
Stanley W. Silverman, President and CEO, The PQ
Corporation;
Robert Edwards, President, Minnesota Power;
William G. Bares, Chairman and CEO, The Lubrizol
Corporation;
Stephen M. Humphrey, President and CEO, Riverwood
International;
Thomas A. Waltermire, Chairman and CEO, The Geon Company;
James R. Carlson, Vice President, Flocryl Inc.;
John M. Derrick, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Pepco;
David D. Eckert, Executive Committee Member, Rhodia Inc.;
Frederick F. Schauder, Ltd., CFO and HD of Business Service
Center, Lonza Group, Ltd.;
Marvin W. Zima, President, OMNOVA Solutions Performance
Chemicals;
Simon H. Upfill-Brown, President, and CEO, Haltermann,
Inc.;
Thomas A. Sugalski, President, CXY Chemicals, USA;
John L. MacDonald, Chairman and President, JLM Industries
Inc.;
David A. Wolf, President, Perstorp Polyols, Inc.;
Roger M. Frazier, Vice President, Pearl River Polymers
Inc.;
Yoshi Kawashima, Chairman and CEO, Reichhold, Inc.;
Geroge F. MacCormack, Group Vice President, Chemicals and
Polyester, DuPont;
C. Bert Knight, President and CEO, Sud-Chemie Inc.;
James A. Cederna, President and CEO, Calgon Carbon
Corporation;
Bernard J. Beaudoin, President, Kansas City Power and
Light;
William S. Stavropoulos, President and CEO, The Dow
Chemical Company;
Andrew J. Burke, President and CEO, Degussa-Huls
Corporation;
Geroge A. Vincent, Chairman, President & CEO, The C.P. Hall
Company;
William Cavanaugh, III, Chairman, President and CEC,
Carolina Power & Light Company;
Richard B. Priory, Chairman, President and CEO, Duke Energy
Corporation;
Howard E. Cosgrove, Chairman, President and CEO, Conectiv;
Gary L. Neale, Chairman, president and CEO, NiSource Inc.;
Robert L. James, President & CEO, Jones-Hamilton Co.;
Vincent A. Calarco, Chairman, President and CEO, Crompton
Corporation;
Earnest W. Deavenport, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Eastman
Chemical Company;
Reed Searle, General Manager, Intermountain Power Agency;
Robert Roundtree, General Manager, City Utilities of
Springfield, MO;
Walter W. Hasse, General Manager, Jamestown Board of Public
Utilities;
Glenn Cannon, General Manager, Waverly Iowa Light and
Power;
Jeffrey L. Nelson, General Manager, East River Electric
Power Cooperative;
Mike Waters, President, Montana Grain Growers Association;
Terry F. Steinbecker, President & CEO, St. Joseph Light &
Power Company;
Hugh T. McDonald, President, Entergy Arkansas, Inc.;
Dave Westbrock, General Manager, Heartland Consumers Power;
[[Page S9888]]
David M. Radtcliffe, President & CEO, Georgia Power
Company;
Stephen B. King, President and CEO, Tomah3 Products, Inc.;
Donald W. Griffin, Chairman, President and CEO, Olin
Corporation;
Ian MacMillan, Technical Manager, Octel-Starreon LLC;
Martin E. Blaylock, Vice President, Manufacturing
Operations, Monsanto Company;
G. Ashley Allen, President, Milliken Chemical, Division of
Milliken & Co.;
Dwain S. Colvin, President, Dover Chemical Corporation;
Bill W. Waycaster, President and CEO, Texas Petrochemicals
LP;
David C. Hill, President and CEO, Chemicals Division, J.M.
Huber Corporation;
Mark P. Bulriss, Chairman, President and CEO, Great Lakes
Chemical Corporation;
Michael E. Ducey, President and CEO, Borden Chemical, Inc.;
Chuck Carpenter, President, North Pacific Paper Co.;
Richard R. Russell, President and CEO, GenTek Inc.; General
Chemical Corporation;
John T. Files, Chairman of the Board, Merichem Company;
John C. Hunter, Chairman, President and CEO, Solutia Inc.;
William M. Landuyt, Chairman and CEO, Millennium Chemicals,
Inc.;
Kevin Lydey, President and CEO, Blandin Paper Company Inc.;
J. Roger Harl, President and CEO, Occidental Chemical
Corporation;
Rajiv L. Gupta, Chairman and CEO, Rohm and Haas Company;
Sunil Kumar, President and CEO, International Specialty
Products;
Kenneth L. Golder, President and CEO, Clariant Corporation;
Michael Fiterman, President and CEO, Liberty Diversified
Industries;
Nicholas R. Marcalus, President and CEO, Marcal Paper Mills
Inc.;
Charles H. Fletcher, Jr., Vice President, Neste Chemicals
Holding Inc.;
William J. Corbett, Chairman and CEO, Silbond Corporation;
Robert Betz, President, Cognis Corporation;
Arnold M. Nemirow, Chairman and CEO, Bowater Inc.;
Harry J. Hyatt, President, Sasol North America;
Eugene F. Wilcauskas, President and CEO, Specialty Products
Division, Church & Dwight Co., Inc.;
Robert C. Buchanan, Chairman and CEO, Fox River Paper Co.;
David W. Courtney, President and CEO, CHEMCENTRAL
Corporation;
Joseph F. Firlit, President and CEO, Soyland Power
Cooperative;
Ronald Harper, CEO and General Manager, Dakota Coal Company
and Dakota Gasification Co.;
Richard Midulla, Executive VP and General Manager, Seminole
Electric Cooperative, Inc.;
Dan Wiltse, President, National Barley Growers Association;
William L. Berg, President and CEO, Dairyland Power
Cooperative;
Charles L. Compton, General Manager, Saluda River Electric
Cooperative;
Don Kimball, CEO, Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.;
Gary Smith, President and CEO, Alabama Electric
Cooperative, Inc.;
Stephen Brevig, Executive VP and General Manager, NW Iowa
Power Cooperative;
Frank Knutson, President and CEO, Tri-State G and T
Association, Inc.;
Robert W. Bryant, President and General Manager, Golden
Spread Electric Cooperative;
Marshall Darby, General Manager, San Miguel Electric
Cooperative, Inc.;
Thomas W. Stevenson, President and CEO, Wolverine Power
Supply Cooperative;
Kimball R. Rasmussen, President and CEO, Deseret G and T
Cooperative;
Thomas Smith, President and CEO, Oglethorpe Power
Corporation;
Evan Hayes, President, Idaho Grain Producers Association;
Gary Simmons, Chairman, Idaho Barley Commission;
Randy Peters, Chairman, Nebraska Wheat Board;
Terry Detrick, President, National Association of Wheat
Growers;
Leland Swenson, President, National Farmers Union;
Frank H. Romanelli, President and CEO, Metachem Products,
L.L.C.;
Frederick W. Von Rein, Vice President, GM Fisher Chemical,
Fisher Scientific Company LLC;
Raymond M. Curran, President and CEO, Smurfit Stone
Container Corp.;
Floyd D. Gottwald, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Albemarle
Corporation;
Richard G. Bennett, President, Shearer Lumber Products;
John Begley, President and CEO, Port Townsend Paper
Company;
Gregory T. Cooper, President and CEO, Cooper Natural
Resources;
Mark J. Schneider, Chief Executive Officer, Borden
Chemicals and Plastics;
Kees Verhaar, President and CEO, Johnson Polymer;
L. Ballard Mauldin, President, Chemical Products
Corporation;
George M. Simmons, President of First Chemical Corporation,
ChemFirst Inc;
Christopher T. Fraser, President and CEO, OCI Chemical
Corporation;
Gerhardus J. Mulder, CEO and Vice Chairman of the Board,
Felix Schoeller Technical Papers, Inc.;
John F. Trancredi, President, North American Chemical Co.,
IMC Chemicals Inc.;
Christian Maurin, Chairman and CEO, Nalco Chemical Company;
Nicholas P. Trainer, President, Sartomer Company, Inc.;
Thomas H. Johnson, Chairman, President, and CEO, Chesapeake
Corporation;
Gordon Jones, President and CEO, Blue Ridge Paper Products
Inc.;
David Lilley, Chairman, President and CEO, Cytec Industries
Inc.;
Mario Concha, Vice President, Chemical & Resins, Georgia-
Pacific Corporation;
Duane C. McDougall, President and CEO, Willamette
Industries, Inc.;
Kennett F. Burnes, President and COO, Cabot Corporation;
Aziz I. Asphahani, President and CEO, Carus Chemical
Company;
Thomas M. Hahn, President and CEO, Garden State Paper
Company;
Dan F. Smith, President and CEO, Lyondell Chemical Company;
Frank R. Bennett, President, Bennett Lumber Products Inc.;
Joseph G. Acker, President, Hickson Dan Chemical
Corporation;
James F. Akers, President, The Crystal Tissue Company;
Lee F. Moisio, Executive Vice President, Vertex Chemical
Corporation;
Richard G. Verney, Chairman and CEO, Monadnock Paper Mills,
Inc.;
Helge H. Wehmeier, President and CEO, Bayer Corporation;
Michael Flannery, Chairman and CEO, Pope and Talbot, Inc.;
R. P. Wollenberg, Chairman and CEO, Longview Fiber Company;
Michael T. Lacey, President and COO, Ausimont USA, Inc.;
Michael J. Kenny, President, Laporte Inc.;
Jean-Pierre Seeuws, President and CEO, ATOFINA
Petrochemicals, Inc.;
Michael J. Ferris, President and CEO, Pioneer Americas,
Inc.;
Edward A. Schmitt, President and CEO, Georgia Gulf
Corporation;
Peter A. Wriede, President and CEO, EM Industries, Inc.;
Fred G. von Zuben, President and CEO, The Newark Group;
Paul J. Norris, Chairman, President and CEO, W.R. Grace &
Co.;
George H. Glatfelter II, Chairman, President and CEO, P.H.
Glatfelter Company;
Larry M. Games, Vice President, Procter & Gamble;
David C. Southworth, President, Southworth Company;
Harvey L. Lowd, President, Kao Specialties Americas LLC;
Richard Connor, Jr., President, Pine River Lumber Co.,
Ltd.;
William Wowchuk, President, Eaglebrook, Inc.;
W. Lee Nutter, Chairman, President and CEO, Rayonier;
Robert Carr, President and Chief Operating Officer,
Schenectady International, Inc.;
Robert Strasburg, President, Lyons Falls Pulp & Paper,
Inc.;
J. Edward, CEO, Gulf States Paper Corporation;
Gorton M. Evans, President and CEO, Consolidated Papers,
Inc.;
John K. Robinson, Group Vice President, BP Amoco p.l.c.;
David J. D'Antoni, Sr. Vice President and Group Operating
Officer, Ashland Inc.;
Pierre Monahan, President and CEO, Alliance Forest
Products, Inc.;
Peter Oakley, Chairman and CEO, BASF Corporation;
Charles K. Valutas, Sr. Vice President and Chief
Administrative Officer, Sunoco, Inc.;
Leroy J. Barry, President and CEO, Madison Paper
Industries;
Norman S. Hansen, Jr., President, Monadnock Forest
Products, Inc.;
Dan M. Dutton, CEO, Stinson Lumber Company;
Michael L. Kurtz, General Manager, Gainesville Regional
Utilities;
William P. Schrader, President, Salt River Project,
Jim Harder, Director, Garland Power and Light;
Gary Mader, Utilities Director, City of Grand Island,
Nebraska;
Robert W. Headden, Electric Superintendent, City of
Escanaba, Michigan;
Darryl Tveitakk, General Manager, Northern Municipal Power
Agency;
Steven R. Rogel, Chairman, President and CEO, Weyerhaeuser
Company;
John T. Dillon, Chairman and CEO, International Paper
Company;
Roy Thilly, CEO, Wisconsin Public Power, Inc.;
Tom Heller, CEO, Missouri River Energy Services;
Charles R. Chandler, Vice Chairman, Greif Bros Corp.;
Rudy Van der Meer, Member, Board of Management, Akzo Nobel
Chemicals Inc.;
William B. Hull, President, Hull Forest Products, Inc.;
Larry M. Giustina, General Manager, Giustina Land and
Timber Co.;
Daniel S. Sanders, President, ExxonMobil Chemical Company;
Thomas E. Gallagher, Sr. Vice President, Coastal Paper
Company;
F. Casey Wallace, Sales Manager, Allegheny Wood Products
Inc.;
Terry Freeman, President, Bibler Bros Lumber Company;
William Mahnke, Vice President, Duni Corporation;
[[Page S9889]]
Neil Carr, President, Elementis Specialties;
Chris A. Robbins, President, EHV Weidmann Industries Inc.;
James Lieto, President, Chevron Oronite Company LLC;
Marvin A. Pombrantz, Chairman and CEO, Baylord Container
Corp.;
M. Glen Bassett, President, Baker Petrolite Corporation;
Glen Duysen, Secretary, Sierra Forest Products;
Kent H. Lee, Senior Vice President of Speciality Chemicals,
Ferro Corporation;
James L. Burke, President and CEO, SP Newsprint Company;
Dana M. Fitzpatrick, Executive Vice President, Fitzpatrick
and Weller, Inc.;
Bert Martin, President, Fraser Papers Inc.;
Carl R. Soderlind, Chief Executive Officer, Golden Bear Oil
Specialties;
Charles L. Watson, Chairman and CEO, Dynegy, Inc.;
Alan J. Noia, Chairman, President and CEO, Allegheny
Energy;
Ronald D. Earl, General Manager and CEO, Illinois Municipal
Electric Agency;
Steven Svec, General Manager, Chillicothe Municipal
Utilities;
Michael G. Morris, Chairman, President and CEO, Northeast
Utilities;
Jay D. Logel, General Manager, Muscatine Power and Water;
Robert A. Voltmann, Executive Director & Chief Executive
Officer, Transportation Intermediaries Association;
Andrew E. Goebel, President and Chief Operating Officer,
Vectren Corporation;
Bob Johnston, President and CEO, Municipal Electric
Authority of Georgia;
Rick Holly, President, Plum Creek;
A.D. Correll, Chairman and CEO, Georgia-Pacific
Corporation;
Robert M. Owens, President and CEO, Owens Forest Products;
Charles E. Platz, President, Montell North America Inc.;
Nirmal S. Jain, President, BaerLocher USA;
Will Kress, President, Green Bay Packaging Inc.;
Stanley Sherman, President and CEO, Ciba Specialty
Chemicals Corporation;
Charles A. Feghali, President, Interstate Resources Inc.;
Charles H. Blanker, President, Esleeck Manufacturing
Company, Inc.;
Dennis H. Reilley, President and CEO, Praxair, Inc.;
Vohn Price, President, The Price Company;
Lawrence A. Wigdor, President and CEO, Kronos, Inc.;
Eric Lodewijk, President and Site Manager, Roche Colorado
Corporation;
James L. Gallogly, President and CEO, Chevron Phillips
Chemical Company;
Takashi Fukunaga, General Manager, Specialty Chemicals,
Mitsui & Co. (USA), Inc.;
James A. Mack, Chairman and CEO, Cambrex Corporation;
F. Quinn Stepan, Sr., Chairman and CEO, Stepan Company;
John R. Danzeisen, Chairman, ICI Americas Inc.;
Harold A. Wagner, Chairman and CEO, Air Products and
Chemicals, Inc.;
Bernard J. Darre, President, The Shepherd Chemical Company;
Frank A. Archinaco, Executive Vice President, PPG
Industries, Inc.;
Gary E. Anderson, President and CEO, Dow Corning
Corporation;
David S. Johnson, President and CEO, Ruetgers Organics
Corporation;
Whitson Sadler, President and CEO, Solvay America, Inc.;
Peter L. Acton, General Manager, Arizona Chemical Company;
Wallace J. McCloskey, President, The Norac Company, Inc.;
Gregory Bialy, President and CEO, RohMax USA, Inc.;
Arthur R. Sigel, President and CEO, Velsicol Chemical
Corporation;
H. Patrick Jack, President and CEO, Aristech Chemical
Corporation;
Michael E. Campbell, Chairman and CEO, Arch Chemicals,
Inc.;
James B. Nicholson, President and CEO, PVS Chemicals, Inc.;
D. George Harris, Chairman, D. George Harris and
Associates;
James E. Gregory, President, Dyneon LLC;
Toshihoko Yoshitomi, President, Mitsubishi Chemical America
Inc.;
William H. Joyce, Chairman, President & CEO, Union Carbide
Corporation;
Kenneth W. Miller, Vice Chairman, Air Liquide America
Corporation;
Norman Blank, Senior Vice President, Research &
Development, Sika Corporation;
Edward W. Kissel, President and COO, OM GROUP, INC.;
Mario Meglio, Director of Marketing, Kuehne Chemical
Company, Inc.;
Jerry L. Golden, Executive Vice President-Americas, Shell
Chemical Company;
Thomas E. Reilly, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Reilly Industries,
Inc.;
Joseph F. Raccuia, CEO, Encore Paper Company, Inc.;
Alex Kwader, President and CEO, Fibermark;
John A. Luke, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Westvaco Corporation;
George J. Griffith, Jr., Chairman and President, Merrimac
Paper Co.;
George Harad, Chairman and CEO, Boise Cascade Corporation;
L. Pendleton Siegel, Chairman and CEO, Potlatch
Corporation;
Monte R. Haymon, President and CEO, Sappi Fine Paper;
George D. Jones III, President, Seaman Paper Company, Inc.;
Jon M. Huntsman, Sr., Chairman, Huntsman Corporation;
Jerry Tatar, Chairman and CEO, The Mead Corporation;
Larry L. Weyers, Chairman, President and CEO, WPS Resources
Corporation;
Jan B. Packwood, President and CEO, IDACORP, Inc.;
E. Linn Draper, Jr., Chairman, President and CEO, American
Electric Power;
Steven E. Moore, Chairman, President and CEO, OGE Energy
Corp.;
John MacFarlane, Chairman, President and CEO, Otter Tail
Power Company;
H. Peter Burg, Chairman and CEO, First Energy Corp.;
John Rowe, Chairman, President and CEO, Unicom Corporation;
Erroll B. Davis, Jr., Chairman, President and CEO, Alliant
Energy Corporation;
Alan Richardson, President and CEO, PacifiCorp;
William F. Hecht, Chairman, President and CEO, PPL
Corporation;
Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation;
William Rodecker, Director, Occupational Health, Safety &
Environmental Affairs, Eli Lilly and Company.
____
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from New Jersey.
ALS Treatment And Assistance Act
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, all of us in our public lives on
occasion meet an individual under circumstances and remains with us.
They are so powerful in their impact that they haunt us and, if we are
true to our responsibilities, also lead us to involvement. It could be
circumstances of a struggling family attempting to pay their bills. It
could be someone in enormous physical or emotional distress.
I rise today because 3 years ago I met a young family from Burlington
County, NJ, who had exactly this impact on me, my life, and my own
service in the Senate.
Kevin O'Donnell was 31 years old, a devoted father who was skiing
with his daughter one weekend, when he noticed a strange pain in his
leg. It persisted, which led him to visit his family doctor. Here, he
was shocked to learn, despite his apparent good health, the vibrancy of
his own life and his young age, that he had been stricken with ALS,
known to most Americans as Lou Gehrig's disease.
We are fortunate that ALS is a very rare disorder. It affects 30,000
individuals in our Nation, with an additional 5,000 new cases diagnosed
every year. We should be grateful it is so rare because the impact on
an individual and their health and their family is devastating. Indeed,
there are few diseases that equal the impact of ALS on an individual.
It is, of course, a neurological disorder that causes the progressive
degeneration of the spinal cord and the brain. Muscle weakness,
especially in the arms and legs, leads to confinement to a wheelchair.
In time, breathing becomes impossible and a respirator is needed.
Swallowing becomes impossible. Speech becomes nearly impossible. Muscle
by muscle, legs to arms to chest to throat, all motor activity of the
body shuts down.
While ALS usually strikes people who are over 50 years old, indeed,
there are many cases of young people being afflicted with this disease.
Once the disease strikes, life expectancy is 3 to 5 years. But the
difficulty is, life expectancy is not measured from diagnosis; it is
measured from the first symptoms.
Diagnosing ALS is very difficult. What can appear as a pain in the
leg can be overlooked for months. Muscle disorders can be ignored for a
year. Doctors have a difficult time diagnosing Lou Gehrig's disease.
Not surprisingly, after diagnosed, the financial burdens are
enormous. Work is impossible. Twenty-four hour care is likely.
Wheelchairs, respirators, nursing care can easily cost between
$200,000, to a quarter of a million dollars a year.
Families struggle with this financial burden while they are also
struggling with the certainty of death at a young age.
This leads me to the responsibilities of this institution.
Patients with ALS must wait 2 years before becoming eligible for
Medicare. For 2 years--no help, no funds, no assistance. As a result,
17,000 ALS patients currently are ineligible for Medicare services. And
thousands of these
[[Page S9890]]
individuals will die having never received one penny of Medicare
assistance. Their death from ALS is a foregone conclusion. It could
come in a year or 2 years or 3, but we are requiring a 2-year waiting
period before there is any assistance.
Clearly, ALS, the problems of diagnosis, the certainty of death, the
rapid deterioration of the human body, was not considered with this 2-
year waiting period.
Nearly 3 years ago, I first introduced legislation that would
eliminate the 24-month waiting period for ALS from Medicare. Most of
the people who were with me that day here in the Senate when we
introduced this legislation are now dead. Most of them never received
any Medicare assistance. Only I remain, having been there that day
offering this legislation again to bring help to these people.
But their agony and the burdens on their families have now been
succeeded by thousands of others, who at the time probably had never
heard of ALS disease, certainly did not know that Medicare, upon which
their families had come to rely, would be out of reach to them in such
a crisis.
The ALS Treatment and Assistance Act, since that day, has enjoyed
bipartisan support, with 28 cosponsors in the Senate, 12 Republicans
and 16 Democrats. In the House of Representatives, 280 Democrats and
Republicans have cosponsored the legislation.
This spring, the Senate unanimously adopted this legislation as part
of the marriage penalty tax bill, which, of course, did not become law.
Both Houses, both parties have responded to this terrible situation.
Two weeks ago, when Senator Moynihan and Senator Daschle introduced
S. 3077, the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 2000, I was very proud
that the ALS provision was included in their legislation. Last
Wednesday, the ALS waiver was included in the balanced budget
refinement legislation approved by the House Commerce Committee. So
there is still hope.
As every Member of this institution knows, the calendar is late.
Regretfully, we are again at a time of year when the legislative
process ceases to work as it is taught in textbooks across the country.
There will not be an opportunity for me to advocate this legislation
for ALS patients by offering an amendment on the Senate floor to the
Medicare package developed by the Finance Committee. That option is
simply not going to exist under the procedures and the calendar of the
Senate.
I am, therefore, left with the following circumstances. Having lost
many of those ALS patients, on whose behalf I originally began this
effort, a new group of families are now helping me across the country.
They, too, have a year or two remaining in their lives and need this
help.
If I can succeed in getting this provision, with the support of my
colleagues, in the balanced budget refinements that ultimately will be
passed by this Senate, for those people before their deaths, there is
still hope. If I fail, then these people, too, will expire before they
get any assistance from the Government.
I do not know of an argument not to pass this legislation. I do not
know of a point that any Senator in any party, at any time, could make,
to argue on the merits, that these ALS patients should not get a waiver
under Medicare, in the remaining months or years of their lives, to get
some financial assistance.
The unanimous support of the Senate previously, I think, is testament
to the fact that we are of one mind. I simply now would like to ask my
colleagues, in these final days, knowing that there will be a Medicare
balanced budget refinement bill, that this provision be included.
I also, Mr. President, ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a copy of the letter that was sent to Chairman Roth last week,
signed by 16 of my colleagues in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans,
asking for inclusion of the ALS legislation in a balanced budget
refinement package.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, September 25, 2000.
Hon. William V. Roth,
Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Roth: As the Finance Committee prepares to
mark-up a Balanced Budget Act refinement package for Medicare
providers, we urge your support for the inclusion of an
important provision of S. 1074, the Amyotrophic Lateral
Sclerosis Treatment Act. This provision would eliminate the
24-month waiting period for Medicare which prevents ALS
patients from receiving the immediate care they desperately
need.
As you know, ALS is a fatal neurological disorder that
affects 30,000 Americans. Its progression results in total
paralysis, leaving patients without the ability to move,
speak, swallow or breathe and therefore totally dependent on
care givers for all aspects of life. Without a cure or any
effective treatment, the life expectancy of an ALS patient is
only three to five years.
A common problem for individuals stricken with ALS is that,
due to the progressive nature of the disease and the lack of
any diagnostic tests, a final diagnosis is often made after a
year or more of symptoms and searching for answers. This
delay results in a loss of valuable time that could have been
spent in starting treatment early. Once a diagnosis is
finally made, the tragedy is needlessly worsened by
Medicare's 24-month waiting period which forces ALS patients
to wait until the final months of their illness to receive
care.
Eliminating this unfair restriction for ALS patients enjoys
strong bipartisan support in the Senate and the House. In
fact, the House version of this bill has the support of 280
co-sponsors. Including this legislation in a BBA refinement
package will represent a first real step toward improving the
quality of life for Americans stricken with ALS. We look
forward to working with you, and appreciate your
consideration of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank you for the time and I thank
my colleagues for their indulgence. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. First, I would like to comment on the comments that
were made by Senator Torricelli from New Jersey. I thought they were
profound, moving, and obviously urgent.
What I regret to have to report to him is that the Senate Finance
Committee, on which I serve on the minority side, has concluded there
will be no markup. There will with no markup on the balanced budget
amendment. So this is very sad. This is part of the denigration of the
process of this entire institution.
There is no health care legislation that has come out of the Finance
Committee, or anywhere else, in the last 2 years. We could go through
that litany.
But I want to report my profound discouragement to the Senator that
we were told yesterday there would be no markup, no markup on the one
thing that we could do to help not only the people you are talking
about but all the hospitals and hospices and skilled nursing
facilities, home health agencies in our States which are suffering.
So we have to rely on the good will of the President when he meets
with leaders, Republican leaders. Hopefully, maybe a Democrat will be
included in that meeting. Maybe something can happen.
But this is where we have arrived at in this institution. It is
unfortunate. It is wretched. It has a terrible consequence for the
people who you so movingly and eloquently talked about.
Railroad Competition
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to
speak about an issue--the plight of captive shippers--on which the
Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, spoke and on which I have been
working for 16 years, every day I have been in the Senate, with a
complete, absolute, and total lack of success. One doesn't ordinarily
admit those things, but I say that because that is how bad the
situation is. That is how unwilling the Congress is to address this
problem even though it affects every single Senator and every single
Congressman in the entire United States of America without a single
exception.
How did this happen is the same question as asking why is it that
people complain about planes being late but don't take any interest in
aviation policy. We are a policy body. We are meant to deliberate; we
are meant to discuss issues. We don't. We don't take any interest in
aviation. So we complain but don't do anything. We take no interest in
railroad policy, and so we don't complain and we don't do anything.
As a result, the American Association of Railroads, which is one of
the
[[Page S9891]]
all-time most powerful lobbying groups in the country, has its way. As
Senator Dorgan said, they have their way although there are only really
four or five railroads left. When I came here in 1985, as the junior
Senator from West Virginia, there were 50 or 60 class I railroads.
Those are the big ones. Now there are four or five, probably soon to be
two or three.
When the Staggers Act was passed to deregulate the railroads, which
unfortunately this Congress did in 1980, they divided it into two
parts. They said for those railroads which had competition, the market
would set the price. But they said there are about--let's pick the
number--20 percent of all railroads which have no competition. In the
coal mines, steel mills, granaries, and manufacturing facilities that
these railroads serve, there is no competition. Their rates would be
determined by the Interstate Commerce Commission at that time. Now it
is called the Surface Transportation Board. Very few of my colleagues
know anything about the Surface Transportation Board or knew anything
about the Interstate Commerce Commission, even though many of their
people are suffering vastly from the consequences of the inaction of
these two bodies.
We don't have railroad competition in many aspects of our economy.
You can't move coal by a pickup truck and you can't fly it in an
airplane, you have to move it in a train. Sometimes you can put it in a
truck, but you have to basically put it in a train. The Presiding
Officer knows that very well; he comes from a State that produces coal.
I also am going to submit the same letter the Senator from North
Dakota did for the Record so it appears at the conclusion of my
remarks. It is an extraordinary letter to Chairman McCain and Senator
Hollings signed by 282 CEOs--not government relations people, not
lobbyists, but by CEOs. It is the most extraordinary document of
commitment and anger over a subject I have seen in the 16 years I have
been in the Senate. I have never seen anything like this before.
This is obviously a matter of enormous importance to my State. Most
of what we produce has to be moved by railroad: Chemicals; coal; steel;
lumber. It is a place where railroads have an enormous presence and
railroads dominate.
This letter seeks to make railroad policy a top concern. These people
say it is their top legislative concern. They represent virtually every
industry, and all parts of the country.
I don't know how we got to this situation. I think it is ignorance on
the part of the Congress, it is inattention, to some degree laziness on
the part of the Commerce Committee and the Congress. It doesn't rise to
the level of a crisis which hits us one day and grabs all the
headlines. It is like the ALS about which the Senator from New Jersey
was talking. It just creeps slowly. It just gradually destroys parts of
the economy.
Let me explain the situation this way. Imagine if I decided I wanted
to fly to Dallas, TX, from Charleston, WV, and I was told I had to go
through Atlanta. We don't have a lot of direct connections out of West
Virginia. And suppose the airline told me, told this Senator, that they
would not tell me how much my ticket would cost from Atlanta to Dallas.
I would be outraged. All kinds of people would jump into the action.
They couldn't do that. That would be illegal. It would be wrong.
The railroads can do what the airlines are prevented from doing. They
can refuse to quote you a price on what is called bottleneck
situations, where they will not tell you how much it is going to cost
on a monopoly segment. By doing that they control the price of whatever
you are shipping, wherever you are shipping it. That is wrong.
One of the reasons they are able to do that is that railroads, unlike
virtually every other industry that has been deregulated, have
antitrust exemption. Why do railroads have antitrust protection? Can
anybody give me a reason they would have antitrust protection? They
have been deregulated. No other industry that has been deregulated has
an exemption from our antitrust law, but the railroads do, because the
American Railroad Association moves very quietly and skillfully under
the radar of attention. It is a huge and powerful group. It doesn't
make waves, doesn't cause notice. It hands out tremendous amounts of
money, but they do their work below the radar screen.
As a result, when chemicals move out of the Kenawha Valley and the
Ohio Valley in West Virginia and when coal moves out of southern West
Virginia and northern West Virginia, we are victims in many
circumstances to captive shipping. We are captives of the railroads.
They can charge our companies whatever they want, and they do. It is
illegal, but the railroads have on their side the Surface
Transportation Board, which is supposed to ``regulate'' them, but
instead is concerned only with how much money the railroads are making.
So why should the railroads do anything other than make the most money
they can? And they do.
I know of no other situation like that in America. I come from a
family that knew something about monopoly. And, properly and correctly,
a President named Theodore Roosevelt came along and ended that because
it was wrong. It was done in those times. That is the way those
businesses were done, but it was wrong.
Well, it is wrong what the railroads are doing today on captive
shipping. For 16 years we have been fighting this--16 years, no
progress, nothing. The STB comes up and they say: We need to have rules
and regulations from the Congress. The folks in the Commerce Committee
say: We are having all kinds of hearings.
We don't have hearings. We technically have hearings, but they are
not hearings. They are not probing hearings. A couple people drop in; a
couple people drop out. Consumers everywhere suffer from this, and they
don't even know about it. We should, because it is our responsibility
to protect consumers. Where the law says the railroad companies cannot
do something which they are doing, we should be upset by that. And if
it is 20 percent of railroad traffic, we should be angry about it. But
we don't care. We don't care.
Again, many, if not most, of the products and commodities--coal and
chemicals especially--being shipped by companies in West Virginia these
products are shipped by companies, are shipped by companies that are
captive to a single railroad. Only one line serves most of these
plants. The railroads have all power: This is what you are going to
pay; if you don't want to pay it, then we won't serve you.
And they use a lot of other strong-arm tactics, which I will not go
into, although I am protected on the floor and I could, and I would be
happy to, but I won't do it. But they use strong-arm tactics; they know
how to use them and they do use them. There are four or five major
railroads, and they can use strong-arm tactics and get away with it.
All the others have been merged and eaten up. So the shippers are
forced to pay whatever the railroads want to charge. If my colleagues
think that is fair, fine.
This is what it's like: When you walk into a grocery store to buy
bread, you know what bread is supposed to cost. But no, the grocer
says, no, you have to pay three times the usual cost. I don't think my
colleagues would stand for that. But my colleagues do put up with this,
by continuing to let railroads charge whatever they want--not what the
market says the cost should be--even though it costs their constituents
and companies in their states more money than it should, and puts
people out of work.
Why won't my colleagues get interested in this subject? Why won't
they require the STB and the railroads to follow the law? Why doesn't
the Commerce Committee take this more seriously?
I cannot remember any significant period of time since I have been in
this body that I have not had a steady flow of complaints from my
``captive'' shippers--large and small companies that are captive to one
railroad. They have no alternative but to pay what the railroad says
they must. There is only one line going in; what are they going to do?
Carry it out by hand? The Staggers Act said the railroads shouldn't
exercise this kind of control. The captive shippers cannot set their
own price. The railroads set the price on the monopoly segment, often
without telling shippers what the price is, and thereby control the
price along the entire route. This happens--today and every day--in the
American economy. This is free market?
So businesses in my State and in your State, Mr. President, and the
[[Page S9892]]
State of the Senator from Alaska are hindered from making the kinds of
profits and putting a number of people to work because we in Congress
choose to ignore an enormous American problem.
I'd like to say a little bit about why this has all happened. I have
talked about the diminution of the number of railroads. We have just
two railroads on the east coast and two on the west coast, and one
running the length of the Mississippi. These five railroads collect 95
percent of all freight revenues, as Senator Dorgan said. Pretty soon,
that number may be reduced to just two railroads, period. These
railroads are not exactly having a hard time. This level of
``competition''--with just a few railroads controlling 95 percent of
the traffic--means, prima facie, that we really have no competition at
all. You just say 95 percent, and there you have it. By definition,
there is no competition.
During the last 5 years, the pace of railroad consolidation has been
dizzying. In 1996, the merger of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific
Railroads threw the entire country into crisis. Did we care? Yes,
briefly, for a week or so. There were some stories in the Wall Street
Journal--we heard about the Houston railyard being shut down--and some
of the rest of the country noticed, too. It was a strange and confusing
railroad problem, and we didn't have time to figure it out; that was
our attitude. So it came and it went. But it cost endless millions of
dollars and endless lost jobs.
But we need to look at what happened. The results of that merger--
creating one huge, unresponsive railroad, from two large unresponsive
railroads--were major service disruptions, plant closings, thousands of
lost workdays, and endless millions of dollars lost by companies all
over this country.
We had the same thing on a smaller scale in West Virginia and in the
East. We have had our own merger. Conrail was divided kind of piecemeal
between CSX and Norfolk Southern Railroads. A period of disruption
followed that merger also--perhaps not the scale of the UP-SP debacle--
but still devastating and frustrating to my manufacturers in my State
and throughout the Northeast. The railroads didn't worry because they
knew nobody here was paying any attention.
Rail consolidation isn't the only culprit. Several unjustified and
counterintuitive rulings made by the Surface Transportation Board and
its predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, have
stifled railroad competition and made matters much worse.
These agencies have enormous power in our economy. Their key decision
was the 1996 ``bottleneck'' decision to which I have already referred.
That allows a railroad to remain in control of its essential
facilities, known as ``bottlenecks'' and effectively prevent a rail
customer from getting to a competing railroad, or even getting a price.
In other words, where railroads share a line, they won't let you use
it. They won't let anybody else use it. They won't tell you what it
would cost even if you work out some kind of arrangement. They control
the cost of shipping along your whole route, and they shut you down.
The court of appeals upheld the decision of the STB as not being
``arbitrary or capricious.'' So that seems to be on the side of the
railroads. In its decision, the court of appeals went out of its way to
say that the bottleneck decision was, one, not the only interpretation
that the STB could have made under the law; and, two, not necessarily
the interpretation the court itself would have made.
Since then, the STB, predictably, has refused to revisit this
decision and seems to take the official position that it does not have
the legal authority to reach any other conclusion without specific
direction from Congress to put competition first. Well, I don't have
any problem with that, except Congress hasn't been paying any attention
and probably won't do that anytime soon. There is no chance we will do
that in the Commerce Committee now. Public anger hasn't been
galvanized, and congressional anger hasn't been galvanized.
Congressional passiveness rules.
Under the protective rulings of the Surface Transportation Board,
railroads are the only industry in the Nation that have both been
deregulated and allowed to maintain monopoly power over its essential
facilities. Congress, the Federal agencies, and the Federal courts have
specifically prevented telephone companies, airlines, natural gas
pipelines, and electric utilities from controlling essential
facilities, while at the same time they enjoy the benefits of
deregulation.
I reject the notion that the Staggers Rail Act intentionally allowed
railroads to use their bottleneck facilities to prevent customers
access to competition. That is wildly illogical and wildly untrue. It
goes against every principle of the American market economy. Likewise,
it makes no sense, and runs counter to the law of the land, for the STB
to view protection of the financial health of the railroads as its
overriding mission, which they do. In all of their history, they have
never found a railroad to be revenue adequate. That is the technical
term. In other words, they have never found a railroad which is making
enough money. The railroads have to make more money, suppress
competition, according to the STB.
So if we in Congress really care about the long-term viability of the
freight railroad industry, we have to examine and make fundamental
changes to the policy. But first we have to understand it--and we
don't, and we won't, until people get motivated.
The railroad industry itself is given unwarranted special treatment,
about which I have spoken, regarding the antitrust review. They are
totally exempt from review by the Antitrust Division of the Department
of Justice. Instead, it is left to the Surface Transportation Board to
determine whether a merger or acquisition is ``in the public
interest.''
Now, fortunately, as the Senator from North Dakota indicated, the STB
is quite concerned about its merger policy. Hurrah. They see, as I do,
the very real and ominous possibility that a final round of railroad
mergers could leave us with just two transcontinental railroads
carrying 97 percent of all American rail freight.
So the STB responded this year by instituting a 15-month moratorium
on major railroad mergers. They are also conducting a rulemaking on
their merger procedures.
I commend this unprecedented and important letter from 282 chief
executive officers of huge American companies and small American
companies to all of my colleagues. My guess is that very few colleagues
will read that letter because we are passive, because this issue is
under our radar. Or more accurately, we have decided to ignore it. When
it comes to ignoring this problem, we have an unblemished record of
success, even though our inaction hurts companies and people in every
part of this country.
Their letter sends a compelling message to Congress that the status
quo on railroad policy is unacceptable and must be changed. Senator
Burns, Senator Dorgan, and I have a bill to do exactly that, if we can
get anybody to pay attention to it.
I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from West
Virginia. I sympathize with the exposure that his State has. Of course,
my State, unfortunately, is not connected to the rest of the United
States by rail. We have a State-owned railroad and would like to have
the opportunity to have a railroad connection. I am sympathetic to his
cause.
Energy Crisis
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to address a couple of
situations that I think are paramount in our consideration of issues
before us today. I know most of my colleagues are aware of the current
situation in Belgrade and the uprising against the dictatorship of
Milosevic. I understand the situation is very grave at this time. I
know we are all hopeful there will be no serious loss of life as a
result of the uprising. I am sure my colleagues will join me in our
prayers and hopes that the opposition's Kostunica will be successful in
ousting Milosevic and instituting a democratic and peaceful new
government in Yugoslavia. I know the Senate hopes for the best and that
the nightmare in Yugoslavia may soon be at an end.
[[Page S9893]]
Unfortunately, we have a similar situation in the Middle East and the
fighting that is going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Over 67 people have been killed.
I think it appropriate at a time when we are facing an energy crisis
in this country to recognize the volatility associated with the area
where we are most dependent on our oil supply; namely, the Middle East.
Fifty-eight percent of our oil is imported primarily from OPEC.
As we look at the situation today, we recognize the fragility, if you
will, and the sensitivity associated with relying on that part of the
world, particularly when we see the action by this administration in
the last few days of drawing down oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve which is set up for the specific purpose of ensuring that we
have an adequate supply in storage if, indeed, our supply sources are
interrupted.
By drawing that reserve down 30 million barrels, we sent a signal to
OPEC that we were drawing down own our savings account making us more
vulnerable, if you will, to those who hold the leverage on the supply
of oil; namely, OPEC, Venezuela, Mexico, and other countries.
I wanted to make that observation and further identify, if you will,
that we have a situation that needs correction. We still have time to
do it in this body; that is, to pass the EPCA reauthorization bill.
As a consequence of the effort by the majority leader yesterday to
bring that bill up--H.R. 2884--the reauthorization bill, I think it is
important that we recognize why we need it.
First, it reauthorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The
authorization expired in March of this year.
It creates a home heating oil reserve with a proper trigger mechanism
that is needed.
It provides State-led education programs on ``summer fill" and fuel
budgeting programs.
It requires the Secretary of Defense to concur with drawdowns and
indicate that those drawdowns will not impact national security.
It strengthens weatherization programs by increasing the per-dwelling
allowance.
It requires yearly reports on the status of fuel supply prior to the
heating season.
We have worked hard at trying to bring this to the floor and get it
passed.
Yesterday, the Senator from California indicated there was still
opposition to the bill. It is my understanding that comments were made
about the bipartisan substitute we have offered. As a consequence, I
believe there is a need for a response.
One, the Senator claimed that we could take up and pass the
underlying bill--H.R. 2884--without amendment.
This simply can't happen. The underlying bill does not contain
responsible trigger mechanisms to protect SPR from inappropriate
withdrawal.
The Secretary of Energy has asked for a more responsible trigger
mechanism than is contained in the underlying bill. The Secretary is
right. We need that. This is our insurance policy if we have a blowup
in the Middle East.
Second, by accepting the House bill, we would lose the opportunity to
strengthen the weatherization program contained in the substitute and
we would also lose the mandate for a yearly report from the Department
of Energy on the status of our fuel heading into the winter contained
in the substitute.
These are important issues. I am sure the Senator from California
would agree that she would support these.
But, as a consequence, to suggest that we can accept the House bill
that doesn't include the triggering mechanism is the very point that I
want to bring up.
The Senator from California also said the Federal Government should
not be in the oil business and that they don't do well in the oil
business. I certainly agree. We don't do well with the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. We have bought high and sold low out of that
reserve.
But it is even more important now that we have moved some of our oil
to build up a heating oil reserve.
Isn't it ironic that the facts are, since the beginning of this year,
more than 152,000 barrels of distillate--heating oils, light diesels,
and so forth--have been exported each day. We are exporting fuel oils
and heating oils that we ought to be holding in our reserve since we
have a shortage of heating oil for the Northeast States that are so
dependent on it. That is not what we are doing.
According to today's Wall Street Journal, that number is ballooning
even higher because of tight supplies and higher prices in Europe. In
other words, we need more of it here, but we are sending it over to
Europe--as opposed to the administration putting a closure or requiring
that crude oil be taken out of SPR and be refined for heating oil and
held in this country in reserve.
That isn't in the requirement for the 30 million barrels that went
out of SPR. The companies that bid on it can do whatever they wish with
it. So we haven't accomplished anything. Where is it going? It is going
to Europe.
I agree with the Senator from California that the Federal Government
should not be in the oil business. They are doing a lousy job of it,
and their SPR withdrawal is strictly a political cover to try to imply
that the administration is doing something about the crisis so we don't
get too excited about the election that is coming up. It is a charade.
The Senator from California claims the royalty-in-kind provisions are
a charade allowing oil companies to pay fair market value--and this
Senator is trying to undercut efforts to resolve valuation issues.
While I would like to take credit for all the provisions in our bill,
in fairness, they were worked out with the ranking member of the
committee, Senator Bingaman, and the administration. In fact, the
royalty-in-kind program was initiated in 1994 by none other than Vice
President Gore as part of the reinvention of government to test new,
more efficient ways of collecting its royalty share.
If the Senator from California is saying that Al Gore's efforts to
reinvent government have been a failure and have cost the American
taxpayer millions of dollars, I would certainly respect her opinion.
Furthermore, a provision requires that the Government receive
benefits ``equal to or greater'' than it would have received under
a royalty evaluation program.
Finally, the Senator accused me--the Senator from Alaska--of trying
to move this program ``in the dark of night.''
Well, I am disappointed by that statement. Prior to even taking this
substitute up on the floor, my staff approached the staff of the
Senator from California to work to resolve concerns in a good-faith
effort.
The staff of Senator Bingaman, the ranking member of the Energy
Committee, which I chair, spent countless hours answering the Senator's
questions and addressing her concerns. Unfortunately, those efforts
evidently have been unsuccessful.
So any argument that the RIK language in this bill has not gone
through an appropriate process pales in comparison to that alleged lack
of process involved in a ``rider'' on the same subject the Senator from
California supports in the Interior appropriations bill.
You cannot have it both ways.
The arguments are simply empty rhetoric premised on the assumption
that oil companies are inherently bad and any program dealing with them
must be flawed. The implication is that the oil companies are
profiteering.
There is no mention that we were selling oil in this country at $10 a
barrel a year ago. Now it is $33 a barrel.
Who sets the price of oil? Is it ``Big Oil'' in the United States?
No. It is OPEC. OPEC provides 58 percent of the supply. It is Venezuela
and Mexico. You pay the price, or you leave it.
I am prepared to bring up this bill under a reasonable time
agreement, debate the issue at length, and have the Senator from
California offer an amendment to strike the provision if she finds it
objectionable. That is her right. I support that right.
But it is time we move the Senate version of this very important bill
to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and establish a home
heating oil reserve, and get the administration focused on the reality
that the oil they propose to take out of SPR is being refined and sent
over to Europe to meet
[[Page S9894]]
their heating oil demands. That is the reality.
If we don't move this legislation, the Senator from California will
have to bear the responsibility. It is unconscionable to me at a time
when we face an energy crisis--not only oil and natural gas but other
areas and in our electric industry--that we find some other important
bills being held up. We have passed out of the Committee an electric
power reliability bill. The purpose was the recognition that we have a
shortage of generating capability in this country.
We have not expanded our generating capacity to meet the demand. As a
consequence of that, we have not progressed with a distribution system
to meet the demand that is growing. So out of the Committee, along with
Senator Gorton, we specifically worked to get an electric power
reliability bill. It is sitting here waiting for passage. What it
does--and the administration wants it--it sets up a way to share the
shortage.
That sounds ironic, but we have a shortage of generating capacity. We
have seen spiking costs very high, hundreds and thousands of dollars,
for short periods of time. The reliability bill administers in a fair
manner, to ensure that if there is any surplus in one area, it is moved
to other areas without the exposure of spiking. We cannot seem to move
that on the floor of the other body. We are going into a timeframe
where, if we get a cold winter and higher electric demands, we will
need that legislation.
Another bill, of course, that we considered is our electricity
deregulation bill, a comprehensive bill. The problem was there was a
mandate to have 7\1/2\ percent of our energy derived from renewables.
That is easy to say. The administration mandated that bill. But there
is no way to enforce it because we simply don't have the technical
capability to achieve 7\1/2\ percent of our energy from non-hydro
renewables. It is less than 2 percent now.
They say we haven't spent enough money or been dedicated or made a
commitment. I remind my colleagues, we have extended in 5 years $1.5
billion in direct spending to subsidize development of renewables. We
have given tax incentives for renewables of $4.9 billion. I support
renewables, but we just can't pick them up. The wind doesn't always
blow outside. In my State of Alaska, it is not always sunny. Solar
panels do not always work.
As a consequence, I remind my colleagues, when you fly out of
Washington from time to time, you don't leave here on hot air, you need
energy. We have a crisis. We have not passed the electric power
reliability legislation, we have not passed comprehensive electricity
deregulation, and we are in a situation where we have taken oil from
SPR and now we are seeing that oil move to Europe.
I want to use the remaining time to do a contrast because I want to
emphasize the significance of the energy policies as proposed by our
two Presidential candidates. Make no mistake, on energy policy the
differences between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush could not be
more clear.
Let's look at costs. We have added up the Bush proposal, $7.1 billion
over 10 years. The Gore proposal, which the newspapers have added up--
which are usually somewhat favorable to the Vice President--costs 10
times more than that, somewhere between $80 and $125 billion. They are
still trying to pin down the figures. The Vice President wants to raise
prices and limit supply of fossil energy, which makes up over 80
percent of our energy needs. By discouraging domestic production, the
administration has forced us to be more dependent on foreign oil,
placing our national security at risk and, of course, raising prices.
The Vice President's only answer in the first debate was to give you
solar, wind, biomass technologies, that are not yet available. Again, I
remind my colleagues, we have spent $1.5 billion in direct spending and
$4.9 billion in tax incentives over 5 years trying to develop more
renewables.
In contrast, Governor Bush would expand domestic production of oil
and natural gas, reduce imports below 50 percent, and ensure affordable
and secure supplies by developing resources at home. He would invest
ample resources into emerging clean fossil technologies, renewable
energy, and energy conservation programs, but, most of all, he won't
bet on our energy future. Governor Bush will use the energy of today to
yield cleaner, more affordable energy sources for tomorrow.
Now, let's look at the record. The Vice President has said he has an
energy plan that focuses not only on increasing the supply but also
working on the consumption side. The facts show the Vice President
doesn't practice what he preaches. The administration has actually
decreased energy supply during the past 7\1/2\ years. They have opposed
domestic oil production and exploration. We have 17 percent less
production since Clinton-Gore took office. We have closed 136,000 oil
wells and 57,000 gas wells since 1992. They oppose the use of plentiful
American coal and clean coal technology. The EPA makes it uneconomical
to have a coal-generating plant. The demand is there for energy, but
clearly coal is simply almost off limits because of the process.
We force the nuclear industry to choke on its waste. We are one vote
short in this body of passing a veto override, yet the U.S. court of
appeals, in a liability case, ruled the Government had the
responsibility to take the waste. The cost to the taxpayers here is
somewhere between $40 and $80 billion in liability due the industry as
a consequence of the Federal Government's failure to honor the sanctity
of the contract.
They have threatened to tear down hydroelectric dams. Where are they
going to place the traffic that moves on barges? Put it on the
highways? That will take away 10 percent of our Nation's electricity.
They ignored electric power reliability and supply concerns. Go out
to San Diego and see the price spikes there--no new generation, no new
transmission in southern California.
They have claimed to support increased use of natural gas, yet they
have kept Federal lands off limits to natural gas production;
approximately 64 percent of the overthrust belt in the Midwest--
Wyoming, Colorado, Montana--is off limits to exploration. We all
remember in this body the Vice President coming and sitting as
President of the Senate, utilizing his tie-breaking vote in 1993 to
raise the gas tax.
We recall initially he wanted a Btu tax to reduce consumption of
energy when the administration first came in. There has been a series
of taxes. We heard a lot about it in the debate the other day. The Vice
President said the tax plan favors the richest 1 percent. Yet 2 percent
of the people pay 80 percent of the taxes. He didn't mention that.
Talking about crude oil and the Vice President, instead of doing
something to increase the domestic supply of oil, the Vice President
seems to want to blame big oil for profiteering as a cause for high
prices. This simply is an effort to distract attention from the real
problems, to cover for this Administration's lack of a real energy
strategy.
One year ago, oil was being given away at $10 a barrel. Who was
profiteering, Mr. Vice President? Were American oil companies simply
being generous? The small U.S. companies-- ``Small Oil''--were
suffering, with 136,000 stripper and marginal oil wells closed. Our
domestic energy industry was in real trouble. Stripper wells cannot
make it at $10 a barrel.
The six largest oil companies--Al Gore's ``big oil''--only comprise
15 percent of the world oil market. In contrast, OPEC--Saudi Arabia,
Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, Iraq--produce 30 million barrels a day and
control 41 percent of the world's oil market. OPEC controls the supply.
Therefore, they set the price, not the United States.
If we don't like their price, I guess we don't have to buy their oil.
But obviously we are addicted to it. By discouraging domestic
exploration and increasing our reliance on foreign oil, the Vice
President would take away that option, essentially, forcing us to pay
OPEC's price for oil, holding us hostage to foreign governments, as the
case is now.
What about Governor Bush? He would encourage new domestic oil and gas
explorations. As he said Tuesday: The only way to become less dependent
on foreign sources of crude oil is to explore at home. Charity begins
at home.
[[Page S9895]]
Just opening up the ANWR Coastal Plain in my State of Alaska to
exploration would increase domestic production by a million barrels a
day. I bet it would drop the price of oil $10 to $15 a barrel. The same
amount, a million barrels a day, is slightly more than what we import
from Iraq. Here is a person we don't trust, whom we fought a war
against, yet we are dependent on, and that is Saddam Hussein. Shouldn't
we produce this oil at home rather than risk our national security by
relying on Iraq for energy needs?
Yesterday I gave a few facts, not fiction, about oil exploration and
gas exploration in my State. My colleague from Nevada, who is not on
the floor today, continued to refer to outdated estimates and
recoverable oil from ANWR using oil prices. He said at a price of $18 a
barrel, ANWR was likely to yield a low-end estimate of 2.4 billion
barrels, but that still is 1 million barrels a day for 6 years, Mr.
President.
And the prices will be much higher than that--they will be $25 a
barrel, or more. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the ANWR
Coastal Plain is likely to yield 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil,
nearly as much as Prudhoe Bay. But it is interesting to reflect on
Prudhoe Bay because that one area has supplied one-fifth of our oil
needs for the last 20 years. ANWR could do the same for the next 20
years. Remember the realities associated with estimates. They estimated
Prudhoe Bay would produce 10 billion barrels, and it has produced over
12 billion and is still producing over a million a day.
I want to talk about natural gas because Governor Bush's energy plan
is more than just increasing the domestic supply of oil. He would also
expand access to natural gas on Federal lands and build more gas
pipelines.
The Vice President makes no mention of natural gas, leaving the most
critical part of America's energy mix policy simply unsaid. Yet natural
gas is vital for home heating and electric power. 50 percent of U.S.
homes, 56 million, use natural gas for heating. Natural gas provides 15
percent of our Nation's electric power, and that generating capability
has no place to go for more capacity other than natural gas because you
can't get permitted. Mr. President, 95 percent of our new electric
power plants will be powered by natural gas as the fuel of choice, but
this administration refuses to allow the exploration and production of
gas, or the construction of pipelines, to increase the supply of gas to
customers.
Demand has gone up faster than supply. This yields higher prices. And
our demand for gas will only increase. The EIA expects natural gas
consumption to increase from 22 trillion cubic feet now to 30 to 35
trillion cubic feet by 2010.
The administration touts natural gas as its bridge to the energy
future--our cleanest fossil fuel--fewer emissions, efficient end use
for industrial and residential applications, huge domestic supply, no
need to rely on imports. Yet they place Federal lands off limits to new
natural gas production. Where are we going to get it? Mr. President, 64
percent of the Rocky Mountain overthrust belt is off limits. The
roadless policy of the Foreign Service locks up 40 million acres of
public land, and there is a moratorium on OCS drilling until 2012.
Where is it going to come from, thin air?
Al Gore would even cancel existing leases. He made a statement in
Rye, NH, on October 21, 1999:
I'll make sure there is no new oil leasing off the coasts
of California and Florida. And then I would go much further:
I will do everything in my power to make sure that there is
no new drilling off these sensitive areas--even in areas
already leased by previous administrations.
The American people ought to wake up. Where is our energy going to
come from? Now there is no strategic natural gas reserve, is there,
like we have for an oil, for the Vice President to fall back on in the
case of natural gas prices. This administration simply ignored energy,
and now we are in trouble and they are covering their behind.
Natural gas is now over $5.30 per thousand cubic feet. Less than 10
months ago it was $2.16.
The differences are clear. The Vice President would limit new natural
gas production and force higher prices for consumers. Governor Bush
would encourage domestic production of natural gas and the construction
of pipelines to get it there.
We talked, finally, about renewables. The Vice President said Tuesday
that:
We have to bet on the future and move beyond the current
technologies to have a whole new generation of more
efficient, cleaner energy technologies.
That sounds fine, but how are we going to get there? I think we all
agree in this case our energy strategy should include improved energy
efficiency, as well as expanded use of alternative fuels and renewable
energy and a mix of fuel oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro.
But the critical question is how do you get there from here? The Vice
President would make a bet. He would bet that by diminishing supply of
conventional fuels such as oil and natural gas, you will be more
willing to pay higher prices and make renewables competitive. He will
support higher energy taxes, just as he did in 1993 when he cast the
tie-breaking vote to raise gas taxes. And he will favor more
regulations, more central controls on energy use standards for each
part of our everyday life.
The Vice President will tell you what kind of energy you could use,
how much of it you could use, and how much you would have to pay for
it.
In contrast, Governor Bush would harness America's innovative
technological capability and give us the technologies of tomorrow by
using the American ``can do'' spirit. Governor Bush would set aside the
up-front funds from leasing Federal lands from ANWR, for oil and gas--
the ``bid bonuses''--to be earmarked for basic research into renewable
energy. He has a plan. It is a workable plan. It is not smoke and
mirrors. The production royalty from oil and gas leases would be
invested in energy conservation and low-income family programs such as
LIHEAP or weatherization assistance. Using tax incentives, Governor
Bush would expand use of renewable energy in the marketplace--building
on successful experience in the State of Texas. As a result of Governor
Bush's efforts on electricity restructuring, Texas will be one of the
largest markets for renewable energy, about 2000 new megawatts.
Finally, Governor Bush would also maintain existing hydroelectric
dams and streamline the Federal relicensing process. Al Gore would
breach the dams in the Pacific Northwest.
The Vice President will try to lay the blame on Congress. He said we
have only approved about 10 percent of their budget requests for
renewable energy. Here again the Vice President is twisting the facts.
According to the Congressional Research Service, we have provided $2.88
billion in funding for renewable energy since 1992; 86 percent of their
request.
The conclusion, the bottom line, is the contrast between the
candidates and their energy policies could not be more clear. The Vice
President wants to raise prices and limit the supply of fossil energy
which makes up over 80 percent of our energy needs, replacing it with
solar, wind, and biomass technologies which are just not widely
available or affordable today.
Governor Bush would expand the domestic production of oil and natural
gas, ensuring affordable and secure supplies. He won't bet on our
energy future. Governor Bush will use the energy of today to yield
cleaner more affordable energy sources for tomorrow.
The choice for the American consumers on November 7 is clear. Support
a candidate with a positive plan to reduce dependence on Saddam
Hussein, the Middle East, and other areas; produce here at home and use
all our energy resources, our coal, our oil, our hydro, our nuclear,
and natural gas because we are going to need them all to keep the U.S.
economy going.
Remember, you can't fly out of here on hot air.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The time until 2 o'clock is
under the control of the Senator from Illinois.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed
to speak for up to 5 minutes, with the consent from the Senator from
Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Yugoslavia
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is my intention to speak for a
couple of
[[Page S9896]]
minutes, and then I will suggest the absence of a quorum and ask if the
distinguished Chair would also like to say a few words. And if he
indicates such, I will step aside.
I want to speak about something that is happening that is very
important to our country and to the rest of the world. As we speak,
hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavian people are demonstrating in the
streets, saying they want the election result to be declared. It was an
election. There is a question about how free it was.
Certainly President Milosevic is trying to have a runoff, to have
time to get his troops back together. But it is clear the people of
Yugoslavia are standing up for their rights. During all the time the
United States has been dealing with the issue of President Milosevic
and his wife continuing to keep down the people of Yugoslavia and the
satellite countries--Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo--to keep them from
having the opportunity to express their free will, we in America have
said to the people of Yugoslavia: Please, make your voices heard.
We will be supportive of what the people of that country want to
happen. Clearly, there has been somewhat of a revolution in this last
election period.
I hope and pray for the people of Yugoslavia that they will get their
voice, that they will have their voices heard, that they will have
representation in Parliament, and that the truly elected President of
Yugoslavia will be able to take office.
It is impossible for us to know if the election was fair. It is
impossible for us to know if there should be a runoff. Certainly the
people have taken matters into their own hands, and they have shown a
spirit that cannot be denied.
The hearts and prayers of the people of America are with the people
of Yugoslavia today, hoping they will be able to have a free and fair
Presidential election; that they will be able to have a Parliament that
is truly representative of the people of Yugoslavia. That extends to
the people of Montenegro, the people of Macedonia, the people of
Kosovo, that they, too, will have their free will to be in control of
their countries.
We are watching in our country and we wish them the best. We hope the
people of Yugoslavia can take control of their own destiny. That is
what we would wish for every person in the world, for every country in
the world, and no less certainly for Yugoslavia.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to all the
Members of this distinguished body and, in particular, our Senate
leaders on both sides of the aisle for the opportunity they have given
me over the last couple days to speak to a matter of great importance,
in my mind, a matter which, though it concerns only a relatively small
portion of the Interior conference committee report that is before the
Senate, I think nonetheless is a matter that goes to the heart of the
Government's appropriations process.
I want to review and describe the filibuster I have conducted since
about 2 days ago. It has had four major parts.
First, I explained the project about which I was concerned: The
Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library to be built in Springfield, IL.
This is a project I support, and I am working to help make sure the
project is adequately funded over the next couple years in the Senate.
Second, I explained our insistence on Federal competitive bidding and
described the bill the Senate supported which detailed the competitive
bid provision. This body, on its own, when focused on the narrow issue
of whether the Federal funding the Congress is approving for the
Abraham Lincoln Library would require that the project be competitively
bid in accordance with Federal bidding guidelines, all Members from all
50 States, agreed that the Federal competitive bid guidelines should be
attached.
However, the Interior conference committee report that is before us
has stripped out that competitive bidding requirement, and since the
project now is in the heart of this Appropriations Committee report,
which has many other projects and appropriations for programs and
Departments of the Federal Government all over the country, it is now
in a bill that will no doubt pass the Senate.
Third, I compared the State versus the Federal procurement process
and procedure.
Finally, I gave the context in which these concerns arise. I read a
series of articles from publications from throughout the State of
Illinois that discussed, first, the various contexts in which the
issues of competitive bidding have come up in the State of Illinois
and, second, the potential for insider abuse when there are not tight
requirements that competitive bidding be applied to a government
construction project or a government lease or to practically any kind
of project in which the Federal or State government is involved.
It has been my effort to make the best possible case that Federal
competitive bidding rules should be attached to the Lincoln Library.
I began by reviewing the time line of this project. This project was
first discussed 2 years ago, or more, under the administration of then
Gov. Jim Edgar of the State of Illinois. In the first few months of
February 1998, Governor Edgar at that time was proposing a $40 million
library. Later, we saw how, by March of 1999 in a new administration,
the project had grown to a $60 million project. Then we saw how, by
April of 1999, they were discussing $148 million project to construct
the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield, IL.
Since then, I think the numbers have fallen back down, and we are
really talking about a $115 million to $120 million project: $50
million will come from the Federal Government, $50 million will come
from the State, and the rest will come from private sources.
I also talked about the specific language in the Interior conference
committee report that is before us.
I noted that that authorization for $50 million in funding, coupled
with an appropriation for $10 million that would be distributed in this
fiscal year, does not specify who is to get the $50 million
authorization. The authorization language does not require that the
money be delivered to the State of Illinois. It says the money will be
delivered to an entity that will be selected later by the Department of
the Interior in consultation with the Governor of the State of
Illinois.
I have been concerned by the wide open nature of that language. When
you think about wording a bill that money will be funneled to an entity
that is going to be selected later, we do not know what that entity is.
That raises cause for concern. What happens if that money falls outside
of the hands of State or Federal officials altogether and is in private
hands? Will there be any controls on it at all?
I also mentioned that I was concerned, if this money did go to the
State of Illinois--it may well go to the State of Illinois--the State
would probably hand it over to its Capital Development Board.
I noted that the Illinois Capital Development Board, which builds
many of the State's buildings, such as prisons, built the State of
Illinois Building in the city of Chicago, IL. They have an unusual
provision in the general State procurement code, a highly irregular and
unusual provision, that allows the Capital Development Board to
establish ``by rule construction purchases that may be made without
competitive sealed bidding and the most competitive alternate method of
source selection that shall be used.''
I pointed out that with this lack of a hard and fast requirement, if
the money were to flow to the State of Illinois, and the Capital
Development Board were to construct this library, the Capital
Development Board, by their own statute, would have the authority to
opt out of competitively bidding this project.
I do not think a project of any magnitude, paid for by the taxpayers,
should be done without competitive bidding. Obviously, there is too
much potential for abuse. We want to make sure we get the best value
for the taxpayers. It would be irresponsible for
[[Page S9897]]
the Congress to not require competitive bidding, in my judgment, and
not just on a small project but most particularly for a very large
project such as this, a $120 million project.
I also want to note--to give some scale to the size of a $120 million
building--we have some Illinois structures and cost comparisons. The
source for this is the State Journal-Register, the newspaper in
Springfield, IL, from a May 1, 2000, article.
They said that the estimated cost, adjusted for inflation, of
building the Illinois State Capitol in today's dollars would be $70
million. So $120 million is much more expensive. The Lincoln Library
would be much more expensive than the State capital.
There is another building in Springfield that is worth $70 million.
That is the Illinois State Revenue Department building, the Willard Ice
Building, built in 1981 to 1984. It would probably cost about $70
million to build. That is a huge building.
The Prairie Capital Convention Center: It is estimated to have cost
$60 million in today's dollars.
The Abraham Lincoln Library will be much more expensive than all of
these very major buildings in Springfield, IL. On a project of this
magnitude, obviously we need to have the construction contracts
competitively bid.
In discussing the State procurement code, I noted that the State
Capital Development Board had the ability to opt out of competitively
bidding projects. It was for that reason, when I saw the language of
this measure that originally came over to us from the House, I decided
we ought to look at attaching tougher guidelines.
We compared the State procurement code to the Federal procurement
code, and I determined that in order that we not have to worry about
the State opting out of competitive bidding, and in order that we not
have to worry about some other flaws in the State procurement code, we
would instead attach the Federal guidelines.
When I was in Springfield as a State senator for 6 years, back in
1997 I voted for the current State procurement code. It is indeed some
improvement over the old State procurement laws. Nonetheless, it does
have some problems and it could be better. I regret that I missed the
loophole that allows the Capital Development Board to opt out of
competitively bidding a project.
I also discussed, at length, yesterday how the Capital Development
Board was sending around a letter saying they would competitively bid
this project, no matter what. They also suggested that their rules
require them to competitively bid this project.
That contention is conclusively demolished by the language of the
State statute, which shows that they do not have to competitively bid.
They are sending out a letter saying they would competitively bid.
Obviously, that does not create a legal requirement. They sent the
letter to me. Maybe it creates a contractual obligation to me, but it
does not make them legally accountable in the bidding process. How can
you hold someone accountable if the code is optional? That is the
problem with the State procurement code.
Furthermore, I noted, when I had a discussion with Senator Durbin--
he, of course, along with all other Senators in this body, supported
the passage of the Senate provision which required competitive bidding
in accordance with the Federal guidelines. However, he did raise the
question, How would the State be able to adapt itself so it would apply
the Federal competitive bidding guidelines?
I pointed out that the State code contemplates, in fact, that from
time to time Federal guidelines will be attached on grants from the
Federal Government and that the State has statutory authority to adopt
all its forms and procedures in order to make sure they can comply with
guidelines imposed by the Federal Government, much in the same way the
State would have to comply with any guidelines the Federal Government
gave along with funding for education, for health care for the
indigent, for Medicaid dollars, or the like. Absolutely, there is
nothing wrong with that, nor is there anything unusual about that. That
is why the State contemplates it in its procurement code.
I also reviewed, at length, the context in which this debate has
occurred. I read a series of articles from publications throughout the
State of Illinois into the Record. Those articles discuss the various
contexts in which competitive bidding had come up before in the
awarding of construction contracts, of leases for State buildings, of
licenses for riverboats.
I also discussed loans the State had given out back in the early
1980s to build luxury hotels, loans that never were repaid, and it
seemed the borrowers had never really been held fully accountable.
I told you that from my experience of several years in the Illinois
State legislature, I could not casually dismiss this history. It is
seared in my memory from many bruising battles I had when I was a State
senator in the Illinois State Senate from 1993 to the end of 1998.
Finally, we asked the question whether the Lincoln Library is another
one of those insider deals, such as the ones we discussed when we read
into the Record stories of leases of State buildings to the State in
which it seemed the people who owned the property made out real well
but the State seemed to be paying very exorbitant rental rates, and
also mishaps that we had with construction projects in the past.
We described how, with the very lucrative Illinois riverboat
licenses, some of which could be worth in the hundreds of millions of
dollars each, the minute you got one of those riverboat licenses, you
would have the ability to earn in some cases $100 million a year, and
that these licenses could be considered extremely valuable. They would
probably sell on the open market for many times the amount of annual
earnings that would accrue to one of those licenses.
We described how those very valuable licenses were given out in the
State of Illinois on a no-bid basis for a total consideration of
$85,000 apiece. I described how I thought that was wrong, that those
licenses, instead of being handed out as political bonbons to connected
political insiders who happen to be longtime, big-dollar contributors
to both sides of the aisle, that we should not have just given them
away like that. They should have been competitively bid, and the people
who wanted those lucrative licenses should not have been going through
the legislature or through a gaming board made up of officials
handpicked by the Governor to see who would become the next
multimillionaire in the State of Illinois.
Had we had competitive bidding for those riverboat licenses, then we
might not have had all the articles written about how it was that only
a handful of politically connected people just happened to wind up
being the ones who got these phenomenally lucrative gambling licenses.
They were lucrative licenses not only because they were gambling
licenses but because they were monopoly licenses. There could be only
10 riverboats in the State of Illinois. If there could only be 10
restaurants or 10 hotels in the State of Illinois, then the license to
operate one of those restaurants or hotels would be very valuable as
well.
We reviewed at length all the problems that happened and all the
questions that get raised when a governmental body gives out privileges
or contracts or leases without tight procedures to make sure that
political favoritism does not enter into the equation and without tight
guidelines to make sure there is a fair and equitable competitive
bidding process.
After this whole discussion, in which some names of prominent
political people seemed to be coming up again and again and again in
many of the articles, we finally arrived at the question, is this
Abraham Lincoln Library to be built in Springfield--the construction
has not started yet; it is scheduled to start on Lincoln's birthday
next year, 2001; they have awarded some architecture and engineering
contracts and some design contracts--just another insider deal? We
concluded that it may or may not be. We won't know until it is done,
until we see how it is done. But we concluded that, clearly, given the
whole history of problems we have seen again and again and again in
recent State history with the awarding of construction contracts,
leases, privileges, licenses, that we ought to do our very best to
prevent this project from becoming just one more insider deal. And
[[Page S9898]]
we noted what a horrible, ugly irony it would be if a monument to
``Honest Abe'' Lincoln, arguably our country's greatest President,
wound up having any taint at all.
That is what we are seeking to avoid. We should do our very best to
prevent it from becoming an insider deal.
Moreover, we have many red flags that have to be taken into account.
We have the price increases from $40 to $60 to now $120 million. We
have the location of the library. The library site has recently been
selected. This is a map of Springfield. This is the State Capitol
complex. This is where Abraham Lincoln's home is. It is now run by the
National Park Service. There is, in fact, an entire neighborhood that
has been renovated and kept up to look as we think it looked in the day
and age that Abraham Lincoln and his family lived there.
This is where the Capital Convention Center is. This is where the
Abraham Lincoln Library is now planned. That was the site selected.
Maybe that is the best site. I don't know. One may never know. It is
close to the old State Capitol, which Abraham Lincoln actually served
in and spoke in when he was a State legislator. It is near the Abraham
Lincoln law office. Is it the best site? I don't know. Did political
favoritism come into consideration in selecting that site? I don't
know. We don't know.
One thing is interesting, though. This hotel, the Renaissance
Springfield Hotel, is very close to the proposed library. That is the
hotel that, as we discussed yesterday, was built with taxpayer money in
the form of a State loan given out back in the early 1980s. The loan
was never paid back, though some payments were made on the loan. The
people who got the loan still own the hotel and still manage it.
Presumably if the Lincoln Library results in increased tourism revenue
and more people coming to visit the city of Springfield, there will be
a lot of tourist dollars. Some projections estimate as much as $140
million in tourist revenue will be added by the construction of the
library in Springfield. Certainly some of that would probably accrue to
the benefit of those who have the Renaissance Springfield Hotel.
The price increases, the location of the library, we note these
things. We note the involvement of individuals whose names have come up
in the past and were described again and again in many of the articles
read into the Record. And we note the general problem that the State
has had with projects such as this in the past.
Given all these red flags, isn't it appropriate that we be extra
careful and that we do everything we can to ensure that the project be
appropriately competitively bid? It is for that reason that I attached
the Federal competitive bid guidelines when the authorization bill came
into the Senate. These guidelines were adopted unanimously in the
Senate Energy Committee and, ultimately, the whole Senate unanimously
adopted these guidelines and sent the bill back to the House.
We are here today because we have to vote on the Interior conference
committee report which has appropriations for the project tucked in,
but with the Senate requirements for competitive bidding in accordance
with Federal guidelines stripped out. It is the fact that those
competitive bid guidelines are not contained within the authorization
and appropriations for the library in this Interior conference
committee report that I am here on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. President, this debate, as I have said, goes to the very heart of
the appropriations process itself. We need to take great care with the
taxpayers' money. The money represents precious hours of hard work,
sweat, and time away from their families. The American people are
fundamentally generous and they will permit reasonable expenditures for
the good of their country and their communities. The people of
Springfield, IL, are as generous as any, and they are as fine a people
as any.
I have heard more from the people of Springfield, IL, than from
anywhere else in my State about the importance to them of having an
honest and ethical bidding process on this library that they hope will
be a credit to their community for ages to come. But while the people
are generous and they are willing to permit us to make reasonable
expenditures in support of our States and communities, the taxpayers do
expect that they not be abused. We need to do our best to make sure
there are sufficient safeguards so that the people can know their hard
work is not being trampled on, that politically connected individuals
are not deriving private profit at the expense of the taxpayers, all
under the guise of a public works project.
I know that in this Chamber our remarks go out to the entire country.
I am well aware of it in this debate because our office is receiving
correspondence from people all over the United States who find
interesting what has happened in Illinois. But I want to address these
remarks now exclusively to the people of my State--the land of
Lincoln--Illinois.
In a very short time now, the Senate will soon take a vote on the
Interior appropriations conference report. This is the vehicle that
contains the Lincoln Library provisions we have been talking about in
this filibuster.
When the Senate votes, we will lose because the Interior bill itself
is a bill with considerable support for projects around the country--it
is an $18 billion bill that literally has implications for every State
in the Nation--my colleagues will vote for it. Even those who, along
with me, believe the Lincoln Library should have Federal competitive
bidding rules attached to the money that will be appropriated today
will do so.
As I have noted, all Members of this body, earlier this week, voted
in favor of Federal competitive bidding guidelines for this project
when we had a vote just on that narrow issue. We cannot have a vote to
take out the language that is in the conference committee report that
does not require the competitive bidding. These are the rules of the
Senate. However, when the vote is called and we lose, I do not want the
people of Illinois to be discouraged by the difficulties we have
encountered. If nothing else, from the materials we have introduced
into the Record, it is clear that the political culture of Illinois is
entrenched and formidable--so entrenched and formidable that a simple
provision such as competitive bidding could become controversial.
Our effort in these last couple of days is just a baby step. Real
change can only come as the people of Illinois see more, know more, and
gradually come to realize that they do indeed have the power to make it
different. Real change comes from the bottom, from the people up. All
those of us in this body can do is observe, think, exercise our very
best judgment, and then make the case.
Today and yesterday, we have made the case. In a little while, the
opponents of our simple competitive bid requirement will prevail. But
the next time you hear of leases, or loans, or capital projects, or
riverboat licenses going to political insiders, you will remember this
debate; and together we will rejoin the fight and redouble our efforts
for the next time.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? I object.
Mr. GRASSLEY. May I speak just on the bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Can we suggest the absence of a quorum?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I don't want to go through that if I don't have to.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to
the occupant of the chair, Senator Voinovich from Ohio.
(Mr. FITZGERALD assumed the chair.)
Elections in the Balkans
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as my colleagues are well aware, I have
a keen interest in what happens in the Balkans because I believe what
happens in Southeastern Europe impacts on our national security, our
economic well-being in Europe, the stability of Europe and yes, world
peace.
For the better part of the 20th Century, Western Europe and the U.S.
have had an enormous stake in what has occurred in Southeastern Europe.
However, we have not done enough to pay attention to what is
happening there, dating back to the time when former Secretary of
State, Jim Baker, said of Yugoslavia that ``we don't have a dog in this
fight.''
[[Page S9899]]
Unfortunately, that line of thinking has prevailed, and we've allowed
Slobodan Milosevic to wreak havoc. Over the last decade, he has spread
death and destruction to the people of Serbia, Kosovo and Croatia and
we all know that U.S. troops now are in Kosovo and Bosnia because of
him.
Even a U.S. and NATO led air war last year was not sufficient to
bring an end to the Milosevic regime.
Since the end of the war, I have been working hard on three essential
items that I believe will bring peace and stability to the region.
First, I have been working with leaders here and abroad to help stop
the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo; second, to try and make sure that we
keep our promises to the Stability Pact of Southeast Europe. To that
end, I recently met with Bodo Homback, the head of the Stability Pact
to underscore the importance of the Stability Pact; and third, I have
been working tirelessly to support democracy in Serbia, a cause I took
on when I was governor of the State of Ohio.
When I was in Bucharest at the Organization for the Security and
Cooperation of Europe, OSCE, in July of this year, I introduced a
resolution on Southeastern Europe that called to the attention of the
OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly the situation in Kosovo and Serbia, and
made clear the importance of democracy in Serbia.
I pointed out to my OSCE colleagues in that resolution that Milosevic
was a threat to the stability, peace and prosperity of the region. I
argued that in order for the nations of that region to become fully
integrated into Europe--for the first time in modern history--
Milosevic's removal from office was absolutely essential.
My resolution put the OSCE, as a body, on record as condemning the
Milosevic regime and insisting on the restoration of human rights, the
rule of law, free press and respect for ethnic minorities in Serbia. I
was pleased that my resolution passed, despite strong opposition by the
delegation from the Russian Federation.
Many people had become resigned to the fact that if the NATO bombing
and the hardships that followed the end of the air war did not produce
widespread anti-Milosevic sentiment, the prospect for Milosevic's
removal from office by the Serbian people would not happen any time
soon. Even Milosevic himself felt confident enough in his rulership of
Yugoslavia to call for general elections nine months earlier than they
were supposed to occur.
On Sunday, September 24th, historic elections took place in
Yugoslavia in spite of the worst type of conditions that could possibly
hamper free and fair elections, including military and police presence
at polling places; ballots counted by Milosevic appointees; reports of
``ballot stuffing;'' intimidation of voters during the election
process; and the refusal to allow independent observers to monitor
election practices and results.
In spite of all that, the people won. They won because of the old
Serbian slogan--Samo, Sloga, Srbina, Spasava--which translates into
``only unity can save the Serbs'', or, ``in unity there is strength for
the Serbs.''
And I might say the opposition finally got its act together with
prayers to St. Sava, and with enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.
It was the political force of the people that propelled law
professor, and political unknown, Vojislav Kostunica, to victory.
This monumental victory over an indicted war criminal proves that the
Serb people strongly desire positive change. They want to see their
country move beyond the angry rhetoric and nationalistic fires fanned
by Milosevic.
And let me make this point clear: Mr. Kostunica's victory and his
support are not the result of Western influence.
And although Milosevic had previously acknowledged that Mr. Kostunica
had more votes, we learned yesterday afternoon that his pawns on the
constitutional court declared that the September 24th elections were
unconstitutional.
This latest and most blatant attempt by Milosevic to thwart the will
of the people is the final insult to the citizens of Yugoslavia.
The citizens of Yugoslavia--through a constitutional election--have
spoken. They have elected a new President.
The Serb people, driven by a desire to live free from the
dictatorship of Milosevic, have been pushed to take their election
mandate by force. They are, at this very moment, engaged in a struggle
to throw off the shackles of oppression.
In light of these developments, I am prayerful that the Serb people
will be able to enforce their will, and that they will remember their
slogan--Samo, Sloga, Srbina, Spasava--and remain united at this very
important time for freedom.
I also pray that the Serb military and police forces will avoid
bloodshed, recognizing that their brothers and sisters only seek the
freedom that a tyrant has denied them.
Let me be clear, Mr. President: this is not a revolution. The Serb
people are enforcing the mandate of their election because this man who
has been beaten refuses to relinquish power.
He ought to understand that he's either going to walk out of there or
go out on a stretcher or in a body bag.
Mr. President, we in the United States must render our support to the
Serb people immediately, and convince our allies and the nations of the
world that Vojislav Kostunica is the new and legitimately elected
leader of Serbia, and we need to convince Russia that they should
immediately tell Milosevic that the game is over; it's time to go.
Mr. President, we also need to assure the Serbian people--who have
been long-standing friends of this nation and also our allies in World
War II--that we are still their friends and that it is Milosevic who
has been the problem, not the Serbian people.
The Serb people need to know that with their new leader, Vojislav
Kostunica, we will remove our sanctions against Serbia and help them
re-invigorate their economy and re-establish their self-respect and the
United States will welcome them into the light of freedom and a bright
new chapter in Serbian history.
Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, once again, we are witness to the belated
if inevitable fall of a tyrannical regime that failed to convince the
population under its control that its worst enemy lay outside that
nation's borders. As I speak, the Serbian people are storming
Yugoslavia's Parliament building and seizing television stations. In
the town of Kolubara, coal miners and tens of thousands of supporters
have openly and peacefully defied the Milosevic regime's efforts at
stemming the tide of history. A regime that stands accused of crimes
against humanity is on its deathbed, and the United States must not
hesitate to declare its unequivocal support for those brave enough to
defy that regime.
The people of Yugoslavia have spoken very clearly. They turned out to
elect a new President, and Slobodan Milosevic's efforts to manipulate
the democratic process has not succeeded. The formidable internal
security apparatus that Milosevic and his supporters in the Socialist
Party, as well as the Yugoslav United Left, the Communist organization
led by his wife Mirjana Markovic, have established cannot save him.
The new defense doctrine President Milosevic approved just 2 months
ago listed as its highest priority preservation of the regime that
today finds itself under the gravest threat to its survival. While the
United States must exercise care in how its role in developments in
Serbia are perceived, it must not fail to lend its moral support to
those fighting for democracy.
Since 1992, the Balkans have been the scene of the bloodiest fighting
in Europe since World War II. The wars that have ravaged Bosnia-
Herzegovina and Kosovo produced a list of war criminals that will take
years to try, in the event they are brought to justice. A tremendous
amount of the blame for that situation resides in one man--Slobodan
Milosevic. He was instrumental in creating the environment in which
those atrocities occurred and presided over military campaigns that
gave the world a new and onerous phrase: ethnic cleansing.
There are those who believe the United States did not have a role to
play in supporting democratization in Serbia. Those of us who supported
S.720, the Serbia Democratization Act, however, have remained firm in
our conviction that U.S. support for democracy in that troubled nation
was
[[Page S9900]]
something to be proud of and could play a positive role in facilitating
positive change in Yugoslavia. That S.720 has remained stuck in the
House is unfortunate, but the message that it sent merely by its
introduction was powerful. We cannot selectively stand for freedom and
should not be ashamed that it provides the moral foundation of our
foreign policy. Ongoing events in Serbia illustrate vividly the intense
desire for democracy in Serbia and the United States should not
hesitate to state its strong support for the election of Vojislav
Kostunica and for the forces of change in Yugoslavia.
The Balkan powderkeg is facing its most promising period of change
since the end of the Cold War. We should not be idle witnesses to that
change. I urge the House to speak forcefully on this issue by passing
the Serbia Democratization Act at once. The symbolism of U.S. support
for democratic change will not play into the hands of a discredited
regime in its death throes. On the contrary, it will tell the people of
Yugoslavia that we stand with them on the verge of a new era.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
cloture motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference
report to accompany H.R. 4578, the Department of the Interior
appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
conference report to accompany H.R. 4578, the Interior appropriations
bill, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are required under
the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote:
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 89, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--8
Breaux
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Graham
Inhofe
Landrieu
McCain
Smith
NOT VOTING--3
Feinstein
Jeffords
Lieberman
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 89, the nays are 8.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Will the Presiding Officer state what the order of
business is now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a time limit on the conference
report, 10 minutes equally divided between the two managers, 10 minutes
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee, 30 minutes under the control of Senator
Landrieu, and 15 minutes under the control of Senator McCain.
Mr. GORTON. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of the unauthorized and
unrequested earmarks, earmarks added in conference, be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
____________________