[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 25149-25152]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1720. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Ruth Hairston of Carson, 
California by the waiver of a filing deadline for appeal from a ruling 
relating to her application for a survivor annuity; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


                       private relief legislation

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today legislation 
to assist Mrs. Ruth Hairston, of Carson, California. Identical 
legislation has passed the House without objection under the 
sponsorship of Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald. I am pleased 
to support this effort in the Senate.
  Mrs. Hairston requires this extreme step in order to be able to 
pursue a federal court appeal of the Merit Systems Protection Board (# 
CSF 2221413), which denied Mrs. Hairston's eligibility for an annuity 
following the retirement and untimely death of her former husband. The 
legislation does not require the annuity, but will only permit the 
filing of an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals. As a 
result, Mrs. Hairston will be permitted to challenge the denial on the 
merits, rather than accept the denial due to the failure to file an 
appeal within thirty days.
  I would briefly like to describe the facts that warrant this 
legislation.
  Mr. Paul Hairston retired in 1980, electing a survivor annuity for 
Mrs. Hairston to receive one-half the retirement benefit under the 
settlement terms. Mr. and Mrs. Hairston began receiving benefits in 
1988.
  The Merit Systems Protection Board, which reviews Civil Service 
retirement

[[Page 25150]]

claims, concluded Mr. Hairston had failed to register Mrs. Hairston for 
survivors benefits following passage of 1985 law, renewing the survivor 
annuity previously selected in 1985. As a result the spousal survivor 
benefits for Mrs. Hairston were canceled. Following Mr. Hairston's 
death in 1995, Mrs. Hairston's benefits, her portion of his retirement 
benefit under the divorce settlement, ceased. Mrs. Hairston was denied 
eligibility as a surviving spouse, but did not challenge or appeal the 
denial of eligibility, due to hospitalization and poor health.
  I am pleased to introduce this private legislation to assist my 
constituent Mrs. Ruth Hairston. While this legislation represents an 
extraordinary measure, the step is necessary in order to permit her to 
appeal the denial of eligibility by the Merit Systems Protection Board 
in federal court. As I have previously stated, this legislation does 
not require any specific outcome. The federal court will review the 
appeal with all the rigor the case deserves. However, Mrs. Hairston 
will receive her day in court and the opportunity to challenge the 
decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to deny her eligibility.
  I understand Mrs. Hairston is under considerable financial pressure 
and could face foreclosure on her home. I am pleased to try to assist 
Mrs. Hairston in her appeal. Mr. President, I hope you and the 
subcommittee will support this bill so that Mrs. Hairston may begin to 
rebuild her life.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL:
  S. 1721. A bill to provide protection for teachers, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              the teacher liability protection act of 1999

 Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Teacher Liability Protection Act of 1999. This legislation provides 
limited immunity for teachers, principals and other education 
professionals who take reasonable measures to maintain order and 
discipline in America's schools and classrooms in order to create a 
positive education environment. In other words, it allows teachers to 
do what is necessary to provide an environment conducive to learning 
without fear of being sued. This bill allows teachers to control their 
classrooms. It allows teachers to teach.
  The ability of teachers and principals to teach, inspire and shape 
the intellect of our Nation's students is hindered by frivolous 
lawsuits and litigation. By creating a national standard for protecting 
teachers and education professionals through limited civil liability 
immunity, we allow teachers to teach, and we help our children to 
learn.
  Mr. President, we must give educators the resources they need to 
educate our children, and these resources include the legal protection 
necessary to do their job and maintain a safe classroom. Principals 
must be able to control the schools, teachers must be able to control 
classrooms. Unruly and unmanageable children must not be allowed to 
endanger, intimidate or harm other students. It is our responsibility, 
as members of the United States Senate, to give teachers the legal 
protections necessary to provide a safe learning environment for all 
children in their care. We must give teachers the freedom they need to 
responsibly handle potentially dangerous situations without the fear of 
frivolous legal reprisals.
  Based on the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, which I introduced and 
which was signed into law, the Teacher Liability Protection Act would 
create a national standard to protect every teacher in the country, but 
would not override any state law that provides greater immunity or 
liability protection. This bill recognizes the authority of the states 
on these matters and allows them to opt out of the coverage and provide 
teachers with a higher or lower level of liability protection if they 
so choose.
  This bill also recognizes that millions of parents across the nation 
depend upon teachers, principals and other school professionals for the 
educational development of their children. it affirms the fact that 
most teachers are hard-working professionals who care deeply for our 
children and go to extraordinary lengths to help them learn. However, 
this bill does not protect a teacher when he or she engages in wanton 
and willful misconduct, a criminal act or violations of State and 
Federal civil rights laws. It simply protects teachers who undertake 
reasonable actions to maintain order, discipline and an appropriate 
learning environment as the public and society expect them to do.
  I invite my colleagues to support this important and meaningful 
legislation and to give our Nation's teachers the freedom they need to 
educate our children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 1722. A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to increase the 
maximum acreage of Federal leases for sodium that may be held by an 
entity in any 1 State, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


                  trona market competition act of 1999

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which 
revises an outdated and constricting statute for the number of federal 
sodium leases which can be held by any single producer within a state. 
This limitation is damaging the economic viability of an environmental 
responsible and critical mining industry for our country. The soda ash 
industry has been operating under the present acreage limitation for 
five decades. This cap for lease holdings is the oldest acreage 
limitation under the Mineral Leasing Act. In fact, sodium is the only 
mineral subject to the Act which has not had an increase since the law 
was amended in 1948. It is out of date with the competitive and 
technological advances in the industry and needs to be changed as we 
move into the next century.
  Specifically this legislation provides the Secretary of the Interior 
with discretion to increase the federally held acreage of individual 
sodium producers; the same additional discretionary authority he has 
had for some time for other mineral categories affected by this law. It 
would increase the current limitation from 15,360 acres per producer, 
to 30,720 acres.
  The Mineral Leasing Act set forth these limits to ensure that no 
single entity can control too much of any single mineral reserve. This 
remains an important objective. A lease limitation ensures that there 
is sufficient competition, while providing an incentive for development 
of these reserves and ensures a reasonable rate of return to the 
Federal Treasury. My bill is consistent with these objectives and seeks 
only to conform the present limitation to current economic and 
international conditions. Indeed I am pleased that this bill has the 
full support of the Wyoming Mining Association, including smaller 
sodium lease holders, who have traditionally been concerned increasing 
acreage.
  Mr President, I offer this bill after carefully reviewing the need 
for it in light of current conditions affecting the soda ash industry 
in my state. In my examination, I have been reminded that U.S. soda ash 
producers, four (of five) of which are in our state, are extremely 
competitive with one another for a relatively flat domestic market. 
And, they are also faced with stiff international competition.
  I believe this legislation is necessary to sustain the global 
competitiveness of the U.S. soda ash industry. Since our state is 
blessed with the largest known deposits of trona in the world, I am 
proud to say that the United States sodium industry is also the world's 
low cost supplier of soda ash. U.S. produced soda ash, critical to 
glass manufacture, is accountable for a $400 million positive 
contribution to our balance of trade. Today, the U.S. soda ash industry 
comprises five active producers--four in my home state--generating some 
12 million tons of soda ash per year, or approximately a third of the 
world's demand.
  But I have learned we cannot take these producers for granted. Like 
so many other industries basic to our economy such as steel, paper, 
aluminum, copper, and so on, the soda ash mines must take the measures 
necessary to stay competitive. I know, as

[[Page 25151]]

Chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and 
Pacific Affairs, that many countries have make it difficult to export 
U.S. soda ash. They have erected tariff and non-tariff barriers to 
support their own less efficient domestic producers.
  For this season, U.S. producers have formed the American Natural Soda 
Ash Corporation (ANSAC), in recognition that the growth of U.S. soda 
ash is dependent on its ability to effectively export. ANSAC is the 
sole authorized exporter of soda ash and is wholly owned by the six 
U.S. sodium producers. It accounts for the employment of some 20,000 
people in the U.S. and exports more than $400 million in soda ash to 45 
different countries.
  This is but one example of how our domestic industry has taken the 
steps necessary to compete effectively abroad. In addition, the 
producers in my state are making major investments in moderizing their 
facilities and sustaining the level of capital investment necessary to 
continue to be competitive both at home and abroad. The start-up cost 
for a new soda ash operation is estimated to be at least $350 million, 
and to develop a world class mine, $150 million. This is largely due to 
the fact that soda ash is mined underground and thus requires a 
sophisticated processing plant to turn raw ore into the finished 
products. This is simply the reality of what is required to stay 
competitive.
  At this cost a new entrant, as well as existing producers, must have 
a predictable ``mine plan.'' A primary component of such a plan is a 
predictable level of reserves that will last several decades. The 
legislation I am introducing today would help provide this 
predictability by giving the Secretary the discretion to raise lease 
limits on a case-by-case basis if the producer can show it is in need 
of additional reserves to maintain its operations.
  Producers need to know of mine expansion is possible in order to 
develop structural design plans which are safe, efficient and maximize 
the large economic outlays. This is the predictability that any 
manufacturer needs when contemplating a major capital investment. And 
in the end, it is the capital required, rather than the acreage 
available, the must be weighed by new entrants.
  I would like to note that despite consolidated in the Wyoming trona 
patch, there is an anticipated new entrant to the soda ash business in 
our neighboring state of Colorado. Moreover, in Wyoming, six other 
leaseholders have substantial holdings that could be translated into 
active production. This bill does not discourage their entry. In fact, 
by raising the current cap on acreage holdings, it creates an incentive 
for additional purchase by these holders, one of whom already exceeds 
the existing limitation.
  Raising the acreage limitation for trona is also consistent with good 
environmental and safety practices followed by this industry. Much of 
the currently mined out acreage is essential to proper ventilation of 
ongoing operations and therefore critical mine safety. In addition, the 
mechanically mined out sections are also available for proper tailings 
disposal, thus avoiding environmental degradation elsewhere. This is a 
practice encouraged by our Wyoming State Department of Environmental 
Quality.
  In summary, Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today provides 
critical changes in existing statutes in order to sustain the economic 
viability of an environmental responsible and critical mining industry 
in our country. The current sodium lease limitation is approximately 
one-third of the per state Federal lease cap for coal potassium, and 
one-sixteenth the lease acreage cap for oil and gas. After passing the 
Mineral Leasing Act in 1948, Congress and the Bureau of Land Management 
have revised acreage limits for other minerals to meet the needs of 
these industries consistent with good mining and environmental 
practices. In light of the conditions I have described, I believe it is 
time we recognize the need to update the lease limitation for the trona 
industry as well.
  I thank you for the time and opportunity to discuss this important 
legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1722

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TITLE.

       This Act shall be entitled the ``Trona Market Competition 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. SODIUM MINING ON FEDERAL LAND.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Federal land contains commercial deposits of trona, the 
     world's largest deposits of trona being located on Federal 
     land in southwestern Wyoming;
       (2) trona is mined on Federal land through Federal sodium 
     leases under the Act of February 25, 1920 (commonly known as 
     the ``Mineral Leasing Act'') (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.);
       (3) the primary product of trona mining is soda ash (sodium 
     carbonate), a basic industrial chemical that is used for 
     glassmaking and a variety of consumer products, including 
     baking soda, detergents, and pharmaceuticals;
       (4) the Mineral Leasing Act sets for each leasable mineral 
     a limitation on the amount of acreage of Federal leases any 1 
     producer may hold in any 1 State or nationally;
       (5)(A) the present acreage limitation for Federal sodium 
     leases has been in place for over 5 decades, since 1948, and 
     is the oldest acreage limitation in the Mineral Leasing Act;
       (B) over that time, Congress or the Bureau of Land 
     Management has revised the acreage limits applicable to other 
     minerals to meet the needs of the respective industries; and
       (C) currently the sodium lease acreage limit of 15,360 
     acres per State is approximately \1/3\ of the per-State 
     Federal lease acreage limit for coal (46,080 acres) and 
     potassium (51,200 acres) and \1/16\ of the per-State Federal 
     lease acreage limit for oil and gas (246,080 acres);
       (6) 3 of the 4 trona producers in Wyoming are operating 
     mines on Federal leaseholds that contain total acreage close 
     to the sodium lease acreage ceiling;
       (7) the same reasons that Congress cited in enacting 
     increases per State lease acreage caps applicable in the case 
     of other minerals--the advent of modern mine technology, 
     changes in industry economics, greater global competition, 
     and the need to conserve Federal resources--apply to trona;
       (8) existing trona mines require additional lease acreage 
     to avoid premature closure, but those mines cannot relinquish 
     mined-out areas to lease new acreage because those areas 
     continue to be used for mine access, ventilation, and 
     tailings disposal and may provide future opportunities for 
     secondary recovery by solution mining;
       (9) to enable them to make long-term business decisions 
     affecting the type and amount of additional infrastructure 
     investments, trona producers need certainty that sufficient 
     acreage of leasable trona will be available for mining in the 
     future; and
       (10) to maintain the vitality of the domestic trona 
     industry and ensure the continued flow of valuable revenues 
     to the Federal and State governments and of products to the 
     American public from trona production on Federal land, the 
     Mineral Leasing Act should be amended to increase the acreage 
     imitation for Federal sodium leases.
       (b) Amendment.--Section 27(b)(2) of the Act of February 25, 
     1920 (30 U.S.C. 184(b)(2)), is amended by striking ``fifteen 
     thousand three hundred and sixty acres'' and inserting 
     ``30,720 acres''.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I join Senator Thomas in the 
introduction of S. 1722, a bill to increase the federal statutory 
acreage limitation for domestic trona producers. This legislation will 
bring the federal statutory acreage limitation for trona more in line 
with acreage limitations for other mineral commodities and will allow 
American trona producers to remain competitive in the international 
marketplace well into the twenty-first century.
  This legislation will make a small but important change in the 
federal Mineral Leasing Act that would allow the Secretary of the 
Interior, at his discretion, to permit a person or corporation to hold 
sodium leases on federal land of up to 30,720 acres in any one State. 
This is a two-fold increase over the current discretionary acreage 
limitation of 15,360 acres. The current limit was established over 50 
years ago while the acreage limitation of other minerals, including 
coal, potassium, and oil and gas, have been increased considerably 
during that same time in order to meet the needs of these industries. 
By increasing the federal acreage limitation for trona, Congress will 
take an important step to ensure future productivity and international 
competitiveness of an industry that has great

[[Page 25152]]

importance for the State of Wyoming and the United States. This 
legislation will in turn benefit the federal government through 
continued royalties derived from soda ash mined on federal land.
  Mr. President, the State of Wyoming has long depended on the mineral 
industry as a vital part of its economy. Since one-half of our state is 
comprised of federal land, private companies must temporarily lease 
portions of this land in order to extract minerals that benefit the 
entire country, and indeed, the entire world. The mining of natural 
soda ash, or trona, is an integral part of the state's economy, 
especially for those who live in southwestern Wyoming. This trona is 
mined and converted to refined soda ash (sodium carbonate) which is 
used in the production of glass, detergents, pharmaceuticals, and other 
sodium chemicals. Currently, three of the four trona producers in 
Wyoming are operating mines on federal leaseholds that contain total 
acreage close to the discretionary sodium lease acreage ceiling. By 
increasing this federal limit, we will give Wyoming producers the 
certainty they need to continue and expand their substantial capital 
investments in the State of Wyoming and allow America to remain 
competitive in this important mineral industry. This acreage increase 
represents a modest, responsible modification to the Mineral Leasing 
Act that takes modern economic realities into account without deterring 
the entry of new companies into the domestic market for mineable trona.
  I urge my colleagues to support the swift passage of this 
modification to the Mineral Leasing Act in order to ensure stability, 
growth, and continued international competitiveness of America's trona 
industry.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 1724. A bill to modify the standards for responding to import 
surges under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, to establish 
mechanisms for agricultural import monitoring and the prevention of 
circumvention of United States trade laws, and to strengthen the 
enforcement of United States trade remedy laws; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                the agriculture import surge relief act

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Agriculture 
Import Surge Relief Act of 1999.
  This year's harvest is nearly over in Montana and the rest of the 
country. But instead of breathing a sigh of relief after a summer of 
hard work, many of our farmers are holding their breath, wondering 
whether they will even be able to farm next year. With prices at a 50-
year low, global oversupply and unpredictable surges in imports, our 
rural communities continue to face crisis.
  We in the Senate have been working hard to address this triad of 
problems. Today, I would like to offer a partial solution to the trade 
angle--the Agriculture Import Surge Relief Act. This Act addresses 
surges in agricultural imports.
  For a variety of reasons, including overcapacity overseas, misaligned 
exchanges rates, and low international commodity prices, we may find a 
sudden, sharp, and unpredictable increase in import levels of 
particular agricultural product. This type of sudden rise in import 
levels damage the heart of our economy and our farm communities.
  We must do a better job of monitoring these surges so that we see 
them as soon as they start. And we must do a better and faster job of 
responding to these surges to provide relief to our producers before 
they go out of business.
  The Agriculture Import Surge Relief Act targets these goals by making 
several critical improvements in Section 201 of U.S. trade law.
  Section 201 is the so-called ``safeguard'' provision that is designed 
to prevent serious disruption of our domestic industry because of 
imports. It is also the very provision that was used by U.S. lamb 
producers earlier this year to find relief from a surge in lamb imports 
from Australia and New Zealand. I am pleased that U.S. lamb producers 
prevailed; but it cost them dearly--in both time and money. Unlike 
other industries, agriculture is extraordinarily time sensitive. A 
year-long case can find many producers driven out of business before it 
ends.
  It is also important to note that Section 201 is not a protectionist 
measure. It is a short-term mechanism used to get an ``injured'' 
American industry back on its feet and competing again. I consider 
Section 201 as a ``breathing room'' provision. That is, it gives 
temporary relief to a domestic industry by providing for a short-term 
restraint on imports that have surged into the United States.
  My bill proposes four changes to the way we anticipate and respond to 
surges in agriculture.
  First, the Act amends Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to be more 
responsive to import surges--for any industry.
  Like the Import Surge Relief Act I introduced last May, co-sponsored 
by Senator Levin, this bill eases Section 201's overly strict injury 
standard. No longer will American industry have to comply with a 
standard higher than that of our international trading partners. They 
will simply have to prove an increase in imports over a short period of 
time which cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic 
market.
  The Act also speeds up the process for addressing import surges. 
Recently, I hosted a town hall meeting in Kalispell, Montana. Many 
agriculture leaders expressed their concern that the process of 
responding to surges is just too long. The same message came through 
loud and clear last week when a record number of us in the Congress 
testified before the International Trade Commission regarding imported 
Canadian cattle. Relief that is too late can mean the devastation of an 
industry--and the devastation of Rural America.
  My bill would cut the time in half for this process and give the ITC 
Commissioners the ability to make decisions on an expedited basis.
  It will also bring credibility to the final decision-making process. 
As we learned in the lamb case, the President has the ultimate 
decision-making authority. This means he can accept, change or reject 
recommendations from the International Trade Commission based on 
information above and beyond the evidence presented during the 
laborious hearings.
  My bill requires that the President, in deciding whether to take 
action, focus more than he has in the past on the beneficial impact of 
a remedy, rather than on the negative impact on other industries. And 
in do so, he must make provisional relief available on an urgent basis.
  Second, the Act establishes an Agricultural Products Import 
Monitoring and Enforcement Program. The program shall: Promote and 
defend US policy with respect to import safeguards and countervailing 
or antidumping duty actions if challenged in the World Trade 
Organization, identify foreign trade-distorting measures, and develop 
policies and responsive actions to address such measures.
  Finally, the bill provides an early warning system. We simply cannot 
wait until we see that an American industry is devastated. We must be 
able to project ahead, understand the threats facing an industry, and 
then consider quickly what type of action to take, if any.
  My bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to monitor imports and 
report its findings on a quarterly basis until 2005. This is absolutely 
critical to take rapid action.
  Finally, with the next round of the World Trade Organization talks 
approaching, the expiration of the Farm Bill, and uncertainties in 
global financial markets, anything can happen. U.S. industry, and our 
farm communities, however, should not bear the brunt.
  The Agricultural Import Surge Relief Act will begin to bring 
stability and predictability back to the system. I urge my colleagues 
to support this proposal.

                          ____________________