[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20850-20873]
[From the U.S. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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.

[[Page 20851]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 20852]]

  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
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

[[Page 20853]]

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 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

[[Page 20854]]

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 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

[[Page 20855]]

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 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

[[Page 20856]]

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.
       (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

[[Page 20857]]

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 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.

[[Page 20858]]

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 20859]]

 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;

[[Page 20860]]

       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;
       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;

[[Page 20861]]

       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;
       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

[[Page 20862]]

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 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.

[[Page 20863]]

  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 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

[[Page 20864]]

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 
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

[[Page 20865]]

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.
  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

[[Page 20866]]

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 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

[[Page 20867]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 20868]]

  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 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

[[Page 20869]]

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 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

[[Page 20870]]

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 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

[[Page 20871]]

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.''
  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.

[[Page 20872]]

  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 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.

[[Page 20873]]

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:

                          ____________________