[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5173-5179]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Thurmond, 
        Mr. Feingold, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 665. A bill to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and 
exporting cartels illegal; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in the last year, consumers all across the 
nation have watched gas prices rise, seemingly without any end in 
sight. And, if consumers weren't paying enough already, just a few days 
ago the OPEC nations agreed to cut production by a million barrels a 
day, an action sure to drive up prices even higher. Such blatantly 
anti-competitive action by the oil cartel violates the most basic 
principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be 
tolerated. It is for this reason that I rise today, with my colleagues 
Senators DeWine, Specter, Leahy, Feingold, Thurmond, and Grassley, to 
reintroduce the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act'', 
``NOPEC''. This legislation is identical to our NOPEC bill introduced 
last year, which passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously.
  Real people suffer real consequences every day in our nation because 
of OPEC's actions. Rising gas prices--prices that averaged above $2 per 
gallon in many places last summer, are a silent tax that takes hard-
earned money away from Americans every time they visit the gas pump. 
Higher oil prices drive up the cost of transportation, harming 
thousands of companies throughout the economy from trucking to 
aviation. And those costs are passed on to consumers in the form of 
higher prices for manufactured goods. Higher oil prices mean higher 
heating oil and electricity costs. Anyone who has gone through a 
Midwest winter or a deep South summer can tell you about the tremendous 
personal costs associated with higher home heating or cooling bills.
  We have all heard many explanations offered for rising energy prices. 
Some say that the oil companies are gouging consumers. Some blame 
disruptions in supply. Others point to EPA requirement mandating use of 
a new and more expensive type of ``reformulated'' gas in the Midwest. 
After last spring's gas price spike, which dove prices above $2 per 
gallon for a time in the Midwest, some even claimed that refiners and 
distributors were illegally fixing prices. At the request of the 
Wisconsin delegation and Senator DeWine, the Federal Trade Commission 
launched an investigation last year to figure out if those allegations 
were true. After an exhaustive, nearly year-long investigation, they 
found no evidence of illegal price fixing as a cause of higher gas 
prices.

[[Page 5174]]

  But one cause of these escalating prices is indisputable: the price 
fixing conspiracy of the OPEC nations. For years, this conspiracy has 
unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed 
of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, until now 
no one has tried to take any action. NOPEC will, for the first time, 
establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil 
producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set 
prices, they are violating U.S. law. It will authorize the Attorney 
General or FTC to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. Our 
bill will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide behind 
the doctrines of ``Sovereign Immunity'' or ``Act of State'' to escape 
the reach of American justice.
  In recent years a consensus has developed in international law that 
certain basic standards are universal, and that the international 
community can, and should, take action when a nation violates these 
fundamental standards. The response of the international community to 
ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and action by the courts of 
Britain to hold General Augusto Pinochet accountable for human rights 
abuses and torture that occurred when he was President of Chile are two 
prominent examples. The rogue actions of the international oil cartel 
should be treated no differently. The most fundamental principle of a 
free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to 
limit supply or fix price. There can be no free market without this 
foundation. In this era of globalization, we truly need to open 
international markets to ensure the prosperity of all. And we should 
not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle.
  Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not 
work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our 
NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our authorities to 
take legal action to combat the illegitimate price-fixing conspiracy of 
the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real deterrent effect on 
nations that seek to join forces to fix oil prices to the detriment of 
consumers. This legislation will be the first real weapon the U.S. 
government has ever had to deter OPEC from its seemingly endless cycle 
of price increases.
  There is nothing remarkable about applying U.S. antitrust law 
overseas. Our government has not hesitated to do so when faced with 
clear evidence of anti-competitive conduct that harms American 
consumers. Just last year, in fact, the Justice Department secured a 
record $500 million criminal fine against German and Swiss companies 
engaged in a price fixing conspiracy to raise and fix the price of 
vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. The mere fact that 
the conspirators are foreign nations is no basis to shield them from 
violating these most basic standards of fair economic behavior.
  There is also nothing remarkable about suing a foreign government 
about its commercial activity. There are many recent cases in which 
foreign governments have been held answerable for their commercial 
activities in U.S. courts, including a case against Iran for failure to 
pay for aircraft parts, a case against Argentina for breach of its 
obligations arising out of issuance of bonds, and a case against Costa 
Rica for violating the terms of a lease. Our NOPEC legislation falls 
squarely within this tradition.
  Even under current law, there is no doubt that the actions of the 
international oil cartel would be in gross violation of antitrust law 
if engaged in by private companies. If OPEC were a group of 
international private companies rather than foreign governments, their 
actions would be nothing more than an illegal price fixing scheme. But 
OPEC members have used the shield of ``sovereign immunity'' to escape 
accountability for their price-fixing. The Federal Sovereign Immunities 
Act, though, already recognizes that the ``commercial'' activity of 
nations is not protected by sovereign immunity. And it is hard to 
imagine an activity that is more obviously commercial than selling oil 
for profit, as the OPEC nations do. Our legislation will correct one 
erroneous twenty-year-old lower federal court decision and establish 
that sovereign immunity doctrine will not divest a U.S. court from 
jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit alleging that members of the oil cartel 
are violating antitrust law.
  In the last few weeks, I have grown more certain than ever that this 
legislation is necessary. Between OPEC's decision last week to cut oil 
production and the FTC's conclusion that American companies do not bear 
primary responsibility for last summer's gas price spike, I am 
convinced that we need to take action, and take action now, before the 
damage spreads too far.
  For these reasons, I urge that my colleagues support this bill so 
that our nation will finally have an effective means to combat this 
selfish conspiracy of oil-rich nations.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 665

       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 ``No Oil Producing and 
     Exporting Cartels Act of 2001'' or ``NOPEC''.

     SEC. 2. SHERMAN ACT.

       The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is amended by adding 
     after section 7 the following:

     ``SEC. 7A. OIL PRODUCING CARTELS.

       ``(a) In General.--It shall be illegal and a violation of 
     this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality or 
     agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in 
     combination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality 
     or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person, 
     whether by cartel or any other association or form of 
     cooperation or joint action--
       ``(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil, 
     natural gas, or any other petroleum product;

       ``(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or 
     any petroleum product; or
       ``(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade 
     for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;

     when such action, combination, or collective action has a 
     direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the 
     market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, 
     or other petroleum product in the United States.
       ``(b) Sovereign Immunity.--A foreign state engaged in 
     conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not be immune 
     under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the 
     jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United States 
     in any action brought to enforce this section.
       ``(c) Inapplicability of Act of State Doctrine.--No court 
     of the United States shall decline, based on the act of state 
     doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action 
     brought under this section.
       ``(d) Enforcement.--The Attorney General of the United 
     States and the Federal Trade Commission may bring an action 
     to enforce this section in any district court of the United 
     States as provided under the antitrust laws.''.

     SEC. 3. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.

       Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) in which the action is brought under section 7A of 
     the Sherman Act.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Warner, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Cochran, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 666. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
the use of completed contract method of accounting in the case of 
certain long-term naval vessel construction contracts; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to simplify 
and restore fairness to the naval shipyard accounting statutes under 
which our six major U.S. naval shipyards pay taxes on the naval ship 
contracts they are awarded by the Navy.
  Quite simply, this legislation would permit naval shipyards to use a 
method of accounting under which shipbuilders would pay income taxes 
upon delivery of a ship rather than during construction. Under current 
law, profits must

[[Page 5175]]

be estimated during the construction phases of the shipbuilding process 
and taxes must be paid on those estimated profits. The legislation 
being proposed would simply allow naval shipbuilders to use a method of 
accounting, under which the shipbuilder would pay taxes when the ship 
is actually delivered to the Navy.
  Prior to 1982, federal law permitted shipbuilders to use this method, 
but the law was changed due to abuses by federal contractors in another 
sector, having absolutely nothing to do with shipbuilding. Moreover, 
non-government shipbuilding contracts are already allowed to use this 
method of accounting, and this legislation contains provisions designed 
to prevent the types of abuses witnessed in the past. Specifically, the 
bill would restrict shipyards from deferring tax payments for a period 
beyond the time it takes to build a single ship.
  This bill would not reduce the amount of taxes ultimately paid by the 
shipbuilder. It simply would defer payment until the profit is actually 
known upon delivery of the ship. I believe that this is the most fair 
and most sensible accounting method. It is the method that naval 
shipbuilders used to employ. It is the method which commercial builders 
are permitted to use to this day. This legislation has the strong 
support of the major shipyards that build for the Navy. As such, I 
strongly urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for 
this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire):
  S. 668. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all 
dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet Safety 
and Protection Act of 2001. Senator Bob Smith joins me in sponsoring 
this bill that will close a serious loophole in the Animal Welfare Act.
  Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act to stop the 
mistreatment of animals and to prevent the unintentional sale of family 
pets for laboratory experiments. Despite the well-meaning intentions of 
the Animal Welfare Act and the enforcement efforts of the Department of 
Agriculture, the Act routinely fails to provide pets and pet owners 
with reliable protection against the actions of some unethical dealers.
  Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against 
disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight 
against AIDS, cancer, and a host of life-threatening diseases. I am not 
here to argue whether animals should or should not be used in research. 
Animal research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to 
advancements in medicine. However, I am concerned with the sale of 
stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities.
  There are less than 40 ``random source'' animal dealers operating 
throughout the country who acquire tens of thousands of dogs and cats. 
``Random source'' dealers are USDA licensed Class B dealers that 
provide animals for research. Many of these animals are family pets, 
acquired by so-called ``bunchers'' who sometimes resort to theft and 
deception as they collect animals to sell them to Class B dealers. 
``Bunchers,'' posing as someone interested in adopting a dog or cat, 
usually respond to advertisements such as ``free pet to a good home,'' 
and trick animal owners into giving them their pets. Some random source 
dealers are known to keep hundreds of animals at a time in squalid 
conditions, providing them with little food or water. The mistreated 
animals often pass through several hands and across state lines before 
they are eventually sold by a random source dealer to a research 
laboratory.
  While I am not suggesting that laboratories intentionally seek out 
stolen or fraudulently obtained dogs and cats as research subjects, the 
fact remains that many of these animals end up in research 
laboratories, and little is being done to stop it. It is clear to most 
observers, including animal welfare organizations around the country, 
that this problem persists because of random source animal dealers.
  The Pet Safety and Protection Act strengthens the Animal Welfare Act 
by prohibiting the use of random source animal dealers as suppliers of 
dogs and cats to research laboratories. At the same time, the Pet 
Safety and Protection Act preserves the integrity of animal research by 
encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate 
sources that comply with the Animal Welfare Act. Legitimate sources are 
USDA-licensed Class A dealers or breeders, municipal pounds that choose 
to release dogs and cats for research purposes, legitimate pet owners 
who want to donate their animals to research, and private and federal 
facilities that breed their own animals. These four sources are capable 
of supplying millions of animals for research, far more cats and dogs 
than are required by current laboratory demand. Furthermore, at least 
in the case of using municipal pounds, research laboratories could save 
money since pound animals cost only a few dollars compared to the high 
fees charged by random source animal dealers. The National Institutes 
of Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, has already 
adopted policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from random 
source dealers.
  The Pet Safety and Protection Act also reduces the Department of 
Agriculture's regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its 
resources more efficiently and effectively. Each year, hundreds of 
thousands of dollars are spent on regulating 40 random source dealers. 
To combat any future violation of the Animal Welfare Act, the Pet 
Safety and Protection Act increases the penalties under the Act to a 
minimum of $1,000 per violation.
  As I stated before, this bill in no way impairs or impedes research, 
but will end the fraudulent practices of some Class B dealers. The 
history of disregard for the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act by 
some animal dealers makes the Pet Safety and Protection Act necessary 
and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 668

       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 ``Pet Safety and Protection 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF PETS.

       (a) Research Facilities.--Section 7 of the Animal Welfare 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2137) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 7. SOURCES OF DOGS AND CATS FOR RESEARCH FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Definition of Person.--In this section, the term 
     `person' means any individual, partnership, firm, joint stock 
     company, corporation, association, trust, estate, pound, 
     shelter, or other legal entity.
       ``(b) Use of Dogs and Cats.--No research facility or 
     Federal research facility may use a dog or cat for research 
     or educational purposes if the dog or cat was obtained from a 
     person other than a person described in subsection (d).
       ``(c) Selling, Donating, or Offering Dogs and Cats.--No 
     person, other than a person described in subsection (d), may 
     sell, donate, or offer a dog or cat to any research facility 
     or Federal research facility.
       ``(d) Permissible Sources.--A person from whom a research 
     facility or a Federal research facility may obtain a dog or 
     cat for research or educational purposes under subsection 
     (b), and a person who may sell, donate, or offer a dog or cat 
     to a research facility or a Federal research facility under 
     subsection (c), shall be--
       ``(1) a dealer licensed under section 3 that has bred and 
     raised the dog or cat;
       ``(2) a publicly owned and operated pound or shelter that--
       ``(A) is registered with the Department of Agriculture;
       ``(B) is in compliance with section 28(a)(1) and with the 
     requirements for dealers in subsections (b) and (c) of 
     section 28; and
       ``(C) obtained the dog or cat from its legal owner, other 
     than a pound or shelter;
       ``(3) a person that is donating the dog or cat and that--
       ``(A) bred and raised the dog or cat; or
       ``(B) owned the dog or cat for not less than 1 year 
     immediately preceding the donation;
       ``(4) a research facility licensed by the Department of 
     Agriculture; and
       ``(5) a Federal research facility licensed by the 
     Department of Agriculture.

[[Page 5176]]

       ``(e) Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person that violates this section 
     shall pay $1000 for each violation.
       ``(2) Additional penalty.--A penalty under this subsection 
     shall be in addition to any other applicable penalty and 
     shall be imposed whether or not the Secretary imposes any 
     other penalty.
       ``(f) No Required Sale or Donation.--Nothing in this 
     section requires a pound or shelter to sell, donate, or offer 
     a dog or cat to a research facility or Federal research 
     facility.''.
       (b) Federal Research Facilities.--Section 8 of the Animal 
     Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2138) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No department'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in section 7, no department'';
       (2) by striking ``research or experimentation or''; and
       (3) by striking ``such purposes'' and inserting ``that 
     purpose''.
       (c) Certification.--Section 28(b)(1) of the Animal Welfare 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2158(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``individual 
     or entity'' and inserting ``research facility or Federal 
     research facility''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 take effect 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Frist, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Mr. Bayh, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Biden, 
        Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Ensign, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Kerry, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 669. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 to promote parental involvement and parental empowerment in public 
education through greater competition and choice, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with my 
distinguished colleague from New Hampshire and a broad, bipartisan 
group of cosponsors to introduce the Empowering Parents Act of 2001. 
Senator Judd Gregg has been a consistent champion of charter schools 
and a passionate advocate of competition and choice in public 
education. I cannot imagine a better colleague to partner with on my 
first legislative initiative in the U.S. Senate.
  Like the Senator from New Hampshire, I come from a small State. Also 
like my friend from New Hampshire, I was once the governor of my small 
State. I think it is appropriate, that Senator Gregg and I have seen 
fit to team up so early in my tenure here in the Senate. During the 
fall campaign, I was fond of saying that we need more people in 
Washington who think and act like Governors. My years in the National 
Governors' Association taught me that Governors tend to be results-
oriented and tend to have a healthy impatience for partisan bickering.
  We in this Chamber will always have our disagreements. Next week, for 
example, we are scheduled to begin debate on the budget and every 
expectation is that it will be a very partisan debate. That makes it 
all the more important, that we push forward in those areas where we're 
able to reach bipartisan agreement. The issue of vouchers is one on 
which we are unlikely to come to a consensus. Expanding the number of 
charter schools and broadening public school choice, however, is 
something that we can agree on, and we should.
  Charter schools and public school choice inject market forces into 
our schools. They empower parents to make choices to send their 
children to a variety of different schools. That means that schools 
which offer what students and parents want, be it foreign languages, 
more math and science, higher test scores, better discipline, those 
schools will be full. Schools which fail to listen to their customers, 
to parents and students, may see their student populations diminish 
until those schools change. At the same time, charter schools are 
public schools, held to high standards of public accountability. And 
unlike vouchers, public school choice preserves indeed, it helps to 
fulfill the promise of equal access upon which public education and the 
common school tradition have always been premised.
  In my State, we've enthusiastically embraced both the charter 
movement and public school choice. We introduced charter schools and 
statewide public school choice almost 5 years ago. A greater percentage 
of families exercise public school choice in Delaware today than in any 
other State in the Nation, and in the last year alone the number of 
Delaware students in charter schools has more than doubled. The 
evidence is that these reforms, together with high standards and broad-
based educator accountability, are working to raise student achievement 
and to narrow the achievement gap between students of different racial 
and ethnic backgrounds. Students tested last spring, at every grade 
level tested and in each of our counties, made significant progress 
when measured against their peers throughout the country, as well as 
against Delaware's own academic standards.
  Let me tell you briefly, about one of the schools in my State that is 
helping to accomplish both of these goals, raising student achievement 
and closing the achievement gap. In Delaware, we have close to 200 
public schools. Students in all of these schools take Delaware's State 
tests measuring what students know and can do in reading, writing, and 
math. We also measure our schools by the incidence of poverty, from 
highest to lowest. The school with the highest incidence of poverty in 
my State is the East Side Charter School in Wilmington, DE. The 
incidence of poverty there is over 80 percent. Its students are almost 
all minority. It is right in the center of the projects in Wilmington. 
In the first year after East Side Charter School opened its doors, 
almost none of its students met our State standards in math. Last 
spring, there was only one school in our State where every third grader 
who took our math test met or exceeded our standards. That school was 
the East Side Charter School.
  It's a remarkable story, and it has been possible because the East 
Side Charter School is a remarkable school. Kids can come early and 
stay late. They have a longer school year. They wear school uniforms. 
Parents have to sign something akin to a contract of mutual 
responsibility. Educators are given greater authority to innovate and 
initiate. With highly qualified and highly motivated teachers and with 
strong leadership from active citizens who want to make a positive 
difference for their community, the East Side Charter School has become 
a beacon of hope to parents and students in a neighborhood where you 
can no longer have a pizza or newspaper delivered to your door. It has 
provided parents in that community with an option for their children 
they might not otherwise have had.
  The legislation that Senator Gregg and I are introducing today aims 
to make similar options available in communities all across our 
country, particularly in low-income communities and communities with 
low-performing schools, just like Wilmington's East Side. It encourages 
States and local districts with low-performing schools to expand public 
school choice. It also eliminates many of the artificial barriers to 
charter school financing that have prevented the supply of new charter 
schools from keeping pace with the growing demand among parents and 
students.
  Language was inserted in the FY 2001 Labor-HHS appropriations bill 
giving students the right to transfer out of failing schools. Some 
similar provision will likely be included in any legislation we pass 
this year reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 
Unfortunately, the right to transfer out of a failing school will not 
by itself translate into a meaningful array of alternatives for 
parents. Nor, as far as I am concerned, will a $1,500 voucher, though I 
know there is some disagreement on this point even among supporters of 
this bill. In some high poverty school districts, there are no higher 
performing schools for students to transfer into. In other districts, 
administrative barriers or capacity constraints could well limit the 
choice provided to parents to a single alternative, which may or may 
not be the school that parents believe best meets their child's needs. 
Moreover, at least in my State--and I don't pretend to know the 
circumstances in other

[[Page 5177]]

States--you can't get your kid in to get an education at the private or 
parochial schools for $1,500.
  Unless we help to establish new charter schools in communities with 
low-performing schools, and unless we provide encouragement to the 
States and local school districts that serve these communities to 
create broad and meaningful choice at the intra-district level and 
ideally at the inter-district level, the right to ``choice out'' of a 
failing school will be little more than an empty promise. The 
Empowering Parents Act aims to keep the promise by helping to ensure 
that parents are empowered with real choices for their children within 
the public school system.
  The Empowering Parents Act does three things. First, it provides $200 
million in competitive grants to States and local districts with low-
performing schools for the purpose of expanding public school choice. 
This will help to make the right to public school choice that we intend 
to make part of title I a meaningful right for parents with children 
trapped in failing schools.
  Second, the Empowering Parents Act expands the credit enhancement 
demonstration for charter schools that passed last year and also 
exempts all interest on charter school loans from federal taxes. This 
will leverage private financing to help charter schools finance start-
up costs, as well as the costs associated with the acquisition and 
renovation of facilities, the most commonly cited barriers to the 
establishment of new charter schools.
  Third and finally, the Empowering Parents Act creates incentives for 
States to provide per pupil facilities funding programs for charter 
schools. According to a recent GAO report, ``Charter Schools; Limited 
Access to Facility Financing,'' the per pupil allocations that charter 
schools receive as public schools to educate public school students are 
frequently just a fraction of the amount that is provided annually to 
traditional public schools for operating expenses and thus provide none 
of the funding that traditional public schools receive for facility 
costs. Additionally, GAO reports that school districts that are allowed 
to share local facility financing with charter schools often do not. 
The result is that charter schools are forced to literally take money 
out of the classroom, dipping into funds meant to pay teachers and 
purchase textbooks, just so they can secure a roof over their students' 
heads. The Empowering Parents Act would provide matching grants to 
states to encourage them to level the playing field between charters 
and traditional public schools with respect to facility financing.
  Mr. President, the call for competition and choice among accountable 
public schools can be heard all across America. Just 7 years ago, there 
was only one charter school in existence in the entire nation. Today, 
36 States and the District of Columbia have charter school laws, and 
there are over 350,000 students attending nearly 1,700 charter schools. 
As fast as the movement for charters and choice has grown, the reality 
is that the ideal of involved and empowered parents choosing a child's 
school from among a range of diverse but accountable public schools 
remains the exception rather than the rule in America. In fact, 7 out 
of 10 charter schools around the country have a waiting list of 
students they can't accommodate. The charters and choice movement is a 
grassroots movement, and thus, appropriately, most of action is taking 
place at the state and local level. There is an old saying, however, 
that you must lead, follow, or get out of the way. Charters and choice 
are sparking innovation in schools around the country, and there is a 
role for the Federal Government to play in spreading the synergy.
  A key role of the Federal Government in the area of education is to 
level the playing field for children that come from tough, 
disadvantaged backgrounds. We are committed in America to the principle 
that every child deserves a real chance to reach high standards of 
achievement. I have said often that we need to start our efforts to 
level the playing field by ensuring that every child enters 
kindergarten ready to learn, which means promoting early childhood 
education, beginning with full funding for Head Start. However, charter 
schools and public school choice should also play an integral part in 
our efforts to close the achievement gap, because whenever a child is 
left trapped in a failing school, it means that we have failed as a 
nation to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all and special 
privileges for none.
  Passing the Empowering Parents Act would represent a landmark federal 
commitment to parental involvement and parental empowerment in public 
education. It would send a clear message from coast to coast that we 
will no longer settle in America for a public education system that 
traps students in schools that fail to meet high standards. That's not 
a Democrat message. That's not a Republican message. That's a message 
of hope and opportunity, a message I believe Republicans and Democrats 
can embrace together.
  When Lynne Cheney visited Delaware in the heat of last fall's 
Presidential campaign to shine a national spotlight on the East Side 
Charter School, it was a great tribute to the tremendous 
accomplishments of the parents, teachers, and administrators who have 
poured their energy and creativity into that remarkable school. It was 
also a tribute, I believe, to our bipartisan spirit of cooperation in 
Delaware and to the progress that we can achieve when we work 
together--Republicans and Democrats, legislators and business leaders, 
parents and teachers. Our charters and choice legislation passed on 
consecutive days back in 1995. One bill was sponsored by a Republican, 
one by a Democrat. It was truly a bipartisan effort.
  That's the way we do things in Delaware. We work together. We get 
things done. It is this uncommon tradition of putting aside partisan 
differences and doing what is right for Delaware that has enabled our 
State to shine. And it is this same spirit of common-sense bipartisan 
that is needed in Washington if America is to embrace a new century 
strong and confident in our future.
  We will have plenty to fight about in this Chamber, this year and in 
the years to come. I suggest to my colleagues, let's take the 
opportunities we have to find common ground and to show the American 
people that we can work together to make a difference for communities 
and families across this country. As the broad bipartisan support for 
this legislation attests, the Empowering Parents Act provides us with 
an opportunity to govern in a positive, progressive, and bipartisan 
fashion. I ask my colleagues to join with Senator Gregg and myself to 
help pass the Empowering Parents Act, and thereby to register a win for 
bipartisanship and more importantly, a win for children trapped in 
schools that are failing to meet their potential or allow their 
students to reach their own potential.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 670. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate methyl 
tertiary butyl ether from the United States fuel supply and to increase 
production and use of ethanol, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am joining with my good friend, 
the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry Committee, Senator Richard Lugar, to introduce the ``Renewable 
Fuels Act of 2001.'' Over the years, Senator Lugar has been one of the 
nation's leading champions of American agriculture and energy 
independence, and I am pleased to work with him on this effort to 
encourage the use of ethanol in our nation's fuel supply in a way that 
improves air quality and strengthens the nation's energy security.
  The bill Senator Lugar and I are introducing today is a refinement of 
a proposal we introduced in the last Congress. Many of the provisions 
of that bill were included in legislation reported by the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee in September 2000. 
Unfortunately, time ran out on the 106th Congress before final action 
could be taken on that committee bill.

[[Page 5178]]

  The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 allows states to address a serious 
groundwater contamination problem by phasing out MTBE and establishes a 
nationwide renewable fuels standard that encourages the environmentally 
sound use of ethanol. The effect of this measure will be to get MTBE 
out of groundwater, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, diversify our 
domestic liquid fuels production base, and promote investment and job 
creation in rural communities. The bill will also result in substantial 
reductions in taxpayer outlays by enabling farmers to value-add their 
products into renewable liquid fuels and reduce oil imports that are 
exacerbating our trade deficit.
  The genesis of this legislation is found in the compelling need to 
resolve the problem of MTBE contamination of groundwater in states such 
as California. As we discovered in the 106th Congress, the solution to 
this problem, whose roots go back over a decade to the congressional 
debate on the merits of RFG with oxygenates, is extremely complex.
  A review of the Congressional Record debate shows that the Congress 
had several major objectives in enacting the RFG with oxygenates 
program, including: to improve the environment by reducing mobile 
source vehicle emissions (VOC ozone precursors; toxics; NOx; 
and CO2); to improve energy security by reducing oil 
imports; to stimulate the economy, especially in rural areas; and to 
provide regulatory relief to the automobile industry, small businesses/
stationary sources, and state and local authorities.
  While the detection of MTBE in drinking water supplies in some areas 
of the country has encouraged criticism of the RFG program, the record 
shows that most of the Congress' original goals for the RFG program 
have been met and, in many cases, even surpassed. The RFG program has, 
in fact, provided refiners with environmentally clean, high performance 
additives that have substantially extended gasoline supplies. Due to 
the increased demand for oxygenated fuels like ethanol, capital has 
been invested in farmer-owned cooperative ethanol plants throughout the 
Midwest, and rural communities have benefited from quality jobs and 
expanded tax bases. Harmful emissions in our major cities, from 
California to the Northeast, have fallen dramatically. Our trade 
deficit has been substantially reduced, and taxpayers have saved 
hundreds of millions of dollars in farm program costs.
  In short, the RFG program has been one of the most successful 
private/public sector programs in recent memory.
  Some of our colleagues from areas that have experienced MTBE water 
contamination problems believe the entire RFG program should be 
dismantled. They argue that the RFG program has run its course and that 
states should be allowed to waive its oxygenate requirement.
  I do not accept this argument and will strongly resist any effort to 
grant state petitions to opt out of the 1990 RFG minimum oxygen 
standard requirements. That option is not supported by the science and 
would simply encourage multinational oil companies to import more crude 
oil and to use energy-intensive methods to refine it into toxic 
aromatics that combust into highly carcinogenic benzene.
  I am sympathetic, however, to concern about the existence of MTBE in 
groundwater, and Senator Lugar and I offer an alternative response to 
the states' struggle to deal with this issue. We believe the Renewable 
Fuels Act addresses this challenge swiftly and effectively without 
abandoning the documented benefits of the RFG program.
  Consider the agricultural, energy and environmental benefits of our 
approach. A September 6, 2000, United States Department of Agriculture 
analysis concluded that the Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, provision in 
our bill would increase ethanol demand from baseline projections of 2.0 
billion gallons, to a minimum of 4.6 billion gallons, over the next 10 
years. This is a substantial increase when compared with sales last 
year, which reached approximately 1.5 billion gallons. USDA found that, 
under this renewable fuels standard, farm incomes would increase by an 
average of $1.3 billion per year each year from 2000 to 2010. That 
totals to more than $13 billion for hard hit rural communities. 
Taxpayer outlays would drop dramatically due to the improved, market-
based terms of trade in basic farm commodities. Some experts calculate 
that the nation's taxpayers would directly benefit from billions of 
dollars per year in farm program savings.
  At today's price for imported oil, our bill's RFS provision would 
save the country over $4 billion annually in current dollars. The 
``Renewable Fuels Act of 2001'' will triple the use of renewable fuels 
in the United States over the next 10 years. This tripling represents 
less than 4 percent of the nation's total motor fuels consumption, 
which is well less than the oil industry's projected demand growth over 
the next 10 years. However, while small in relationship to the market 
share of multinational oil companies, it would account for the lion's 
share of the stated goal of Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski when he recently announced his 
Committee's goal to reduce the Nation's oil import dependence over that 
same period.
  As for the environment, the Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 provides 
states like California with a way to get MTBE out of groundwater 
without sacrificing ethanol's contribution to the reduction of 
emissions of the greenhouses gases linked to global climate change.
  Finally, as impressive as its record has been, I believe the RFG 
minimum oxygen standard program has more to offer the country. And I am 
pleased to report that President Bush agrees with that analysis.
  In a visit to Sioux Falls, SD, earlier this month, the President has 
some encouraging words to say about the role of renewable fuels like 
ethanol. He emphasized his commitment ``to value-added processing, to 
make sure that ethanol is an integral part of the gasoline mixes in the 
United States.''
  I applaud President Bush's vision for ethanol. We agree that it is 
time to make ethanol an integral part of this country's fuel mix, in a 
manner that is predictable, sustainable, cost effective, and 
environmentally responsible. The ``Renewable Fuels Act of 2001'' meets 
all of these criteria.
  What Senator Lugar and I are suggesting is a truly national program 
that addresses geographically diverse needs in a synergistic manner. 
This comprehensive approach has encountered skepticism from well 
meaning interests that are, understandably, focused on their own 
priorities: state officials who are intent on cleaning up their 
groundwater; elected officials who are philosophically troubled by the 
perception of federal mandates; and farm groups whose fear of the 
vagaries of the legislative process make them reluctant to lock arms 
with traditional foes.
  Senator Lugar and I present the Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 as a new 
paradigm for reconciling historically competitive interests in a manner 
that will promote a broad range of national benefits. It is my hope 
that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as 
representatives of state and local governments, the environmental 
community, the oil industry and farm groups, will take an open minded 
look at this approach.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle in 
reintroducing the Renewable Fuels Act of 2001. This bill is intended to 
form the basis for a solution to the MTBE problem that will be 
acceptable to all regions of the nation.
  In July 1999, an independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in 
Gasoline called for major reductions in the use of MTBE as an additive 
in gasoline. They did so because of growing evidence and public 
concerns regarding pollution of drinking water supplies by MTBE. These 
trends are particularly acute in areas of the country using 
Reformulated Gasoline.
  Because of concerns regarding water pollution, it is clear that the 
existing situation regarding MTBE is not tenable. MTBE is on its way 
out. The question is what kind of legislation is needed to facilitate 
its departure and

[[Page 5179]]

whether that legislation will be based on consideration of all of the 
environmental and energy security issues involved.
  The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 will be good for our economy and our 
environment. Most important of all, it will facilitate the development 
of renewable fuels, a development critical to ensuring U.S. national 
and economic security and stabilizing gas prices.
  The security of our whole economy revolves around our over-dependence 
on energy sources from the unstable nations of the Middle East. We must 
be able to address this challenge. Finding an environmentally sensitive 
way to promote the use of renewable fuels is an important part of this 
challenge. That is what I believe our bill will accomplish.
  The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 will lead to at least four billion 
seven hundred million gallons of ethanol being produced in 2011 
compared to one billion, six hundred million gallons today. Under the 
Act, one gallon of cellulosic ethanol will count for one and one-half 
gallons of regular ethanol in determining whether a refiner has met the 
Renewable Fuels Standard in a particular year. This will greatly 
accelerate the development of renewable fuels made from cellulosic 
biomass. These fuels produce no net greenhouse gas emissions.
  The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 will establish a nationwide Renewable 
Fuels Standard, RFS, that would increase the current use of renewable 
fuels from 0.6 percent of all motor fuel sold in the United States in 
2000 to 1.5 percent by 2011. Refiners who produced renewable fuels 
beyond the standard could sell credits to other refiners who chose to 
under comply with the RFS.
  This bill would require the EPA Administrator to end the use of MTBE 
within four years in order to protect the public health and the 
environment. And it would establish strict ``anti backsliding 
provisions'' to capture all of the air quality benefits of MTBE and 
ethanol as MTBE is phased down and then phased out.
  Unlike last year's bill, this bill retains the Minimum Oxygen 
Standard in the Clean Air Act Amendments. However, the Clean Air Act is 
amended to ensure that, after MTBE is removed from gasoline, there will 
be no backsliding in clean air provisions related to ground level ozone 
and toxic air pollution and also that there will be strict limitations 
on the aromatic content of reformulated gasoline and of all gasoline in 
order to further safeguard clean air.
  I hope that my colleagues will examine this bill as well as other 
legislative approaches that would spur the development of renewable 
fuels such as ethanol, whether derived from corn or other agricultural 
or plant materials, while maintaining strict clean air requirements.

                          ____________________