[Pages S3216-S3222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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.
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.

[[Page S3217]]

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 rouge 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 dollar 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 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

[[Page S3218]]

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.
``(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

[[Page S3219]]

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 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

[[Page S3220]]

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.
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; NO<inf>x</inf>;
and CO<inf>2</inf>); 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

[[Page S3221]]

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 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.

[[Page S3222]]

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.

____________________