[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7748-7755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 2543. A bill to amend the Robert R. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to include airplane and rail accidents within 
the meaning of the term ``major disaster''; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


     amendment to stafford act to cover airline and rail accidents

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
Act. Senator Stafford, my Vermont colleague whose seat in this body I 
am honored to hold today, authored the legislation creating FEMA more 
than 25 years a go. Thanks to his foresight and leadership in this 
area, the federal government has helped thousands of ordinary citizens 
recover from disasters and other incidents beyond their control.
  Today we have a chance to build on the legacy of Senator Stafford by 
adding airline and rail accidents to the list of ``major disasters'' 
defined in the act that governs the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency.
  While extremely rare occurrences, major airline and rail disasters 
place an incredible burden on the states and municipalities in which 
they occur. Due in part to the extraordinary level of national 
attention these accidents receive, states and municipalities face 
millions of dollars in unexpected and unbudgeted expenditures that 
often cripple local finances. Fees associated with initial response, 
security, and other health and safety measures often cost several 
million dollars.
  This legislation standardizes procedure for federal reimbursement of 
affected communities. While the federal government has regularly 
reimbursed states and municipalities during the 1990s for their role in 
these most national of disasters, the process is an ad hoc one. This 
body has considered and approved at least three special line item 
appropriations for areas affected by the recent ValueJet, TWA, and 
COMAIR accidents. A bill to reimburse Rhode Island for its costs 
associated with last fall's Egypt Air disaster is currently working its 
way through the Congress as part of the appropriation for the National 
Transportation Safety Board.
  This process causes needless headache and anxiety for local 
communities, as well as unnecessary chores for the NTSB and Congress. 
It forces states and municipalities to wait as reimbursement requests 
find their way through the complicated appropriations process while 
creating more work for our overburdened appropriators.
  The numbers speak for themselves. States and local communities spend 
millions of dollars to respond to these

[[Page 7749]]

accidents. While they are ultimately reimbursed by the federal 
government, the uncertainty and slow pace of the process often places 
affected communities in a financial bind. Money that could be spent on 
education, health care, or public safety is lost in an unnecessary 
limbo.
  Under this bill, airline and rail accidents will be treated like any 
other disaster under the Stafford Act. Like an earthquake, blizzard or 
any other disaster, FEMA, upon the request of a governor, will examine 
the scene of such an accident and advise the President on whether 
federal reimbursement is appropriate.
  Mr. President, this bill simply standardizes procedure for a 
commitment already made by the federal government. It requires to new 
costs or expenses and actually saves money by streamlining a 
bureaucratic and complicated process. The International Association of 
Emergency Managers and the NTSB supports this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to join these groups in supporting this bill 
that will bring standardization to an ad hoc process that has the 
potential to cause so much harm to our states and communities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 2544. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide 
compensation and benefits to children of female Vietnam veterans who 
were born with certain birth defects, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


        Children of Women Vietnam Veterans' Benefits Act of 2000

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and 
Senator Murray, I wish to introduce a bill, the Children of Women 
Vietnam Veterans' Benefits Act of 2000, which would amend title 38, 
United States Code, to provide compensation and benefits to children 
born with certain birth defects to women Vietnam veterans.
  This bill is essentially similar, except for minor technical 
corrections, to S. 2494, the Children of Female Vietnam Veterans' 
Benefits Act of 2000, which I introduced on May 2, 2000. Mrs. Murray 
had asked to be an original cosponsor of that bill, but through an 
inadvertent clerical error, she was not listed as an original cosponsor 
on the bill when it was printed. I wish to note, for the record, that 
it was her intent to be an original cosponsor of S. 2494.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2544

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Children of Women Vietnam 
     Veterans' Benefits Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. BENEFITS FOR THE CHILDREN OF FEMALE VIETNAM VETERANS 
                   WHO SUFFER FROM CERTAIN BIRTH DEFECTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 18 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subchapter:

``SUBCHAPTER II--CHILDREN OF FEMALE VIETNAM VETERANS BORN WITH CERTAIN 
                             BIRTH DEFECTS

     ``Sec. 1811. Definitions

       ``In this subchapter:
       ``(1) The term `child', with respect to a female Vietnam 
     veteran, means a natural child of the female Vietnam veteran, 
     regardless of age or marital status, who was conceived after 
     the date on which the female Vietnam veteran first entered 
     the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era (as specified 
     in section 101(29)(A) of this title).
       ``(2) The term `covered birth defect' means each birth 
     defect identified by the Secretary under section 1812 of this 
     title.
       ``(3) The term `female Vietnam veteran' means any female 
     individual who performed active military, naval, or air 
     service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era (as 
     so specified), without regard to the characterization of the 
     individual's service.

     ``Sec. 1812. Birth defects covered

       ``(a) Identification.--Subject to subsection (b), the 
     Secretary shall identify the birth defects of children of 
     female Vietnam veterans that--
       ``(1) are associated with the service of female Vietnam 
     veterans in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era 
     (as specified in section 101(29)(A) of this title); and
       ``(2) result in the permanent physical or mental disability 
     of such children.
       ``(b) Limitations.--(1) The birth defects identified under 
     subsection (a) may not include birth defects resulting from 
     the following:
       ``(A) A familial disorder.
       ``(B) A birth-related injury.
       ``(C) A fetal or neonatal infirmity with well-established 
     causes.
       ``(2) The birth defects identified under subsection (a) may 
     not include spina bifida.
       ``(c) List.--The Secretary shall prescribe in regulations a 
     list of the birth defects identified under subsection (a).

     ``Sec. 1813. Benefits and assistance

       ``(a) Health Care.--(1) The Secretary shall provide a child 
     of a female Vietnam veteran who was born with a covered birth 
     defect such health care as the Secretary determines is needed 
     by the child for such birth defect or any disability that is 
     associated with such birth defect.
       ``(2) The Secretary may provide health care under this 
     subsection directly or by contract or other arrangement with 
     a health care provider.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the definitions in 
     section 1803(c) of this title shall apply with respect to the 
     provision of health care under this subsection, except that 
     for such purposes--
       ``(A) the reference to `specialized spina bifida clinic' in 
     paragraph (2) of such section 1803(c) shall be treated as a 
     reference to a specialized clinic treating the birth defect 
     concerned under this subsection; and
       ``(B) the reference to `vocational training under section 
     1804 of this title' in paragraph (8) of such section 1803(c) 
     shall be treated as a reference to vocational training under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Vocational Training.--(1) The Secretary may provide a 
     program of vocational training to a child of a female Vietnam 
     veteran who was born with a covered birth defect if the 
     Secretary determines that the achievement of a vocational 
     goal by the child is reasonably feasible.
       ``(2) Subsections (b) through (e) of section 1804 of this 
     title shall apply with respect to any program of vocational 
     training provided under paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Monetary Allowance.--(1) The Secretary shall pay a 
     monthly allowance to any child of a female Vietnam veteran 
     who was born with a covered birth defect for any disability 
     resulting from such birth defect.
       ``(2) The amount of the monthly allowance paid under this 
     subsection shall be based on the degree of disability 
     suffered by the child concerned, as determined in accordance 
     with a schedule for rating disabilities resulting from 
     covered birth defects that is prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(3) In prescribing a schedule for rating disabilities 
     under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall establish four 
     levels of disability upon which the amount of the monthly 
     allowance under this subsection shall be based.
       ``(4) The amount of the monthly allowance paid under this 
     subsection shall be as follows:
       ``(A) In the case of a child suffering from the lowest 
     level of disability prescribed in the schedule for rating 
     disabilities under this subsection, $100.
       ``(B) In the case of a child suffering from the lower 
     intermediate level of disability prescribed in the schedule 
     for rating disabilities under this subsection, the greater 
     of--
       ``(i) $214; or
       ``(ii) the monthly amount payable under section 1805(b)(3) 
     of this title for the lowest level of disability prescribed 
     for purposes of that section.
       ``(C) In the case of a child suffering from the higher 
     intermediate level of disability prescribed in the schedule 
     for rating disabilities under this subsection, the greater 
     of--
       ``(i) $743; or
       ``(ii) the monthly amount payable under section 1805(b)(3) 
     of this title for the intermediate level of disability 
     prescribed for purposes of that section.
       ``(D) In the case of a child suffering from the highest 
     level of disability prescribed in the schedule for rating 
     disabilities under this subsection, the greater of--
       ``(i) $1,272; or
       ``(ii) the monthly amount payable under section 1805(b)(3) 
     of this title for the highest level of disability prescribed 
     for purposes of that section.
       ``(5) Amounts under subparagraphs (A), (B)(i), (C)(i), and 
     (D)(i) of paragraph (4) shall be subject to adjustment from 
     time to time under section 5312 of this title.
       ``(6) Subsections (c) and (d) of section 1805 of this title 
     shall apply with respect to any monthly allowance paid under 
     this subsection.
       ``(d) General Limitations on Availability of Benefits and 
     Assistance.--(1) No individual receiving benefits or 
     assistance under this section may receive any benefits or 
     assistance under subchapter I of this chapter.
       ``(2) In any case where affirmative evidence establishes 
     that the covered birth defect of a child results from a cause 
     other than the active military, naval, or air service in the 
     Republic of Vietnam of the female Vietnam veteran who is the 
     mother of the child, no benefits or assistance may be 
     provided the child under this section.

[[Page 7750]]

       ``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     regulations for purposes of the administration of the 
     provisions of this section.''.
       (b) Administrative Provisions.--That chapter is further 
     amended by inserting after subchapter II, as added by 
     subsection (a) of this section, the following new subchapter:

                ``SUBCHAPTER III--ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

     ``Sec. 1821. Applicability of certain administrative 
       provisions

       ``The provisions of sections 5101(c), 5110(a), (b)(2), (g), 
     and (i), 5111, and 5112(a), (b)(1), (b)(6), (b)(9), and 
     (b)(10) of this title shall apply with respect to benefits 
     and assistance under this chapter in the same manner as such 
     provisions apply to veterans' disability compensation.

     ``Sec. 1822. Treatment of receipt of monetary allowance on 
       other benefits

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, receipt 
     by an individual of a monetary allowance under this chapter 
     shall not impair, infringe, or otherwise affect the right of 
     the individual to receive any other benefit to which the 
     individual is otherwise entitled under any law administered 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, receipt 
     by an individual of a monetary allowance under this chapter 
     shall not impair, infringe, or otherwise affect the right of 
     any other individual to receive any benefit to which such 
     other individual is entitled under any law administered by 
     the Secretary based on the relationship of such other 
     individual to the individual who receives such monetary 
     allowance.
       ``(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     monetary allowance paid an individual under this chapter 
     shall not be considered as income or resources in determining 
     eligibility for or the amount of benefits under any Federal 
     or Federally-assisted program.''.
       (c) Repeal of Superseded Matter.--Section 1806 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is repealed.
       (d) Redesignation of Existing Matter.--Chapter 18 of that 
     title is further amended by inserting before section 1801 the 
     following:

 ``SUBCHAPTER I--CHILDREN OF VIETNAM VETERANS BORN WITH SPINA BIFIDA''.

       (e) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Sections 1801 and 1802 of 
     that title are each amended by striking ``this chapter'' and 
     inserting ``this subchapter''.
       (2) Section 1805(a) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``this chapter'' and inserting ``this section''.
       (e) Clerical Amendments.--(1)(A) The chapter heading of 
     chapter 18 of that title is amended to read as follows:

       ``CHAPTER 18--BENEFITS FOR CHILDREN OF VIETNAM VETERANS''.

       (B) The tables of chapters at beginning of that title, and 
     at the beginning of part II of that title, are each amended 
     by striking the item relating to chapter 18 and inserting the 
     following new item:

``18. Benefits for Children of Vietnam Veterans.............1801''.....

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 18 of 
     that title is amended--
       (A) by inserting after the chapter heading the following:

 ``SUBCHAPTER I--CHILDREN OF VIETNAM VETERANS BORN WITH SPINA BIFIDA'';

       (B) by striking the item relating to section 1806; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:

``SUBCHAPTER II--CHILDREN OF FEMALE VIETNAM VETERANS BORN WITH CERTAIN 
                             BIRTH DEFECTS

``1811. Definitions.
``1812. Birth defects covered.
``1813. Benefits and assistance.

                ``SUBCHAPTER III--ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

``1821. Applicability of certain administrative provisions.
``1822. Treatment of receipt of monetary allowance on other 
              benefits.''.
       (f) Applicability.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), the amendments made by this section shall take effect on 
     the first day of the first month beginning more than one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall identify birth 
     defects under section 1822 of title 38, United States Code 
     (as added by subsection (a) of this section), and shall 
     prescribe the regulations required by subchapter II of that 
     title (as so added), not later than the effective date 
     specified in paragraph (1).
       (3) No benefit or assistance may be provided under 
     subchapter II of chapter 18 of title 38, United States Code 
     (as so added), for any period before the effective date 
     specified in paragraph (1) by reason of the amendments made 
     by this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 2545. A bill to provide for the enhancement to study, research, 
and other activities in the United States relating to information 
technology and information protection technology; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


barry goldwater scholarship and excellence in education enhancement act

 Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation to increase the Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and 
Excellence in Education Foundation from the current $61 million to $81 
million. I am pleased to have the support and able assistance of the 
Senior Senator from Nebraska, Senator J. Robert Kerrey in joining me to 
introduce this bill. This increase allows the Foundation to add another 
100 young people to the 300 that they now support. This substantial 
increase will augment the influence the Foundation already has on 
American higher education.
  Goldwater scholarships are awarded to college juniors and seniors in 
math and science. The increased funding in this legislation is set 
aside for information technology students. Channeling these funds 
through the existing Goldwater framework will maximize the amount of 
money directly available to students. These students are selected on 
the basis of academic merit from a field of approximately 1,200 
mathematics, science and engineering students nominated by the 
faculties of colleges and universities from the fifty states and Puerto 
Rico. Since 1988, 2,711 scholarships have been awarded, providing about 
$28 million to outstanding scholars from colleges and universities 
throughout the United States.
  Goldwater Scholars are top notch. As evidence, I cite the large 
number of Goldwater Scholars who have been awarded prestigious graduate 
scholarships. Goldwater Scholars have won a total of 25 Rhodes 
Scholarships over the years. Last year alone, almost 20 percent of the 
awards--six out of 32--were Goldwater Scholars. Goldwater Scholars also 
populate the ranks of other distinguished fellowships. In the last 
eleven years, the scholars have won 19 Marshall, six Churchill, nine 
Fulbright, 23 Hughes, and 65 National Science Foundation fellowships.
  These are the students we need in our economy. For the U.S. to 
continue to be competitive and support our growing economy, we must 
encourage our young men and women to enter the high technology 
industry. America's explosive demand for highly skilled workers is 
creating a new labor shortage. Under current conditions, we do not have 
enough U.S. workers trained in high technology fields. This forces our 
local businesses to resort to immigration to make up for this 
shortfall. Highly skilled immigrants enter the country under the H1-B 
visa waiver program. To help meet the growing demand, Congress raised 
the cap on H1-B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 in FY 1999 and 2000, and 
107,500 in 2001. Unfortunately, even this increase is not enough. A 
tight labor market, increasing globalization and burgeoning economic 
growth continue to increase U.S. demands for highly skilled workers. 
The 1999 cap on H-1B visas was reached in June of last year and it is 
projected we will reach the cap even earlier this year. Later this 
month, we expect the Senate to consider another increase of H1-B visas 
to raise the cap to 195,000 a year for FY 2000, 2001 and 2002.
  As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate 
Select Committee on Intelligence, I firmly believe that we have the 
responsibility to adequately train our own labor force to meet the 
business and industry demands of today and tomorrow. We simply cannot 
rely on workers from other countries to do our sensitive technology 
work. As we saw in the Y2K reprogram with our great dependence on 
foreign security workers, we are sorely in need of a domestic 
technology workforce.
  Mr. President, I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in 
support of this effort to expand the Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and 
Excellence in Education Foundation and renew our commitment to 
educating young people in the fields of math and science. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page 7751]]



                                S. 2545

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

     SECTION 1. SCHOLARSHIPS AND FELLOWSHIPS UNDER BARRY GOLDWATER 
                   SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION PROGRAM 
                   FOR STUDY RELATING TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
                   AND INFORMATION PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Availability.--Section 1405(a) of the Barry Goldwater 
     Scholarship and Excellence in Education Act (title XIV of 
     Public Law 99-661; 20 U.S.C. 4704(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``science and mathematics'' and inserting ``science, 
     mathematics, and information technology and information 
     protection technology''; and
       (2) in paragraphs (2) and (3), by striking ``mathematics 
     and the natural sciences'' and inserting ``mathematics, the 
     natural sciences, and information technology and information 
     protection technology''.
       (b) Funding.--(1) There is authorized to be appropriated 
     for fiscal year 2001, $20,000,000 for deposit in the Barry 
     Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Fund 
     established by section 1408(a) of the Barry Goldwater 
     Scholarship and Excellence in Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     4707(a)).
       (2) Amounts deposited under paragraph (1) in the Fund 
     referred to in that paragraph shall be available for purposes 
     of providing scholarships and fellowships under section 
     1405(a) of that Act, as amended by subsection (a) of this 
     section, for persons pursuing study in the field of 
     information technology and information protection 
     technology.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, in today's information age, the threat of 
electronic attack is more likely than a nuclear attack. Words such as 
``cyber-terrorism'' and ``hackers'' have crept into everyday talk, no 
longer confined to the world of computer nerds and geeks. Despite being 
one of the most technologically-advanced countries in the world, United 
States technology is not capable of keeping intruders out and secrets 
in. Flaws have been found in the computer systems of the Pentagon, IRS, 
bank networks, utility companies, and telecommunications providers, 
among others, making all of them vulnerable to attack.
  The question, then, is what can we do as a country to protect both 
the government and industries from electronic attack? I believe we need 
to start early to equip more people with technological skills needed to 
build and maintain secure information technology networks. Today, along 
with my good friend Senator Roberts from Kansas, I am pleased to be 
introducing legislation that will do just that.
  The vehicle we use to achieve this is the highly reputable Barry M. 
Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation, which 
currently awards scholarships to college juniors and seniors studying 
math and science. I doubt any of my colleagues would dispute the vast 
success of the Goldwater foundation. Nearly 20 percent of last year's 
Rhodes Scholars were Goldwater Scholars first; and in the last eleven 
years, Goldwater Scholars have won 19 Marshall, 6 Churchill, 9 
Fulbright, 23 Hughes, 65 NSF and numerous other fellowships.
  Our bill is simple: We increase funding for the Goldwater foundation 
by 20 million dollars, taking it from 61 to 81 million dollars. That 
money will go for scholarships to a new category of students, those 
studying ``information protection technology''. By training these young 
people, we can set up our technological infrastructure so it becomes 
safe from intruders.
  Let me paint you a picture. Fifty years ago we suffered a devastating 
attack on Pearl Harbor. The siege lasted five hours. 2403 lives were 
lost, as were twenty ships and 188 aircraft. That attack catapulted the 
United States into World War II. As a country, however, we emerged from 
the war more powerful than we had been entering it. Along with the 
Soviet Union, the U.S. was deemed a ``superpower,'' and we have yet to 
give up that title.
  A devastating attack today would take a much different form and have 
much more catastrophic consequences. We are not likely to be attacked 
by airplanes and ships. Rather, it is far more likely that we will be 
attacked through our technology systems. The attack can occur in as 
little as ten seconds, and the effects can devastate our whole 
industrial and governmental infrastructure. A cyber-terrorist can wipe 
out all financial records, plunge aircraft from the air with no 
warning, corrupt our entire national defense system, and render 
telecommunications useless. And it can happen in just seconds, 
virtually undetected. And we were worried about Y2K.
  If this scenario frightens you, good. These threats are very real, 
and with our growing dependence on informational systems, as a country 
we become more vulnerable every day. One needs to look no further than 
the now infamous ``I love you'' computer virus that swept this world 
last week to get a glimpse at how quickly this can occur, and how 
devastating such an attack can be.
  The Pentagon, other government agencies, and many industries have set 
up departments to handle cyber-security, but we need to do everything 
we can to ensure that these departments can be staffed by knowledgeable 
information-protection experts. Without skilled staff, these 
departments are useless. The Information Protection Technology 
Scholarships will help ensure that the students in college have the 
opportunity to learn as much as possible about protecting technology. 
In turn, these students will repay the nation by putting their skills 
to work to make our technological infrastructure more secure. Twenty 
million dollars is not much to ask for to protect the entire United 
States from the possibility of wide-ranging cyber-terrorism.
  One final note. With such a shortage of qualified American workers, 
America's high tech industry is hiring people from other countries to 
come to the United States and fill these jobs. Highly trained 
immigrants enter this country under the H1-B visa program. Congress 
raised the cap on H1-B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 for FY '99, and it 
wasn't enough: we reached that cap by June last year. Later this month, 
the Senate is expected to consider another increase of H1-B visas to 
195,000 per year for FY00, 01 and 02. I support this proposed increase; 
however, I firmly believe we must do everything in our power to grow 
our own labor force. That is why I intend to offer this bill as an 
amendment to S. 2045 when it is considered on the Senate floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Ashcroft, 
        and Mr. Fitzgerald):
  S. 2546. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the use of 
methyl tertiary butyl ether, to provide flexibility within the 
oxygenate requirement of the reformulated gasoline program of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, to promote the use of renewable 
ethanol, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environmental and 
Public Works.


              clean air and water preservation act of 2000

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to introduce the 
Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000 with my colleague from 
Illinois, Senator Durbin. Our bill will accomplish the following: 1. 
Phases down to elimination MTBE within 3 years of enactment; 2. 
Maintains the oxygenate standard; 3. Probably has the strongest 
environmental anti-backsliding provisions of any bill; 4. A temporary 
waiver from oxygenate standard could be granted if the USDA and DOE 
certify that there is an issue with supply; and 5. Highway 
apportionment percentages will stay the same.
  Low grain prices high fuel prices, and the clean water problems 
associated with MTBE have highlighted the need for this bipartisan 
effort to protect our water, protect our air, and to protect our rural 
economy. Our region and the nation require a renewable, environmentally 
friendly alternative to MTBE that helps create local jobs, which adds 
value to our farmer's product, which moves us away from an energy-
hostage situation where our reliance on foreign-produced oil makes our 
producers, consumers and economy subject to the whims of international 
cartel autocrats, and protects our air and water.
  My colleagues and friends on this issue, Senators Daschle and Lugar, 
have also introduced a bill on this issue. I commend them for their 
involvement and look forward to working with them; however, I do not 
believe

[[Page 7752]]

their bill solves all the problems. Specifically, their bill eliminates 
the oxygenate requirement.
  The federal oxygen-content requirement was adopted for several 
reasons. First, Congress understood that oxygenates provide a source of 
clean octane-displacing toxic compounds such as benzene and reducing 
ozone-forming exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. 
Second, Congress recognized the energy-security benefits of 
substituting a certain percentage of imported petroleum with 
domestically-produced, renewable fuels such as ethanol. Finally, the 
Congress hoped the Federal oxygen requirement could provide new market 
opportunities for farmers by stimulating new demand for ethanol. I 
believe each of these objectives remain as valid today as they were in 
1990.
  Unfortunately, the refiners' decision to utilize MTBE, rather than 
ethanol, has created a serious and growing problem nationwide. The U.S. 
Geological Survey reports that MTBE has been detected in 21 percent of 
the drinking water wells in RFG areas nationwide. States with detected 
MTBE water contamination include Missouri, Illinois, California, Texas, 
Virginia, Florida, Connecticut, and many more.
  It is important to recognize that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 did not mandate the use of MTBE. Indeed, in Chicago and other 
areas where ethanol RFG is used, the program has been declared a huge 
air quality success. Replicating the Chicago ethanol RFG model in areas 
where MTBE is being used today would assure continued air quality 
progress without compromising water quality by its use. It would also 
provide a tremendous economic stimulus to rural America by creating 
value-added demand for as much as 500 million bushels of grain. The 
Department of Agriculture recently reported that replacing MTBE with 
ethanol in RFG markets would increase net farm income $1 billion 
annually, create 13,000 new jobs, enhance our balance of trade and 
reduce farm program costs over the next ten years. Moreover, USDA 
reports ethanol can replace MTBE without price spikes or shortages in 
supplies within three years.
  Let us be very clear about this issue. The environmental problem at 
hand is real. However, the problem is not ethanol, the problem is MTBE.
  Fortunately some States are already taking action to ban MTBE. Some 
are not moving fast enough. We need to make certain that all States ban 
MTBE to eliminate its contamination of our water supplies. To ensure 
that we do not have a piecemeal approach to banning MTBE it is 
important to pass legislation to ensure we have a national solution.
  This bill is supported by the National Corn Growers, Missouri Corn 
Growers, Renewable Fuels Association, and the Missouri Farm Bureau. I 
look forward to other groups supporting this bill as well.
  I am pleased that Senator Durbin, Senator Grassley, and Senator 
Ashcroft have joined me in introducing this vitally important bill. I 
look forward to working with them and all the other members that join 
us in this endeavor to ensure that we have a national solution that 
will protect our water and still ensure that we maintain our air 
quality benefits produced from the Federal oxygenate requirement. In 
addition, we will be promoting positive energy and rural economic 
policy objectives, which includes ethanol.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Missouri, Senator Bond, in introducing the Clean Air and Water 
Preservation Act of 2000, a bill that will ban the gasoline additive 
MTBE and promote the use of renewable ethanol fuel.
  By now, many of us are aware of the dangers methyl tertiary butyl 
ether (MTBE) poses to our environment, our water supply, and our 
communities. Although this additive has only been widely used for about 
five years, it is now one of the most frequently detected volatile 
organic chemicals in drinking water supplies across the nation. In 
fact, MTBE contamination has affected communities in my home state of 
Illinois raising many public health concerns.
  This legislation addresses these problems by banning MTBE within 
three years and urging refiners to replace it with ethanol. The bill 
also increases consumer protection by requiring gasoline stations to 
label pumps that still sell MTBE. And the Environmental Protection 
Agency is directed to assist states in getting the chemical out of 
their groundwater.
  Furthermore, the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000 
includes strict anti-backsliding provisions to ensure we do not lose 
the air quality benefits that we have already achieved. Protection from 
toxic chemicals and environmentally sound emission levels will not be 
compromised.
  Most important, this legislation upholds the air quality benefits of 
the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program by maintaining the oxygenate 
standard. Adding oxygen to our gasoline has helped clean the air in 
many cities across the nation. With the use of ethanol, the Chicago RFG 
program has proven highly successful in improving the air quality in 
Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
  I am proud to say that Illinois is the nation's largest ethanol 
producer and that one in every six rows of Illinois corn--280 million 
bushels--goes to ethanol production. But, an expanded role for this 
renewable fuel is more than a boost to industry; it is jobs to rural 
America, and it is energy security. As we look for solutions to high 
oil prices, we must remember that ethanol is a viable alternative 
fuel--domestically produced and environmentally friendly. In fact, 
every 23 gallons of ethanol displaces a barrel of foreign oil.
  I commend the Clinton administration and Senators Daschle and Lugar 
for their efforts aimed at solving the problems associated with MTBE 
and opening a dialogue on renewable fuel content standards. However, I 
strongly feel we need to maintain our commitment to preserving the 
oxygenate standard, which has proven to be integral to achieving the 
goals of the Clean Air Act.
  The Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000 is good for our 
environment and public health and a boost for rural economies. I hope 
my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues 
Senator Bond and Senator Durbin, as an original cosponsor to the Clean 
Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000. I commend them for their 
leadership in resolving a very real problem--not a phony problem.
  The real problem is that MTBE is contaminating our Nation's water 
supplies.
  The phony problem is the proposition that the Clean Air Act's 
oxygenate standard caused the MTBE water contamination.
  Unfortunately, powerful, influential forces are trying to sucker 
Congress and the American public into embracing the phony problem.
  Some propagandists of the phony problem may be motivated by greed. 
After all, if the petroleum industry gets its way, its profits will 
balloon. If they can get Congress or the administration to grant 
waivers of the oxygenate standard, big oil will be able to squeeze out 
the 3 to 4 percent of the market currently supplied by alternatives.
  The Department of Energy has determined that even a small amount of 
alternative fuels can save consumers billions of dollars each year by 
leveraging lower gasoline prices.
  Petroleum companies also tell us that they can produce a gasoline 
just as clean for the air, but without oxygenates. Of course, they tell 
you that it will come at some extra cost.
  Mr. President, I must ask my colleagues: Do we really need to give 
the petroleum industry both the ability and the excuse to jack up 
gasoline prices and further gouge American consumers?
  Of course not. And the way to make certain this does not happen is by 
enacting the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000.
  Other propagandists of the phony problem may be political 
opportunists

[[Page 7753]]

seeking to engage in some self-serving election-year shenanigans.
  The Clinton administration is facing a tough political dilemma. 
Chevron and other petroleum interests have convinced California's 
Governor that the only solution to the MTBE problem is to waive the 
oxygenate requirement.
  California represents enormous political stakes for November's 
elections. Understandably, the Clinton administration does not want to 
say ``no'' to California.
  But the Clinton administration does not want to say ``no'' to 
America's farmers. If the administration gives California and other 
states a waiver from the oxygenate standard, they will have single-
handedly destroyed a $1 billion per year market for America's farmers.
  So, what's the easy political solution? Simple. Throw the hot-potato 
into the laps of Congress. Hold a press conference laying out quote, 
end-quote, legislative principles for solving the MTBE problem.
  By dumping this on Congress, the administration does not have to make 
the tough decisions, and will be in a position to second-guess and 
attack anything and everything Congress does do to try to work this 
out.
  And the irony of all of this, is that had the Clinton administration 
followed Congressional intent about the Clean Air Act Reformulated 
Fuels Program, instead of listening to the oil companies and some 
misguided environmentalists, other oxygenates such as ethanol could 
have competed with MTBE, and we would have far less MTBE water 
contamination today.
  The Clinton administration was warned loud and clear about the health 
and environmental problems of MTBE. I personally sent many letters and 
made a lengthy floor statement in 1993 warning then about MTBE and 
urging that they not give Big Oil a regulation guaranteeing them a 
market monopoly over the oxygenated problem.
  Anyone who has ever smelled MTBE, knows that had consumers been given 
a choice, they would have overwhelmingly chose to buy reformulated fuel 
made with ethanol, not MTBE.
  So the Clinton administration created this MTBE problem in the first 
place, and now they tell the world that the only way to correct it is 
for Congress to fix it.
  That's just not true. But the truth sort of got lost during the 
administration's press conference by EPA's Carol Browner. She forgot to 
tell the American public the truth that each and every State has the 
authority to protect its water supplies from MTBE contamination. As 
long as the States pass laws designed to protect the water, as opposed 
to protecting the air, the Clean Air Act does not legally pre-empt the 
States from taking action on their own.
  And I received assurances from EPA during a recent hearing that they 
would never attempt to stop a State from protecting water supplies from 
MTBE contamination.
  Now, some would argue that the oil industry would try to challenge 
such efforts in court.
  Mr. President, that proposition is ridiculous. The oil companies 
chose to use MTBE instead of ethanol. They are now liable for what 
could be billions of dollars of MTBE clean up costs. And these 
liability costs mount with every day that passes, that the oil 
companies refuse to replace MTBE with other oxygenates.
  Therefore, who in their right mind could think that the oil companies 
are stupid enough to take court action to block a State from banning 
the use of MTBE?
  So, why didn't EPA's Carol Browner announce to the world the States 
already have the authority to ban MTBE--the source of the real problem?
  Well, if the administration admits the truth, and if they fail to 
convince Americans and Congress that only Congress can fix this 
problem, then the Clinton administration is stuck back at ``square 
one'' having to choose between California or America's farmers who have 
suffered the lowest prices in decades.
  Mr. President, there are others pushing the phony problem who may 
simply be struggling to save face, hoping that they not suffer the 
embarrassment of being proven wrong--wrong in their efforts to help 
petroleum interests in securing a Clinton administration regulation 
guaranteeing that MTBE would monopolize the oxygenate market.
  These environmentalists would like the public to believe that ethanol 
was never really a viable option--not then, not now. If they ever 
concede that point, then it will be clear to Americans that these 
environmentalists were key promoters of what has turned out to be one 
of the biggest environmental crises ever to face America.
  Mr. President, there are some environmentalists who do not like 
ethanol, simply because it is something that can be made by farmers. 
They don't like farmers because sometimes they have to use fertilizers 
and chemicals. It is that simple-minded.
  Mr. President, the real problem is MTBE, and the real solution to 
this problem is passing the bill introduced today by our colleagues 
Senator Bond and Senator Durbin.
  I warn my colleagues, however, that if they buy into the phony 
problem, they will end up having to buy into phony solutions.
  For instance, the Clinton administration suggested that Congress 
might want to only reduce the amount of MTBE used, as opposed to 
banning it altogether. Well, that's a phony solution.
  No level of MTBE in gasoline can protect our water supply.
  My State of Iowa is facing an MTBE water contamination disaster. 
First, understand, we sell no Clean Air Act reformulated gasoline in 
Iowa. Second, understand that for years now, no gasoline was supposed 
to be sold in Iowa that contained more than 1 percent MTBE unless 
warning labels were posted.
  Nevertheless, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources recently found 
that 29 percent of Iowa's water supplies tested contained MTBE above 
the acceptable levels established by EPA.
  So what does this mean? Simply this: MTBE is used in conventional 
fuel as an octane enhancer and will contaminate your water.
  If a State is allowed to waive out of the oxygenate requirement, MTBE 
will still be used and will continue to contaminate our water supplies.
  It is phony to argue the oxygenate requirement is the problem, and it 
is phony to argue waiving or eliminating the oxygenate requirement will 
protect our water supplies.
  Mr. President, this is just one of many phony issues that we are 
being asked to embrace. I will be speaking further about this at a 
later time.
  But in closing, I ask my colleagues to cosponsor our legislation. It 
provides real solutions to the real problem: MTBE water contamination.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Campbell):
  S. 2547. A bill to provide for the establishment of the Great Sand 
Dunes National Park and the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve in the 
State of Colorado, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


               great sand dunes national park act of 2000

 Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to establish the Great Sand Dunes National Park and the Great Sand 
Dunes National Preserve.
  This legislation is a major step in protection and preservation of 
the Great Sand Dunes and San Luis Valley water. I along with 
Congressman McInnis decided to introduce companion bills at the request 
of valley residents, locally elected officials and the Rio Grande Water 
Conservation District. In an era of Presidential threats and 
questionable uses of the Antiquities Act, a locally driven legislative 
process is something I strongly support.
  Anyone who has visited the Sand Dunes understands the unique feeling 
they offer the visitor, the dunes seem out of place--a contradiction in 
nature. The San Luis Valley serenely placed between the Sangre De 
Cristo and the San Juan Mountains is the last place one would expect to 
see 750 foot high sand dunes. Still, the Sand Dunes offered the early 
residents and explorers

[[Page 7754]]

a unique look into the earth's geological wonders. This bill will help 
to ensure that future generations have that same opportunity.
  Developing legislation that satisfies everyone is a difficult task, 
but this bill reflects compromises on all sides and puts forth a unique 
proposal for a complicated issue. The provisions of the bill allow for 
(1) establishing the Great Sand Dunes National Park; (2) establishing 
the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve; (3) the acquisition of the Luis 
Maria Baca Grant No. 4; (4) protection of San Luis Valley's water 
resources; (5) hunting in the new Great Sand Dunes National Preserve; 
(6) creation of a new National Wildlife Refuge and (7) a local advisory 
council.
  Protection of the valley's water resources is very important to the 
citizens of Colorado and a primary motivation for virtually everyone's 
support for this measure. An integral part of the water component is 
the federal acquisition of the Baca Ranch. While I am usually very 
skeptical of additional federal ownership of land, it makes sense here 
to purchase the land from willing sellers and incorporate it into the 
combination park, wildlife refuge and forest. The legislation requires 
the Department of the Interior to work with the State of Colorado to 
protect the water dependent resources of the Sand Dunes while not 
jeopardizing valid existing water rights held by others. I want to 
assure everyone that this bill does not create a federal reserve water 
right.
  The Great Sand Dunes National Preserve allows the Secretaries of the 
Interior and Agriculture to transfer existing Forest Service lands to 
the Park Service and manage these lands as a Preserve. The transfer 
would allow the Park Service jurisdiction of the watershed affecting 
the Sand Dunes, while not affecting the wilderness status or existing 
hunting in the area. As a veterinarian I understand and recognize 
hunting as an important tool in game management. The bill stipulates 
that the Colorado Division of Wildlife will play an integral role in 
continued game management of the area.
  The bill also creates a new National Wildlife Refuge on the western 
edge of the existing Baca Ranch and adjacent state trust lands. This 
new Refuge will provide additional hunting opportunities in an area 
that has been historically closed to public hunting. It has extensive 
wetlands and is home to an extensive diversity of plants and animals, 
including a large elk herd. The Refuge would also give the affected 
county an additional source of revenue through the Refuge and Revenue 
Sharing Act as an offset to the loss of property taxes from the federal 
acquisition of the Baca.
  President Herbert Hoover in 1932 recognized the unique 
characteristics of the sand dunes and wanted to protect their scenic, 
scientific and educational features. With the support of the local 
community, the Great Sand Dunes National Monument was established. Now 
sixty-eight years later, residents of the San Luis Valley are 
advocating expansion and upgrade of the national monument to a national 
park.
  Last December, I along with Senator Campbell, Congressman McInnis, 
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and Colorado Attorney General 
Ken Salazar met at the Great Sand Dunes to discuss the merits of 
expanding and protecting the resources of the San Luis Valley. We all 
recognized the significance of the meeting and vowed to work towards 
passage of a bill.
  Our time is short in Congress this year, and soon I will be asking 
for a hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
This is an important issue to Coloradans, and I look forward to Senate 
passage of my legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 2548. A bill to provide that extension of nondiscriminatory trade 
treatment to the People's Republic of China be contingent on the United 
States and People's Republic of China entering into a bilateral 
agreement relating to enforcement; to the Committee on Finance.


   securing heightened opportunities for workers, manufacturers, and 
                       agriculture exporters act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I want to discuss an issue that, 
judging from my discussions with Missourians, establishing the right 
trade policy with China is of increasing concern to Americans, and 
Missourians in particular.
  Missourians want more opportunities to use their economic freedom to 
shape the future for their families. They want increasing opportunities 
to sell their products. They want reciprocity and fairness. This is why 
I want to ensure that Missouri businesses, farmers, and workers will 
get what they are promised. Access to a market that is almost one-
fourth of the world's population can create higher paying jobs. But if 
China doesn't live up to its agreements like in the past--no new jobs 
will be created in Missouri.
  The WTO agreement that the United States concluded with China last 
November could give Missourians substantial benefits. Tariffs on 
industrial goods could fall from 25 to 9 percent--this means that all 
of the parts manufacturer5s for aerospace, automobiles, appliances 
would all face substantial ``tax decrease.'' Also, tariffs on 
agricultural goods would be reduced from 31 to 17 percent. Missouri, as 
a leader in agricultural production, would benefit substantially from 
these reductions. Cattlemen and pork producers would experience 
significant gains when tariffs are dropped to 12 percent. I also want 
Missouri farmers to have direct access to Chinese consumers instead of 
having to go through a bunch of middle-men. In addition, China has made 
commitments to eliminate eventually many of its current restrictions on 
services, such as distribution, banking, insurance, telecommunications, 
accounting, consulting, and other financial services.
  But these are the promises that are on paper. Missourians in the 
``Show-Me'' state are leery of relying only on promises when they don't 
know whether there is adequate enforcement. I've visited many factories 
where the workers want to make sure that they get a fair shake. They 
want real opportunities. They don't want hollow promises. I've been all 
over the state visiting farm families, and this is what they want as 
well.
  Several of my constituents have a fairly accurate perspective on 
China's record of not voluntarily living up to its agreements. Let me 
read from a constituent letter, from the International Association of 
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 9, Bridgeton, Mo., dated 
March 17, 2000:

       China has a history of failing to live up to every other 
     trade agreement it has signed with the United States (the 
     1992 Memorandum on Prison Labor, the 1996 Bilateral Agreement 
     on Unilateral Property Rights, the 1994 Bilateral Agreement 
     on Textiles, and the 1992 memorandum of Understanding on 
     Market Access).

  I think this constituent has a pretty accurate assessment of China's 
dismal trade record. Quite honestly, China's trade record has been 
poor. In a 1992 agreement, the so-called ``Market Access'' Agreement, 
Missouri farmers, ranchers, and workers weren't actually given much 
market access. In 1995 China eliminated 176 licensing requirements, but 
then imposed 400 new de facto licensing requirements. By 1999, China 
had removed over 1,0000 quotas and licenses, but the U.S. Trade 
Representative reports that China is erecting new barriers to restrict 
imports. Also, despite the commitment not to require import 
substitution, China announced a new ``Industrial Policy for the 1990s'' 
which could undermine the U.S. automobile, telecommunications, 
transportation, machinery, electronics, and construction industries.
  Another one of my constituents has additional concerns that once we 
approve PNTR, the U.S. will lose substantial leverage. From the 
International Association of Fire Fighters of Kansas City, Mo, Local 
Union No. 42, dated March 28, 2000:

       Granting PNTR will . . . reduce our ability to use 
     unilateral tools to respond to continued Chinese failure to 
     live up to its commitments. Our ability to take unilateral 
     action is our only leverage against the Chinese government. 
     Proponents of PNTR admit that only by using unilateral 
     actions we were able to make even modest progress on 
     intellectual property rights. The Chinese government has not 
     lived up to the promises they

[[Page 7755]]

     made in every single trade agreement signed with the U.S. in 
     the past ten years.

  This Missourian is absolutely correct. In 1994 when we negotiated the 
WTO, the United States gave up the right to threaten a level of 
retaliation that was ``appropriate in the circumstances'' to get 
compliance. However, now we are bound to retaliate at a level that the 
WTO decides. We have seen where this has taken us with exporting our 
beef to Europe--absolutely nowhere.
  We need to avoid creating an endless lawsuit with China that gets us 
nowhere. Missourians want some guarantees that they will in fact get 
export opportunities and not just a lot of litigation with no real 
results as with the Europeans in the beef and banana cases, where the 
retaliation level was reduced by the WTO body.
  My goal is consistent with the ``show me'' state. It is straight-
forward. Open China's market to Missouri goods and services. In order 
to do that, however, we must have enforcement that works. That is why I 
am proposing the ``SHOW ME'' Act.
  My bill is simple. It would require the Administration to work out an 
arrangement with China whereby if the U.S. wins a WTO case but can't 
get compliance, China would agree not to challenge the U.S. level of 
retaliation. The Administration could negotiate this concession from 
China as a side letter to the November agreement or could negotiate as 
a part of the protocol of the accession phase.
  There is precedent for this requirement. The Administration 
negotiated a 12 to 15 year phase out of special rules for safeguards 
and anti-dumping and countervailing duties (which are tools to protect 
our market), yet they did not work out a 15 year phase out of use of 
Section 301 (which is a foreign market opening tool). Both are needed--
surge protection and market access tools. Market access is crucial to 
the farming community in Missouri, which gets about one-fourth of its 
farm income from overseas sales.
  In closing, Mr. President, quite frankly, there is declining 
satisfaction in America's heartland with our inability to pry open 
foreign markets. The only way we will rebuild is with real enforcement. 
A lot of my constituents from the ``Show Me'' state want to see more 
assurances from us and the Administration that what happened on the EU 
beef and banana cases won't reverberate through the Chinese market. 
They want our trade policy to create jobs in practice, not just in 
theory.

                          ____________________