John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Senior Care Safety Act of 2000. This bill prohibits nursing homes and other long-term care facilities operating under the Social Security and Medicaid systems from employing individuals with a demonstrated history of violent, criminal behavior or drug dealing. To that end, it requires these nursing facilities to conduct criminal background checks on all of their prospective employees as part of the hiring process. Nursing facilities that fail to conduct a background check prior to hiring an employee are subject to a civil fine of up to $5,000. The reason for these requirements is simple: we must ensure that our most defenseless senior Americans--those in need of long-term nursing care--are attended not by people with a demonstrated history of violent, criminal behavior, but by the most qualified and trustworthy individuals available. The Senior Care Safety Act provides nursing facilities with the tools necessary to accomplish this objective. It requires the Department of Justice to open federal databases of criminal background information to nursing homes so that they can promptly determine if prospective employees have a criminal record. The act provides that the Department of Justice provide this information without charge to the facility or the applicant. Furthermore, it ensures that those who comply with the background check requirement are insulated from liability for refusing to hire someone prohibited from working in a nursing facility by this provision. Finally, it guarantees the privacy of those individuals who are denied such employment due to a criminal record by prohibiting the use by a nursing facility of an individual's background information for any purpose other than complying with this act. It is tragic that a bill like this is necessary. But, while the overwhelming majority of those who care for the more than 40,000 senior citizens receiving 24-hour care in my home state of Missouri, and the more than 1.5 million of such seniors nationwide are dedicated and caring individuals, there are unfortunately too many examples of those who take advantage of this position of trust. There are far too many stories of convicted violent felons who have slipped through the cracks in the hiring process and have physically or mentally abused our frailest citizens in the very institutions that their families have entrusted them for care. This bill will play an important role in ensuring that when a family entrusts their loved ones to a nursing facility, they can rest assured that those who are looking after them are not violent felons. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to pass this important legislation in the time remaining this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a significant vote I will cast--a vote in favor of permanent normal trade relations for China. It is significant, but difficult. Difficult because the Chinese have shown--in everything from predatory trade practices, to threatening our national security, to total disregard for religious freedom and human rights--a disturbing lack of trustworthiness. And furthermore, the current administration seems trapped in a cycle of failed policy. I deeply regret that our President, on behalf of the United States, has squandered multiple opportunities to protect U.S. interests and to promote American values in trade matters. The vote is significant because about one-fourth of the people in the world live in China. When we talk of China, we need to remember that we are talking about people, many of whom seek to embrace the same values that made America great, such as religious freedom, freedom of expression, and capitalism. They want to live free, while many of their leaders want only to amass power and rule with a heavy hand. I do not argue, as some do, that dropping the annual review of China's trading status will usher in all of these freedoms. Nor will it further protect U.S. security interests. That argument is tenuous, at best. The only thing that will usher in the freedom to express religious or political beliefs, to organize, to obtain a fair trial, and to be free from governmental intrusion, will be a transformation among China's highest government officials. This will not happen in the absence of a well-formulated policy underpinned by moral leadership on the part of the U.S. Presidency. The leader of the free world must lead the world toward freedom. For the sake of the Chinese people, it is my hope that the next President of the United States will take the initiative in a calculated and consistent manner to be a leader in this area, without the need to be prodded by Congress at every turn. Furthermore, the key to U.S. security interests lies in the hands of the Commander in Chief. If China joins the World Trade Organization, the United States does not alter its ability, or its responsibility, to protect our interests at home and to promote security abroad. While the WTO agreement has an explicit exception that states that WTO trade obligations do not supercede national security decisions, the fact is that the United States does not need the exception. The most fundamental role of the U.S. government is to protect the security interests of its people, period. We can count on other countries to attempt to steal our national secrets and to violate our security interests. It is the way of history, the conflict of powers. The breakdown in U.S. security with the Chinese has occurred because this Administration has not been vigilant to protect our interests. It did not and does not have to be that way in the future. Granting permanent normal trade relations to China does not alter the President's responsibility to promote American values or to protect U.S. security interests. However, granting PNTR to China does have a substantial impact on our ability to enforce our trade agreements. I would like to discuss this issue fully today because I believe it is central to the ability of American farmers and companies to crack open the Chinese market--on which Chinese officials, at times, appear to have a death grip. As we all know, China has been trying to accede to the WTO for over a decade. In order for this process to be complete, China has to negotiate the terms of the trade agreement that are satisfactory to the United States and other WTO members and must receive a favorable vote from the WTO members. Also, for the United States to benefit from those new terms, Congress has to grant to China what is known as ``permanent normal trade relations'' status. The Administration has concluded a trade agreement with China, and the President, Vice President, and entire Administration are now asking Congress to support PNTR. A fair trade relationship with China has the potential to give Missouri workers and farmers the ability to sell goods in a new market of more than one billion people. However, a relationship is not built on commitments alone. It must include accountability. In China's case, we have a new and improved trade agreement, but we must also be able to enforce those commitments. On the first issue--a solid agreement--there has been substantial progress made. China should open its market on equal terms to the United States. The U.S. market has been fully open to China for years. Although I would like to see complete reciprocity, I have reviewed the proposed agreement for China's WTO accession, and I believe it is a forward step toward opening China's market for U.S. products and services. This is a good deal for American jobs and Missouri's long- term economic growth. On everything from automobiles to agriculture, Missourians are prepared to embrace the opportunities the agreement could provide: overall average tariffs will go from 24 percent to 9 percent by 2005; agricultural tariffs will be cut nearly in half (31 percent to 17 percent); businesses will be able to bypass state-trading ``middle- men''; import standards for U.S. food goods will be based on sound science; competition will increase in all of the service sectors, like telecom, insurance, banking; the Internet will be open to U.S. investment; and the list goes on. The Missouri economy at large is poised to benefit substantially from further opening of the Chinese market. From the early to late 1990s, Missouri's exports increased by about 120 percent, going from about $65 million in 1993, to about $145 million in 1998. Most recently, China ranked in the top 10 countries for Missouri exports, up from the 16th position in 1993. Agriculture is the largest employer in my home state, and in fact, Missouri ranks 2nd in the nation in its number of farms. As I've traveled around the state, stopping in every county over the last few months, Missouri farmers and ranchers have expressed to me the importance of approving the agreement that has been reached on agriculture. Those I met at the Missouri State Fair and at Delta Days told me that trade is becoming the number one issue for farmers. Soybean farmers, for instance, must export about half of what they produce because there are simply not enough buyers in the United States. As the nation's sixth largest soybean producer, Missouri's soybean and soybean product exports were estimated at $586 million worldwide in 1998. China is the world's largest growth market for soybeans and soy products, and it has taken additional steps under the WTO agreement to further open its market. Tariffs will be 3 percent on soybeans and 5 percent on soybean meal, with no quota limits. For soybean oil, tariffs will drop to 9 percent, and the quota will be eliminated by 2006. Examples of how Missouri agriculture stands to benefit are limitless. Beef, for instance, could see huge gains. Currently, Missourians are not in any real sense able to export beef to China because of trade barriers. Under the WTO accession agreement, by 2004 China will lower its tariff from 45 percent to 12 percent on frozen beef, from 20 to 12 percent on variety meats, and from 45 to 25 percent on chilled beef. Also, China has agreed to accept all beef that is accompanied by a USDA certificate of wholesomeness. These are opportunities Missouri cattlemen want to embrace. Under the agreement, U.S. cattlemen gain parity with those in other countries to compete for a beef market that covers about a quarter of the world's consumers and is virtually wide- open for growth. I know that if Missouri farmers and ranchers are given the opportunity to compete on these fair terms, they will succeed. The WTO agreement could also help Missouri's manufacturing industry. Missouri's manufactured exports to China are broadly diversified, with almost every major product category registering exports to the Chinese market including processed foods, textiles, apparel, wood and paper products, chemicals, rubber and plastics, metal products, industrial machinery, computers, electronics, and transportation equipment. Missouri's exports to China are from all across the state and include a variety of small and mid-sized companies. Sales to China from St. Louis totaled $93 million in 1998, a 92 percent increase since 1993. Kansas City posted exports to China of $66 million in 1998, an increase of 169 percent since 1993. The exports from the Springfield area grew by 42 percent between these years. Clearly, however, these numbers could increase much more if China's market becomes truly open--if China keeps its promises outlined in the WTO agreement. I certainly do not claim to know exactly how changes in trade policy, such as China's WTO membership, will translate into real changes for people on a day-to-day basis, so I have set up a Missouri Trade Council to advise me on issues such as this. I would like to share a few of their thoughts. Gastineau Log Homes, in New Bloomfield, wants to see if it can tap into China's demand for American-style homes, by providing U.S. engineering expertise and the materials with which to make them. In Ava, MO, the Copeland plant (a subsidiary of Emerson Electric) explained how opening markets to one-fourth of the world's population can create jobs and substantially impact local communities. The Ava facility supplies the key components (scroll sets) for air-conditioning compressors. This plant would receive the benefits of the November agreement for these scroll sets by a reduction in industrial tariffs from 25 percent to 10 percent. Also, trading and distribution rights would be phased in over three years, so that Emerson Electric could distribute its scroll sets and compressors broadly, not just to its Suzhou plant, but to all distributors in China. And, Emerson Electric will be given the opportunity to service their products and establish service networks. The Copeland management has high expectations about sending their products to China. Right now, 40 percent of the plant's manufactured equipment goes to Asia, and the manager is expecting that percentage to nearly double. By 2003, exports to Asia well could be about 85 percent, and half of those exports are expected to go to Suzhou. Currently, the Ava plant employs about 350 Missourians, and the workforce is expected to double by 2003. After reviewing China's WTO accession agreement and examining its probable impact on Missouri businesses and farmers, I believe that while the agreement does not give the United States complete reciprocity, it does make substantial progress on China's commitment to open its markets. However, the U.S.-China trade relationship must also have accountability. On the second issue--the enforceability of the agreement--I have more serious misgivings about the impact of granting PNTR to China. The United States government has a responsibility to see that trade agreements we enter into are enforceable and enforced. My goal is to ensure that workers, farmers, and ranchers in Missouri receive the benefits promised to them through our international trade agreements. Unfortunately, there is a combination of factors that I find discouraging, and that I believe underscores the need to make changes to broader U.S. trade policy. These included China's record of noncompliance with its trade commitments, the United States' loss of leverage in the WTO to get cases enforced, and China's propensity to be a protectionist market like the EU which has repeatedly blocked imports of American agriculture. China's record of living up to its trade agreements has been dismal. China has frequently opened a door to U.S. companies only to frustrate their attempts to walk through it. For example, in the early 1990s, China reduced the import tariff on U.S. apples from 40 to 15 percent. However, by 1996, China had erected new backdoor barriers on apples and other agricultural products that U.S. exporters say were even more punitive than the original import tariffs. Another example is the 1992 Market Access Agreement in which China agreed to eliminate trade barriers to U.S. agriculture, manufactured products, and automobiles. Not only did China fail to comply with this agreement, the Chinese actually made negative changes that put U.S. businesses in a worse position than they were in prior to the agreement. For instance, the U.S. Trade Representative reported that on 176 items, import restrictions were abolished. However, the Chinese replaced those 176 old restrictions with 400 new restrictions that essentially make it harder for U.S. companies to export to China. The 1999 U.S. Trade Representative report said: ``By 1999, China had removed over 1,000 quotas and licenses. . . . But there are indications that China is erecting new barriers to restrict imports.'' Also, China adopted a new auto policy only two years after signing the Market Access Agreement that put auto manufacturers at a severe disadvantage compared to Chinese auto workers. I agree that China's record of noncompliance, considered alone, should not be dispositive of determining how to vote on PNTR. In fact, the Administration says that we have nothing to lose by allowing China into the WTO because by doing so, China agrees to ``deeper and broader'' commitments, and the United States gets the benefits of the WTO dispute settlement system to enforce those commitments. However, I believe the proponents of PNTR have left out an important aspect of this ``deal''--when the United States approves PNTR, we give up our ability to unilaterally retaliate against China if China doesn't live up to its commitments, and must instead rely on the WTO dispute resolution system. Unfortunately, the WTO dispute resolution procedures have been inadequate to enforce our rights in past cases where the United States has successfully challenged unfair trade practices of other countries. One of my constituents wrote the following: Granting PNTR will . . . reduce our ability to use unilateral tools to respond to continued Chinese failure to live up to its commitments. Our ability to take unilateral action is our only leverage against the Chinese government. Proponents of PNTR admit that only by using unilateral actions we were able to make even modest progress on intellectual property rights. The Chinese government has not lived up to the promises they made in every single trade agreement signed with the U.S. in the past ten years. This Missourian is absolutely correct. While the process for getting a WTO Panel Decision issued has become more favorable to the United States, the ability to enforce Panel Decisions has been diminished. In 1994, when the United States negotiated the WTO, the United States gave up the right to threaten higher levels of retaliation. The new standard is much more limited. The pre-1994 standard allowed a successful party (country) to impose a level of retaliation that was ``appropriate in the circumstances'' in relation to the violation proved. However, now we are bound retaliation levels that the WTO decides is ``equivalent to the nullification or impairment.'' This new standard has impaired our ability to enforce successful decisions, such as the one involving the export of U.S. beef to Europe. The detrimental effect of this loss of leverage on our ability to demand implementation of favorable WTO decisions is illustrated by the U.S.-EU beef case. The WTO authorized retaliation of only $120 million by the United States to address the EU's closed beef market. Compare this figure with the $4.6 billion the United States threatened against China when we were not bound by the WTO retaliation levels. I am not suggesting that the United States should use retaliation levels that are disproportionately harsh. I favor multilateral mechanisms to determine noncompliance with trade agreements. But I believe that once the United States has been successful in challenging another country's trade barriers, retaliation should be authorized to ensure enforcement. Denying the U.S. adequate tools to enforce a decision is similar to denying a plaintiff a judgment in a case he won. ``Winning'' just for the sake of being called the winner is not the objective when pursuing a WTO enforcement decision. U.S. ranchers want to sell beef to the EU not just be told by the WTO that the EU is violating its agreements. And, if China fails to comply with its commitments in the future, we will need to have the tools to enforce our rights. We need a policy that ensures results, not just paper promises. Missourians want some guarantee that inviting China into the WTO will result in enhanced export opportunities, not just never-ending litigation. To address the enforcement issue, I have taken a number of steps including the following. I worked directly with former Commerce Secretary Daley to set up a ``China Compliance and Enforcement Initiative'' within the Department of Commerce. At a Commerce Committee hearing, I told Secretary Daley that this would be my top priority. In response the Enforcement Initiative was set up, which does the following: Establishes a Deputy Assistant Secretary for China devoted to monitoring and enforcement of China's trade agreements; Sets up a rapid response team of 12 compliance trade specialists based in Washington, D.C. and in China; Provides U.S. businesses and others with detailed information about China's accession commitments, contact names, and up-to-date information on China's laws and regulations; Implements an accelerated investigation procedure to encourage China's compliance without having to initiate a WTO case (within 14 days of receiving a complaint about China's noncompliance, the rapid response team will engage Chinese officials and try to come to a resolution of the issue within 90 days); Gives U.S. companies a head start in the Chinese market by launching a trade promotion campaign, including missions, seminars, and trade shows; Closely monitors imports from China to ensure that our trade laws are enforced. Second, I am involved in an effort to get the Continued Dumping Act (S. 61) passed so that China will be unable to continually flood U.S. markets with unfair imports. This legislation provides for the penalties to be given to the injured industry in the United States if China continues to unfairly dump its products into the U.S. market after a decision has been made and penalties have been imposed. This bill would provide a powerful disincentive to foreign producers who dump their products in our market because it would give a financial benefit to U.S. manufacturers. Third, I introduced the ``SHOW-ME'' Act (S. 2548), which says that the United States should retain a more liberal standard of retaliation in the WTO for China. This is a principle I support for the WTO in general. If the United States has completed all of the required steps by initiating, arguing, and winning a case in the WTO, we should first give the other country some time to implement this WTO decision. However, if the country continues to disregard a decision that has been made by a neutral panel in the WTO, the United States should have greater flexibility when setting levels of retaliation. I support a policy that will give the United States more tools for enforcement, as opposed to reducing the amount available, which is unfortunately where recent trade negotiations have taken us. Along these same lines, I introduced the WTO Enforcement Act (S. 1073), which would ensure that U.S. businesses and farm interests are widely represented and heard during every stage of the WTO dispute settlement process, especially when it is necessary to threaten retaliation in order to enforce a WTO panel decision in their favor. Fifth, I have worked with newly-appointed Commerce Secretary Mineta to make trade enforcement a top priority during the remainder of this Administration. Specifically, I have communicated with Secretary Mineta my goal of attaining added flexibility for the United States in order to enforce our rights. Secretary Mineta ensured me in meetings and at a Commerce Committee hearing that this would be a priority. I am pleased to quote from his most recent statement about the issue: As we have recently discussed, I share your concerns about enforcement of dispute resolution cases under the WTO and the available means of retaliation. . . . I will make one of my top priorities enforcement of our trade laws and compliance with our trade agreements, particularly the WTO. Our goal must be to ensure that panel decisions are faithfully implemented. Let me assure you that I will work closely with you and members of the Administration to find effective means of retaliation when decisions are not property implemented. These are some of the initiatives I have recently undertaken to address Missourians'--and my own--concerns with China's past noncompliance record and our ability to enforce agreements in the future. I believe the job of opening markets begins, not ends, with the signing of agreements and the approval of PNTR for China. I know we have a continuing and great responsibility to ensure that America's farmers, ranchers, workers, and businesses receive the full benefit of the agreements that have been negotiated on their behalf. I embrace this responsibility on behalf of the millions of Missourians who are impacted by this vote and this issue. I am committed to monitor China's compliance with our trade agreements and demand action if they fail to keep their promises. In addition, I will continue to encourage this Administration, and the next, to be vigilant about enforcing our rights. Missourians deserve the opportunity to export their products according to the terms promised in agreements. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to reiterate the fact that there is, quite frankly, a declining satisfaction in America's heartland with our ability--or inability--to open foreign markets. The only way we will rebuild confidence in trade agreements is by real enforcement of existing agreements, not by entering into newer, more unreliable ones. It is time for U.S. trade policy to be fortified with a strong foundation--that of real enforcement. It is time that our policies lead to job creation in practice, not just in theory. It is simply unacceptable for the Chinese to repeatedly repackage the same deal with a new label and not live up to the commitments it makes. I will continue to work with all parties to fashion fair trade policies with China and all our trading partners to increase Missourians' access to world markets, which will create more jobs and a stronger economy. As a Senator from the Show Me State, I believe China, and other WTO members, need to show us that they are serious about living up to trade agreements. I will continue to work toward this goal.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President. I rise today to give honor to and remember the life of William F. Askew. Bill devoted his life to his nation, his family and to delivering the comfort of the Lord's word to the hearts of all those he touched. Bill enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1942 and served in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II. He also served in the Florida National Guard during the Korean Conflict. Bill married Doris Dillman in June, 1946, and together they had 9 children. Bill was the founding pastor of Arlington Heights Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida, for 15 years, before moving to Springfield's Noble Hill Baptist Church where he pastored for the next 26 years. In 1995, Bill retired from the pastorate, but continued to touch the lives of young people with the love of God by serving as the foundations class teacher at New Life Baptist Church. Bill understood that preaching God's word meant more than speaking from the pulpit on Sunday; it meant action as well. Bill participated in Springfield and area community activities. He served as a longtime member of the Springfield Northside Betterment Association and the Breakfast Club of the Ozarks. He served as General Manager of a 100,000 watt Christian Radio Station, KWFC, in Springfield since it first opened in 1968. And with all these activities, he still found time to be a member of the teaching faculty at Baptist Bible College. Bill's devotion to the Savior was his most prominent feature and shapes the legacy that he leaves with his 9 children, 34 grandchildren and 14 great grandchildren.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Senior Care Safety Act of 2000. This bill prohibits nursing homes and other long-term care facilities operating under the Social Security and Medicaid systems from employing individuals with a demonstrated history of violent, criminal behavior or drug dealing. To that end, it requires these nursing facilities to conduct criminal background checks on all of their prospective employees as part of the hiring process. Nursing facilities that fail to conduct a background check prior to hiring an employee are subject to a civil fine of up to $5,000. The reason for these requirements is simple: we must ensure that our most defenseless senior Americans--those in need of long-term nursing care--are attended not by people with a demonstrated history of violent, criminal behavior, but by the most qualified and trustworthy individuals available. The Senior Care Safety Act provides nursing facilities with the tools necessary to accomplish this objective. It requires the Department of Justice to open federal databases of criminal background information to nursing homes so that they can promptly determine if prospective employees have a criminal record. The act provides that the Department of Justice provide this information without charge to the facility or the applicant. Furthermore, it ensures that those who comply with the background check requirement are insulated from liability for refusing to hire someone prohibited from working in a nursing facility by this provision. Finally, it guarantees the privacy of those individuals who are denied such employment due to a criminal record by prohibiting the use by a nursing facility of an individual's background information for any purpose other than complying with this act. It is tragic that a bill like this is necessary. But, while the overwhelming majority of those who care for the more than 40,000 senior citizens receiving 24-hour care in my home state of Missouri, and the more than 1.5 million of such seniors nationwide are dedicated and caring individuals, there are unfortunately too many examples of those who take advantage of this position of trust. There are far too many stories of convicted violent felons who have slipped through the cracks in the hiring process and have physically or mentally abused our frailest citizens in the very institutions that their families have entrusted them for care. This bill will play an important role in ensuring that when a family entrusts their loved ones to a nursing facility, they can rest assured that those who are looking after them are not violent felons. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to pass this important legislation in the time remaining this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the International Consumer Safety Information Act. As we are all aware, there has been a tragic loss of life associated with defects in Firestone tires. The loss of 88 lives in the United States alone from defects in Firestone tires is extremely tragic. The death toll in other countries from this U.S. product is reportedly more than 50. Each of these people had dreams that will not be realized. There is nothing we can do that will ever compensate for the loss of one life. However, we have a responsibility to the American people and to consumers worldwide to do everything we can to create accountability and to ensure that innocent people are not put at such a high risk in the future. By quickly alerting consumers about motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment recalls around the globe, we will equip people with potentially life-saving information. American consumers should be provided with immediate, life-saving information on motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment recalls, regardless of whether the recall originated in the United States or another country. As the chairman of the Consumer Affairs and Foreign Commerce Subcommittee, I intend to do what I can on this issue. My consumer protection plan would provide consumers--via the Internet-- with more immediate information about recalls of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. U.S. drivers are just not finding out about the Firestone tire defects, but there were tire failures in Venezuela as far back as 1998, and in Saudi Arabia, 1999. It is simply unacceptable that American officials abroad did not inform the American public. My proposal would ensure that this does not happen again. Under the legislation I am introducing today, the President would negotiate an international agreement requiring foreign countries and the United States to maintain an Internet site to inform consumers worldwide of recalls of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. My bill includes the following key provisions: The international agreement would have countries include on an Internet site the names of companies that have issued recalls, the companies' contact information, the specific products that are being recalled, the countries in which the recalls are effective, and the date of the recall. In addition, the international agreement would set up guidelines for a company that initiate a recall of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to ensure that they disclose all relevant information to consumers and federal authorities in all countries it sells its products. Finally, the bill would make the Administration accountable for disclosing information on foreign recalls by ensuring that Congress is notified and by posting the information on an Internet site for the public. It is my hope that the Senate Commerce Committee will act quickly on this measure. At a Commerce Committee hearing this last Tuesday, I pointed out another harm that can come from a lack of adequate information about recalls. Almost half of all Ford Explorers, which was a model that used defective Firestone tires, that are assembled in the U.S. are made at a plant in Hazelwood, Missouri. I want to visit the workers employed at this plant. The plant has been closed the past two weeks and will not reopen to assemble the popular Ford Explorer until next Monday. Most of the 2,000 workers are not reporting to work and are unsure about their future. Their overtime is nonexistence, and due to the 15,000 Explorers that will not be produced, their profit-sharing is threatened. However, they did not complain about Ford's decision to close the plant in order to get tires out to consumers as quickly as possible. In fact, they were proud that the company was willing to take such a drastic measure to serve their customers. Most importantly, they want us all to realize that what we do and what we say up here makes a difference. It makes a difference in their lives, and it affects consumer confidence in the produce these workers sweat and toil to produce. My efforts today are intended to shine light on recalls worldwide. Consumers should know if there are recalls in other countries, and the Federal government should facilitate this transparency. The bill I am introducing today will hopefully ensure that consumers in the U.S.--and consumers worldwide--obtain updated information about recalls around the globe.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, E-commerce is growing at an unprecedented rate--$8 billion last year. With this increase in online purchases, we have made more products and services available to Americans--regardless of where they live. We are working to bridge the digital divide so all Americans, even low income and rural Americans can benefit from the opportunities the Internet provides. However, one thing we don't want to make ubiquitous is Internet fraud. Along with convenience, easy price comparisons, and limitless selection--this new medium also has provided a new opportunity to those who make their living defrauding the public. Fraud over the Internet, just as fraud over telephone lines and mail, is an increasing problem. In 1998, Congress passed the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act. I, like the rest of my colleagues recognized this problem and supported that effort. That law builds upon other federal laws that deal directly with telemarketing fraud. The 1998 law stiffened penalties for telemarketing fraud by toughening the sentencing guidelines--especially for crimes against the elderly. It requires criminal forfeiture to ensure the fruits of telemarketing crime are not used to commit further fraud, mandates victim restitution to ensure victims are the first ones compensated, adds conspiracy language to the list of telemarketing fraud penalties, and helps law enforcement zero in on quick-strike fraud operations by giving them the authority to move more quickly against suspected fraud. While I supported that law, I believe we need to do more. According to the National Consumers League, consumers lost over $3.2 million to Internet fraud last year. This is a 38 percent increase from 1998. The actual figure probably is much higher, since this number reflects only those who reported incidents to the National Consumer League's Fraud Watch. While it is true consumer protection laws under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission have been interpreted to cover Internet fraud--those laws are inadequate. Therefore, today, I am introducing a bill, An Act to Prevent Internet Fraud and Fraud Against the Elderly, to ensure that Internet fraud also is covered by federal criminal laws. It is important to me that the stiffer penalties contained in the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act for those targeting the elderly also cover fraud perpetrated over the Internet. Through work I have done over the last year, I have seen first hand the tragic results of schemes targeting our elderly. I held a hearing in the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and heard heart breaking testimony about scam artists--targeting the elderly--who are maybe the worst criminals on the planet. They target people, who in the twilight of their lives may lose their life savings, their independence and their dignity. I held events in Missouri, with the regional director of the Federal Trade Commission, educating those most venerable to these schemes on how to avoid becoming a victim. According the National Consumers League, seniors are the target for more than 20 percent of Internet fraud. Although this is lower than the 56 percent of seniors targeted by unscrupulous telemarketers, the number will only increase as more and more of our seniors begin to use the Internet. I strongly believe that education is crucial. That is why this bill also containing provisions giving the FTC the charge of educating our elderly. They currently have the largest network of information on fraud schemes. Through their Sentinel website, they have connected law enforcement agencies all over the world--giving them the ability to act quickly. In addition, they currently have the network in place designed to educate consumers on all areas of consumer protection law. The bill I am introducing today will expand current law to include the same crimes committed over the Internet. As now, fraud cases would be divided between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice. Mr. President. We cannot allow the criminals to stay ahead of the law. Internet crimes are being quickly developed and identified. We must make sure they are just as quickly stopped. We must provide the legal framework to insist that these criminals do not slip through the system due to a loophole.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as this body discusses the China Non- proliferation amendment, I would like to comment briefly on Chinese actions that have not only damaged the national security of the United States, but are antithetical to the peace and stability of the entire world--weapons of mass destruction and missile proliferation. I am dismayed that the government of the People's Republic of China has consistently brutalized its own population, intimidated its neighbors, and provided the world's most dangerous technology to ``States of Concern''--in direct violation of international agreements, domestic law, and fundamental international standards of behavior. It is time for the Senate to speak in a clear, definitive voice against China's actions. The facts are that China has provided nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technology, along with ballistic and cruise missiles to ``States of Concern''--previously referred to as ``Rogue Nations''-- including Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Algeria. Congress should not stand idly by as China continues these practices. Passage of the China Non-Proliferation amendment is a prudent step in the right direction to address this problem. The amendment is both a reasonable and measured response to the serious situation that this Administration has allowed to continue. While I prefer to see this bill, the China Non-proliferation Act, passed as a separate measure and not as an amendment to the China- Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, bill, it is now clear that the critical and timely nature of this issue, combined with the counterproductive actions of those trying to prevent its consideration, have left us in the position of having to vote on this today. I reject the notion that a vote on this amendment is a vote against granting PNTR to China. This is simply not the case. The Thompson amendment will not kill PNTR or even place conditions on granting PNTR for China. This amendment will simply stem the flow of unauthorized information on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technology by creating real consequences for proliferating countries. I believe that these consequences, coupled with strong leadership by the Executive Branch, can dramatically slow proliferation. Senator Thompson's amendment addresses proliferation concerns by requiring the President to submit a report to Congress identifying every person, company, or governmental entity of the major proliferating nations--China, Russia, and North Korea are currently on this list--against which credible evidence exists that the entity contributed to the design, development, production, or acquisition of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or ballistic or cruise missiles by a foreign person. Based on this report, the President would then be required to impose specific measures against foreign companies in these countries who have been identified as proliferators. For example, under this amendment if a Chinese company provided nuclear technology to Iran, the United States would deny all pending licenses and suspend all existing licenses for the sale of military items and military-civilian dual-use items and technology as controlled under the Commerce Control List to that company. Additionally, the President would be required to impose an across-the-board prohibition on any U.S. government purchases of goods or services from, and U.S. government assistance, including grants, loans, credits, or guarantees, to this company. In addition to the mandatory sanctions imposed on proliferating foreign companies, the amendment would also authorize the President to impose discretionary measures against the key supplier countries. Foreign companies do not act alone in the proliferation of weapons; it is quite clear that China, Russia, and North Korea all actively support proliferation activities, and therefore must be held accountable for their actions. This amendment recognizes this truth and would empower the President to apply discretionary measures against them as well, such as: Suspension of all military-to-military contacts and exchanges between the covered country and the United States; Suspension of all United States assistance to the covered country by the United States Government; Prohibition on the transfer or sale or after-sale servicing, including the provision of replacement parts, to the covered country or any national of the covered country of any item on the United States Munitions List, which includes all military items, and suspension of any agreement with the covered country or any national of the covered country for the co-development or co-production of any item on the United States Munitions List. Suspension of all scientific, academic, and technical exchanges between the covered country and the United States; Prohibition on the transfer or sale to the covered country or any national of the covered country of any item on the Commerce Control List, which includes military-civilian dual-use items, that is controlled for national security purposes and prohibition of after-sale servicing, including the provision of replacement parts for such items; Denial of access to capital markets of the United States by any company owned or controlled by nationals of the covered country; Prohibition on the transfer or sale to the covered country or any national of the covered country of any item on the Commerce Control List and prohibition of after-sale servicing, including the provision of replacement parts for such items. Due to the highly sensitive national security issues involved in cases of proliferation, any of the sanctions can be waived by the President if he determines: (1) that the person did not engage in the proliferation activities; (2) that the supplier country was taking appropriate actions to penalize entities for acts of proliferation and to deter future proliferation; or (3) that such a waiver was important to the national security of the United States. I believe that these measures, affecting both the proliferating company and country, if applied consistently and fairly by the President, can and will stem the serious problem of weapons proliferation. China, along with Russia and North Korea, must understand that there are real consequences for continuing this reckless behavior, and the United States must take a stand and lead the charge to stop such proliferation. Passage of the Thompson amendment will accomplish that goal. A firm stand against proliferation is desperately needed. Chinese proliferation, along with that of Russia and North Korea, is continuing unabated to the detriment of America's national security. It is well documented that China has provided sensitive technology to at least seven States of Concern, including Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, and Algeria. Most of these states have explicitly threatened the security of the United States and actively sponsored terrorism. The remaining countries are in regions where war is commonplace and the consequences for the use of WMD would be especially devastating. Of these proliferation cases, the two most horrendous cases are Pakistan and Iran. Pakistan is a nation of tremendous unrest and instability, and China has provided it with extensive nuclear and missile technology. Born in conflict, Pakistan was created with India out of one people and one territory, and conflict has defined this nation throughout its history. Pakistan fought three wars and numerous border skirmishes against India, its principal adversary. These battles have been mostly fought over the hotly contested Kashmir region bordering northeast Pakistan. The Kashmir conflict is widely accepted by International Affairs and Defense experts as one of the most likely conflicts to erupt into a nuclear war. China, to a great extent, has not only fostered the conflict through political posturing and land-grabbing, but it has also provided the nuclear weapons that would be used in such a war. China continues to provide critical nuclear and missile related technology to Pakistan, thereby further escalating the arms race and underlying conflict. In May 1998, India and Pakistan tested a total of eleven nuclear devices. This ushered Pakistan into--and reestablished India as part of--the world's most exclusive club of nuclear weapon states. Although India's nuclear program was created from mostly indigenous sources, Pakistan's nuclear program was purchased from the People's Republic of China. A recently declassified Central Intelligence Agency report states that during the early 1980's, China provided Pakistan blueprints of a full Chinese nuclear design that was tested in 1966. It appears it took Pakistan almost 20 years to test a weapon because they had difficulty translating the blueprints from Chinese. Since the 1980's, China has consistently provided Pakistan additional nuclear components and missiles. China has operated the Pakistani Cowhide Uranium-enrichment plant (needed for nuclear weapons production), provided designs for additional bombs and reactors, sold weapons grade uranium, sold 5,000 ring magnets for a nonsafeguarded nuclear enrichment program, and continues to provide assistance to nuclear facilities that are not safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. The IAEA ensures that nuclear facilities are not producing nuclear weapons grade material. China has also provided Pakistan with complete nuclear-capable missile and missile components. The most widely reported missile transfers are the M-11 missile, also called the CSS-7 or Ababeel. This nuclear capable missile, designed and produced in China, has a 300- kilometer range--placing many highly populated Indian cities at risk. Although it is unclear how many M-11s Pakistan currently possesses, it appears that China has been providing these missiles for almost a decade. Pakistan's nuclear-capable Medium Range Ballistic Missiles, (MRBM), named Ghauri and Shaheen, were developed as a result of extensive Chinese technology and assistance. The Ghauri has a quoted range of 1500 km, but during the actual flight test, the Ghauri flew only 600 km. Even at this shorted range, some of India's largest cities, including New Delhi and Bombay, would be at risk. The Shaheen, although not flight tested, is reported to have a range of 700 km, making its strike distance comparable to the Ghauri. What is especially disturbing is that this is just the beginning of the Chinese proliferation record regarding Pakistan. These transfers have allowed Pakistan to amass an incredibly capable and frightening nuclear and missile force. These transfers are in direct violation of international and domestic law. It is apparent that China and Chinese businesses have violated the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act, the Non- Proliferation Treaty, the Export-Import Bank Act, and the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act. With all these violations of international and domestic law, one must ask the question, ``What has the Clinton Administration done to stem the flow of nuclear and missile technology?'' The answer is sadly, ``very little.'' The Clinton Administration imposed only mild sanctions on China for providing the M-11 technology. However, these sanctions were quickly lifted when China ``agreed'' not to continue providing missile technology to Pakistan. Despite this ``agreement,'' China has not stopped the provision of missile and nuclear technology. I am troubled that the President seems to have accepted Chinese promises and reassurances without thoroughly examining the facts. For example, a July 1997, CIA report concluded that ``China was the single most important supplier of equipment and technology for weapons of mass destruction'' worldwide, and that China continues to be Pakistan's ``primary source of nuclear-related equipment and technology. . .'' The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Cui Tiankai, responded characteristically to these charges by stating that ``China's position on nuclear proliferation is very clear . . . It does not advocate, encourage, or engage in nuclear proliferation, nor does it assist other countries in developing nuclear weapons. It always undertakes its international legal obligations of preventing nuclear proliferation . . . China has always been cautious and responsible in handling its nuclear exports and exports of materials and facilities that might lead to nuclear proliferation.'' The Clinton Administration was apparently reading from the Chinese script when Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State, said during a Congressional hearing that, `` . . . we (the United States) have absolutely binding assurances from the Chinese, which we consider a commitment on their part not to export ring magnets or any other technologies to unsafeguarded facilities . . . The negotiating record is made up primarily of conversations, which were detailed and recorded, between US and Chinese officials.'' With the overwhelming evidence, it is mystifying that the Chinese spokesman could make such statements with a straight face, and it is extremely disappointing that the Administration apparently took China at its word. More than one and half billion people live in South Asia. I believe that Pakistan would not be in the position to start a nuclear war without Chinese assistance. Although we cannot reverse proliferation in Pakistan, we can, and should, take a stand to stop further transfers to Pakistan and other countries through passage of the China Non- Proliferation Act. Without taking a stand here, what will stop China from providing nuclear and missile technology to Palestine, or Sudan, or the renowned terrorist Osama Bin Ladan? The United States must take the lead, as the world's only Superpower, and stand against nuclear proliferation, which damages the security of the entire nation. Not only has China provided nuclear and missile technology to the dangerous and unstable region of South Asia, China has provided sensitive technology to Iran. Iran has been identified by U.S. government agencies, organizations, and entities, along with independent national security experts, as one of the major threats to US security. Iran's threat stems from several significant factors including its large population and armed forces; its geo-strategic and political location in the Middle East--along the straits of Hormuz and the Caspian Sea; an Islamic fundamentalist government; a drive to obtain weapons of mass destruction along with their associated delivery vehicles; stated opposition to the United States and United States' national interests; opposition to the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process; the de-stabilization of Lebanon--Israel's northern neighbor; and the use and sponsorship of terrorism in its own country and around the world. Due to these facts, the idea of providing nuclear, biological, chemical, and missile technology to Iran seems unbelievable, but it is a sad reality. According to a 1999 CIA report, ``Iran remains one of the most active countries seeking to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD, and Advanced Conventional Weapons, ACW, technology from abroad. In doing so, Tehran is attempting to develop an indigenous capability to produce various types of weapons--nuclear, chemical, and biological--and their delivery systems.'' Iran is obtaining much of this technology from China and Russia. The CIA report continues, ``for the second half of 1999, entities in Russia, North Korea, and China continued to supply the largest amount of ballistic missile-related goods, technology, and expertise to Iran. Tehran is using this assistance to support current production programs and to achieve its goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production of ballistic missiles. Iran already is producing Scud short-range ballistic missiles, SRBMs, and has built and publicly displayed prototypes for the Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, MRBM, which had its initial flight test in July 1998. In addition, Iran's Defense Minister last year publicly acknowledged the development of the Shahab- 4, originally calling it a more capable ballistic missile than the Shahab-3, but later categorizing it as solely a space launch vehicle with no military applications. Iran's Defense Minister also has publicly mentioned plans for a ``Shahab 5.'' Such statements, made against the backdrop of sustained cooperation with Russian, North Korean, and Chinese entities, strongly suggest that Tehran intends to develop a longer-range ballistic missile capability in the near future.'' These longer ranged missiles would be capable of striking targets in Europe and perhaps in the United States. China is ``a key supplier'' of nuclear technology to Iran, with over $60 million annually in sales and at least fourteen Chinese nuclear experts working at Iranian nuclear facilities. In 1991, China supplied Iran with a research reactor capable of producing plutonium and a calutron, a technology that can be used to enrich uranium to weapons- grade. (Calutrons enriched the uranium in the ``Little Boy'' bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, and were at the center of Saddam Hussein's effort to develop an Iraqi nuclear bomb.) In 1994, China supplied a complete nuclear fusion research reactor facility to Iran, and provided technical assistance in making it operational. China also continues to work with two Iranian nuclear projects, a so-called ``research reactor'' and a zirconium production facility. It is well documented that China has provided Iran ``considerable'' chemical and biological weapon-related production equipment and technology. China has also provided sensitive ballistic missile technology for Iran's growing missile capability. Among other transfers, in 1994, China provided hundreds of missile guidance systems and computerized machine tools. This is just the beginning of Chinese proliferation to Iran. The sad fact is that Iran would not have these capabilities without Chinese assistance and American inaction. Although these transfers violate almost every non-proliferation law on the books, the Clinton Administration has only taken small and random acts against selected Chinese companies. These meaningless acts have done nothing to stem the proliferation, and without stronger laws, Chinese proliferation will continue. It is time for the United States to respond with authority to the continued threat of weapons proliferation. Although we need a President who is willing to lead, we also need more effective laws mandating the President to impose sanctions on foreign companies when they engage in proliferation, and authorizing him to take actions against nations violating international law. This is what the China Non-Proliferation Act will do, and I support passage of this amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Missouri for taking point on this very important measure that will protect a livelihood and a set of very essential opportunities that exist in downstream States. To send a surge of water downstream in the spring, when we are already at risk of flooding, could hurt the capacity of our farmers to produce. And then to compound the injury and add the insult of making the shipping of what they produce difficult, or impossible, or not competitive, would be very damaging. Over half of the people in my State of Missouri drink water from the Missouri River. We have come to rely on it as a resource. This doesn't detract from the overall ability to measure and evaluate what happens on the river. It simply says that prior to the plan we are not going to authorize a spring surge which would add flooding and jeopardize the livelihood of many individuals in Missouri and other States that border the Missouri River.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to grant the consent of Congress to the Kansas and Missouri Metropolitan Cultural District Compact. This bill would allow the people in 2002, or after, to consider additional projects which contribute or enhance the aesthetic, artistic, historical, intellectual of social development or appreciation of members of the general public. This definition has been expanded to include sports facilities. This compact has made the restoration of Kansas City's Union Station possible. The original enabling legislation, which passed in 1994 established a bi-state cultural district for the Kansas City metropolitan area of five counties in Western Missouri and Eastern Kansas. This provides a secure source of local funding for metropolitan cooperation across state lines to restore historic structures and cultural facilities. The Federal authority for this bi-state compact expires at the end of 2001. We must see to it that a new compact is approved to continue this successful venture. Mr. President, this legislation does not cost the Federal government any money. It is funded through a \1/8\ sales tax, passed by the voters of Jackson, Johnson, Clay and Platte counties, and merely needs Federal approval. This measure is a perfect example of the appropriate relationship between the Federal government and the states. This approval would allow these local communities to make decisions on how-- and whether--their tax dollars are to be spent on cultural activities. This bill has bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. The companion legislation, HR 4700, passed the House Judiciary Committee by voice vote and the full House also by voice vote. It is supported by the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, the Mid-American Regional Council, the Overland Park Chamber of Commerce, Kansas City Area Development Council, Johnson County President's Council, Labor- Management Council of Greater Kansas City, Jackson County Executive, Kansas Governor Bill Graves, and Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senator from Iowa may consume in opposing this motion to strike.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2000. This bill will assist our nation's volunteer firefighters, who daily risk their lives to protect our families, friends and neighbors. The legislation I am introducing will allow volunteer fire departments to accept much needed fire-fighting supplies from manufacturers and others by limiting the liability of companies and fire departments that donate certified surplus equipment. In the United States today, the local fire department is expected to be protector of life, property and environmental safety concerns. Many communities must rely on the capable and courageous men and women in the local volunteer fire department to protect lives and safety. In fact, 75 percent of firefighters in this country are volunteers. Most volunteer departments serve small, rural communities and are quite often the only fire fighting services available for these areas. Unfortunately, one of the largest problems faced by volunteer fire services is lack of sufficient resources. Too often, these departments are struggling to provide their members with adequate protective clothing, safety devices and training programs. In my home state of Missouri, there are approximately 450 fire departments throughout the state that have a budget of less than $15,000 per year. Many have budgets under $7,000/year and there are even some under $2,000/year. After paying insurance premiums, most departments do not even have $5,000 in their operating budgets. This is simply not enough money to purchase new and much needed fire-fighting equipment. In addition, the cost of fire and emergency medical apparatus and equipment has steadily increased over the past 20-30 years. Because of this, volunteer firefighters spend a large amount of time raising money for new equipment; time that could be better spent providing training to respond to emergencies. Fire protection equipment is constantly improving and advancing with new state-of-the-art innovation. Because industry is constantly updating its fire protection, it is not unusual for plants and factories to accumulate surplus fire equipment that is slightly dated, but still effective, and most is almost new, or never used. Despite the excellent condition of most of these surplus items, company attorneys usually refuse to allow donations to fire departments, which desperately need this equipment. Companies routinely destroy surplus equipment to guarantee it will never be used by other firefighters. Pressure bottles for breathing apparatus are cut in half and the regulators buried. Protective fire coats are cut apart. Fire trucks are broken up and sold for scrap. All of this is done to prevent any liability from falling on corporate donors. Approximately $20 million per year in surplus equipment is scrapped, while a lot of rural departments go without the most basic supplies, such as protective clothing. Tragically, each year millions of dollars worth of fire equipment is destroyed instead of donated to these volunteer fire departments. Mr. President, it does not make sense that quality fire-fighting tools are destroyed because of fear of liability by those who wish to donate their unused equipment. According to some estimates, over 800,000 volunteer firefighters nationwide save state and local governments $36.8 billion annually. We need to support the volunteer fire departments, and Congress should start by removing liability barriers that keep volunteer firefighters from receiving perfectly safe, donated equipment. Under this bill a person who donates qualified fire control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire company will not be liable in civil damages in any State or Federal Court for personal injuries, property damage, or death proximately caused by a defect in the equipment. In order to protect firefighters from faulty donated equipment, this bill requires the equipment to be recertified as safe by an authorized technician. The bill does not protect those persons who act with malice, gross negligence, or recklessness in making the donation; nor does it protect the manufacturer of the donated equipment. Mr. President, this bill is supported by a number of firefighting organizations. In States that have removed liability barriers through legislation similar to this, volunteer fire companies have received millions of dollars in quality fire fighting equipment. For example, in 1997, the Texas state legislature passed a bill that limited the liability of companies who donated surplus equipment to fire departments. Prior to passage of this bill, companies in Texas had refrained from donating their used equipment for fear of potential lawsuits. Now, companies donate their surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments. The donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. The program has already received in excess of six million dollars worth of equipment for volunteer fire departments. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Castle. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in ending the wasteful destruction of useful fire equipment, saving taxpayer funds, and better equipping our volunteer firefighters to save lives. I am proud to introduce this bill and look forward to working to ensure that the federal government increases its commitment to the men and women who make up our local volunteer fire departments.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2000. This bill will assist our nation's volunteer firefighters, who daily risk their lives to protect our families, friends and neighbors. The legislation I am introducing will allow volunteer fire departments to accept much needed fire-fighting supplies from manufacturers and others by limiting the liability of companies and fire departments that donate certified surplus equipment. In the United States today, the local fire department is expected to be protector of life, property and environmental safety concerns. Many communities must rely on the capable and courageous men and women in the local volunteer fire department to protect lives and safety. In fact, 75 percent of firefighters in this country are volunteers. Most volunteer departments serve small, rural communities and are quite often the only fire fighting services available for these areas. Unfortunately, one of the largest problems faced by volunteer fire services is lack of sufficient resources. Too often, these departments are struggling to provide their members with adequate protective clothing, safety devices and training programs. In my home state of Missouri, there are approximately 450 fire departments throughout the state that have a budget of less than $15,000 per year. Many have budgets under $7,000/year and there are even some under $2,000/year. After paying insurance premiums, most departments do not even have $5,000 in their operating budgets. This is simply not enough money to purchase new and much needed fire-fighting equipment. In addition, the cost of fire and emergency medical apparatus and equipment has steadily increased over the past 20-30 years. Because of this, volunteer firefighters spend a large amount of time raising money for new equipment; time that could be better spent providing training to respond to emergencies. Fire protection equipment is constantly improving and advancing with new state-of-the-art innovation. Because industry is constantly updating its fire protection, it is not unusual for plants and factories to accumulate surplus fire equipment that is slightly dated, but still effective, and most is almost new, or never used. Despite the excellent condition of most of these surplus items, company attorneys usually refuse to allow donations to fire departments, which desperately need this equipment. Companies routinely destroy surplus equipment to guarantee it will never be used by other firefighters. Pressure bottles for breathing apparatus are cut in half and the regulators buried. Protective fire coats are cut apart. Fire trucks are broken up and sold for scrap. All of this is done to prevent any liability from falling on corporate donors. Approximately $20 million per year in surplus equipment is scrapped, while a lot of rural departments go without the most basic supplies, such as protective clothing. Tragically, each year millions of dollars worth of fire equipment is destroyed instead of donated to these volunteer fire departments. Mr. President, it does not make sense that quality fire-fighting tools are destroyed because of fear of liability by those who wish to donate their unused equipment. According to some estimates, over 800,000 volunteer firefighters nationwide save state and local governments $36.8 billion annually. We need to support the volunteer fire departments, and Congress should start by removing liability barriers that keep volunteer firefighters from receiving perfectly safe, donated equipment. Under this bill a person who donates qualified fire control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire company will not be liable in civil damages in any State or Federal Court for personal injuries, property damage, or death proximately caused by a defect in the equipment. In order to protect firefighters from faulty donated equipment, this bill requires the equipment to be recertified as safe by an authorized technician. The bill does not protect those persons who act with malice, gross negligence, or recklessness in making the donation; nor does it protect the manufacturer of the donated equipment. Mr. President, this bill is supported by a number of firefighting organizations. In States that have removed liability barriers through legislation similar to this, volunteer fire companies have received millions of dollars in quality fire fighting equipment. For example, in 1997, the Texas state legislature passed a bill that limited the liability of companies who donated surplus equipment to fire departments. Prior to passage of this bill, companies in Texas had refrained from donating their used equipment for fear of potential lawsuits. Now, companies donate their surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments. The donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. The program has already received in excess of six million dollars worth of equipment for volunteer fire departments. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Castle. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in ending the wasteful destruction of useful fire equipment, saving taxpayer funds, and better equipping our volunteer firefighters to save lives. I am proud to introduce this bill and look forward to working to ensure that the federal government increases its commitment to the men and women who make up our local volunteer fire departments.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in recent years, our nation has achieved tremendous advances in its War on Cancer--including developing breakthrough therapies and expanding the cancer care delivery system of convenient and low-cost community settings. This progress has enabled us to achieve an unprecedented reduction in American cancer deaths, which began in 1998. Today, 90% of all chemotherapy treatments are delivered in community settings like doctors' offices and outpatient hospital settings. Two important components of Medicare reimbursement for outpatient cancer treatments support these community care sites: payment for drugs themselves; and payment for the services of the physicians, nurses, and other caregivers who treat patients with cancer. Unfortunately, the Health Care Financing Administration has targeted outpatient cancer therapy services for deep budget cuts. HCFA has proposed to reduce drastically Medicare reimbursement rates for cancer drugs by unilaterally changing the definition of ``average wholesale price,'' which is at the heart of the current reimbursement formula. While there are indications that drug reimbursements have often exceeded doctors' and hospitals' costs, these margins have been used to help cover costs for professional services, which are inadequately reimbursed according to the cancer community, the General Accounting Office, and HCFA itself. Yet HCFA has not made any adjustments in these professional services payments. The planned cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates threaten to force doctors to send seniors with cancer out of the community settings where they now receive care and into more expensive in-patient settings. As a result, seniors may lose the option of receiving cancer treatments from the caregivers of their choice in settings that are close to the support structure of family, friends, and community. In addition, since the cost of cancer treatments are generally higher in hospital in- patient settings than they are in outpatient settings, this ill- conceived proposal to force seniors into hospitals will actually cause Medicare spending to rise. Mr. President, I have heard from many Missourians--doctors, patients, and hospital officials--about how the Administration's planned cuts in Medicare outpatient cancer care reimbursement rates will negatively impact patient care. I would like to share with my colleagues what some of them have told me. Dr. Burton Needles of St. Louis wrote to me to say that his patients prefer receiving chemotherapy in his office rather than in the hospital, but that the planned cuts would make it impossible for him to continue treating Medicare cancer patients in his office. On the other side of the state in Kansas City, Dr. Christopher Sirridge said that the result would be less accessible care for seniors with cancer, and even higher costs for the Medicare program. In Columbia, officials at the Ellis Fischel Cancer Center have told me that HCFA's change in reimbursement rates would make it extremely difficult for them to continue to be a source of chemotherapy and supportive care for cancer patients. And, finally, Mr. President, let me share the words of a cancer patient, Darlene Bahr, from St. Louis. Ms. Bahr wrote to me: ``I have been fighting cancer for 18 years. This is the fourth time I have cancer. I have been on a total of four years of chemo, which had been successful. I am now on chemo and hope it will be successful again.'' Ms. Bahr continues: ``If the physician's office and the hospital cannot afford to give me these drugs, where will I get them? Does Medicare want to eliminate cancer care?'' Mr. President, Medicare beneficiaries like Ms. Bahr--who are facing battles against cancer--must not be saddled with the added burden of worrying about whether they will receive the care they need, in the setting they choose. Many doctors have communicated to HCFA and Congress that the Administration's plan to cut payments for cancer- fighting drug treatments will likely prevent doctors from delivering outpatient cancer care--leaving thousands of seniors without this preferred, and lower cost, option. Congress must act to ensure that our progress in cancer treatment is not undermined by bureaucratic, inappropriate changes to Medicare reimbursement rates for cancer care. Therefore, Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Cancer Care Preservation Act, which will guarantee that HCFA cannot implement any reductions to Medicare reimbursement for outpatient cancer treatment unless those changes: are developed in concert with the General Accounting Office, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and representatives of the cancer care community, including patients, survivors, nurses, physicians, and researchers; provide for appropriate payment rates for outpatient cancer therapy services, based upon the determinations made by the General Accounting Office; and are authorized by an act of Congress. My legislation also will require GAO to complete a formal nationwide analysis to determine the physician and non-physician clinical resources necessary to provide safe outpatient cancer therapy services. In addition, GAO must determine the appropriate payment rates for such services under the Medicare program. Medicare beneficiaries with cancer must be confident that they will continue to receive the care they need, in the setting they choose, without risk of arbitrary and unexpected reductions in reimbursement that may force their doctors to cease offering treatment or refer them to a different facility for treatment. So today, I urge my colleagues to join with me in ensuring that our seniors receive full access to the life-saving therapies they need in the settings they choose, by cosponsoring the Cancer Care Preservation Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cancer Care Preservation Act be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in recent years, our nation has achieved tremendous advances in its War on Cancer--including developing breakthrough therapies and expanding the cancer care delivery system of convenient and low-cost community settings. This progress has enabled us to achieve an unprecedented reduction in American cancer deaths, which began in 1998. Today, 90% of all chemotherapy treatments are delivered in community settings like doctors' offices and outpatient hospital settings. Two important components of Medicare reimbursement for outpatient cancer treatments support these community care sites: payment for drugs themselves; and payment for the services of the physicians, nurses, and other caregivers who treat patients with cancer. Unfortunately, the Health Care Financing Administration has targeted outpatient cancer therapy services for deep budget cuts. HCFA has proposed to reduce drastically Medicare reimbursement rates for cancer drugs by unilaterally changing the definition of ``average wholesale price,'' which is at the heart of the current reimbursement formula. While there are indications that drug reimbursements have often exceeded doctors' and hospitals' costs, these margins have been used to help cover costs for professional services, which are inadequately reimbursed according to the cancer community, the General Accounting Office, and HCFA itself. Yet HCFA has not made any adjustments in these professional services payments. The planned cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates threaten to force doctors to send seniors with cancer out of the community settings where they now receive care and into more expensive in-patient settings. As a result, seniors may lose the option of receiving cancer treatments from the caregivers of their choice in settings that are close to the support structure of family, friends, and community. In addition, since the cost of cancer treatments are generally higher in hospital in- patient settings than they are in outpatient settings, this ill- conceived proposal to force seniors into hospitals will actually cause Medicare spending to rise. Mr. President, I have heard from many Missourians--doctors, patients, and hospital officials--about how the Administration's planned cuts in Medicare outpatient cancer care reimbursement rates will negatively impact patient care. I would like to share with my colleagues what some of them have told me. Dr. Burton Needles of St. Louis wrote to me to say that his patients prefer receiving chemotherapy in his office rather than in the hospital, but that the planned cuts would make it impossible for him to continue treating Medicare cancer patients in his office. On the other side of the state in Kansas City, Dr. Christopher Sirridge said that the result would be less accessible care for seniors with cancer, and even higher costs for the Medicare program. In Columbia, officials at the Ellis Fischel Cancer Center have told me that HCFA's change in reimbursement rates would make it extremely difficult for them to continue to be a source of chemotherapy and supportive care for cancer patients. And, finally, Mr. President, let me share the words of a cancer patient, Darlene Bahr, from St. Louis. Ms. Bahr wrote to me: ``I have been fighting cancer for 18 years. This is the fourth time I have cancer. I have been on a total of four years of chemo, which had been successful. I am now on chemo and hope it will be successful again.'' Ms. Bahr continues: ``If the physician's office and the hospital cannot afford to give me these drugs, where will I get them? Does Medicare want to eliminate cancer care?'' Mr. President, Medicare beneficiaries like Ms. Bahr--who are facing battles against cancer--must not be saddled with the added burden of worrying about whether they will receive the care they need, in the setting they choose. Many doctors have communicated to HCFA and Congress that the Administration's plan to cut payments for cancer- fighting drug treatments will likely prevent doctors from delivering outpatient cancer care--leaving thousands of seniors without this preferred, and lower cost, option. Congress must act to ensure that our progress in cancer treatment is not undermined by bureaucratic, inappropriate changes to Medicare reimbursement rates for cancer care. Therefore, Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Cancer Care Preservation Act, which will guarantee that HCFA cannot implement any reductions to Medicare reimbursement for outpatient cancer treatment unless those changes: are developed in concert with the General Accounting Office, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and representatives of the cancer care community, including patients, survivors, nurses, physicians, and researchers; provide for appropriate payment rates for outpatient cancer therapy services, based upon the determinations made by the General Accounting Office; and are authorized by an act of Congress. My legislation also will require GAO to complete a formal nationwide analysis to determine the physician and non-physician clinical resources necessary to provide safe outpatient cancer therapy services. In addition, GAO must determine the appropriate payment rates for such services under the Medicare program. Medicare beneficiaries with cancer must be confident that they will continue to receive the care they need, in the setting they choose, without risk of arbitrary and unexpected reductions in reimbursement that may force their doctors to cease offering treatment or refer them to a different facility for treatment. So today, I urge my colleagues to join with me in ensuring that our seniors receive full access to the life-saving therapies they need in the settings they choose, by cosponsoring the Cancer Care Preservation Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cancer Care Preservation Act be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an urgent issue of great concern to me. Over the past eighteen months, terrible violence has occurred and is still taking place in Indonesia's Moluccan (Maluku) Islands, focused in the provincial capital of Ambon, and no end is in sight. In this Indonesian province, religious conflict between Christians and Muslims has led to the loss of up to 10,000 lives and the displacement of up to 500,000 people. To my great dismay, the Indonesian government has had little success in protecting Christians. In the Moluccas in the last two years almost 10,000 buildings and churches have been burnt and mass killings go largely unpunished. Since, the situation has intensified with the arrival of members of the Laskar (Jihad) Force. The Laskar Jihad is a group of over 2,000 Muslim militants who sailed to the Moluccas from the main island of Java. Efforts by the United States to keep this group out was in vain. Indonesia adhered to her open inter-island immigration policy and the group was allowed to go to the Moluccas. Due to internal political unrest and continuing economic depression, the police forces and military are unable or unwilling to restore order. The necessity to bring the populace under the rule of law and order has intensified due to some reports that the Muslim Jihad Force has given the Christians in the city of Ambon until July 31st to vacate the city. If they do not leave in compliance with this ultimatum, they probably will be murdered. Mr. President, the Molucca islands, known previously as the Spice Islands, have had a long history of contact and trade with Europe. The Spice Islands were greatly valued for their nutmeg and clove production. Due to this prolonged and extensive contact, the Moluccas have a much higher percentage of Christians than other parts of Indonesia. Indonesian President Abdurrahaman Wahid supports a policy of tolerance between the two religions, but such cooperation is not forthcoming. A history of heavy-handed authoritarianism, practiced by the Indonesian military under ex-President Suharto, resulted in the suppression of a range of disputes between the two groups. When Suharto's rule collapsed, these arguments were vented, and sectarian violence soon erupted. The spark came in January of 1999, the end of the Muslim month of Ramadan, when a minor incident on Ambon led to 160 deaths and villages burned to the ground. The violence escalated leading to a greater frequency of killings and the destruction of churches and mosques. To further complicate this horrendous situation, the military has not acted consistently neutral in this conflict, aiding Muslims militants against the Christians in several disturbing instances. The situation is desperate. Mr. President, I would like to thank our Secretary of State, Ms. Madeline Albright, for her continuing work with the Indonesian government to alleviate this horrible religious strife in Indonesia. It is important for the United States to vigilantly and immediately pressure the Indonesian government to continue to take steps to restore civil order, foster dialogue between the Christians and the Muslims, and help the communities find a way to peacefully coexist. The U.S. also needs to press Vice President Megawati Sukarnoputri to find both short-term and long-term solutions to this problem--for she has expressly been given this task. In addition, the State Department must continue its push to let humanitarian workers and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) into the Moluccas to alleviate some of the human suffering that is occurring as a result of the warfare. The Indonesian government has taken several positive steps towards ending the violence, including the appointment of a Hindu to head the police forces in the area. This nomination, as a gesture of non-partisanship, was a great stride in the right direction. However, we must work to ensure that all actions taken by the police and the military are fair, even-handed, and contribute to stopping the violence. Indonesia has also, to my pleasure, recently mounted a campaign to eject the Jihad Force from the Moluccas. This development should alleviate some of the violence, but the basic problems remain unsolved. The government of Indonesia must do more. In addition, the United States must continue to immediately press for a solution to this bloody situation in the hopes of establishing a peace and stability that would end the persecution of Christians in the Moluccans. Thank you.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his kindness to me. I certainly am not the one to object to that unanimous consent. I appreciate that very much. I express my unequivocal support, and I rise to do so for the many efforts that we are making in this Congress to reform U.S. policy on embargoes of food and medicine. Now is the time to reevaluate the policies we have engaged in in the past that are perpetuating losses to America. Food embargoes can be summed up as a big loss: a loss to the U.S. economy, a loss of jobs, a loss of markets. For example, embargoed countries buy 14 percent of the world's total rice, 10 percent of the world's total wheat purchases, and the list goes on. When we lose those markets for America, we should have a very good reason. There should be some benefit if we are going to give up access to 14 percent of the world's rice import market, 10 percent of the world's wheat market, for soybean farmers, cattlemen, hog farmers, poultry producers, cotton, and corn farmers. The nation of Cuba, for example, imports about 22 million pounds of pork a year. Someone says that is important to the livestock farmers. Feed that pig corn before exporting it, so it is important to the grain farmers, as well. The embargo causes a loss in America's foreign policy. Often we think we will inflict some sort of pressure or injury on another country and, instead of hurting them, we help them. I don't think there was any more dramatic case of that than the Soviet grain embargo with 17 million tons of grain and those contracts were canceled. Instead of hurting the Soviet Union, they replaced the contracts in the world marketplace at a $250 million benefit to the Soviet Union. Instead of hurting the former Soviet Union, we helped the former Soviet Union. That particular weapon was dangerous. Using food and medicine as an embargo is dangerous because that weapon backfires. Instead of hurting our opponent, we helped our opponent. Who did we hurt? We hurt the American farm agricultural community. We hurt the food processing community. We need to make a commitment to ourselves that we need to reform this area of embargoing food and medicine resources. The provision the Senator from Kansas and I and others will likely offer today simply reaffirms what we have been trying to do for some time; that is, to get real reform of humanitarian sanctions. I will cosponsor Senator Roberts' and Senator Baucus' amendment. I support it fully. However, the amendment should not be necessary. Twice we have passed sanctions reform for food and medicine in the Senate. Why is it necessary to do this a third time? My clear preference is to pass sanctions reform for all countries, not only for Cuba. We should reform the sanctions regime for all countries, not only Cuba, and we should ensure that future sanctions will not be imposed arbitrarily. Last year, the Senate accepted overwhelmingly, by a vote of 70-28, accepted an amendment that I and many of my colleagues offered. That amendment lifts food and medicine sanctions across the board, not only applying the lifting of the sanctions to Cuba. When we went to the House-Senate conference, the democratic process was derailed. We were not voted down. The conference was shut down because the votes were there to affect what the Senate had clearly voted in favor of. That is, the reformulation of our policy in regard to food and medicine embargoes. The conference was shut down by a select few individuals in the Congress who were outside of the conference committee. This reform proposal was then adopted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I am pleased the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has embraced the concept, which the Senate voted 70-28 in favor of, in spite of the fact this was shot down when the committee was shut down in the conference last year. Once again, this provision passed the Senate this year. Senators Dorgan and Gorton offered it as an amendment in the agricultural appropriations markup, and it was accepted overwhelmingly. Once again, we are faced with a House-Senate conference. It would be very troublesome to me if the democratic process is not allowed to work, especially after we have seen the will of Congress and the American people. That will is clearly expressed as a will to reform and embrace the reform of sanctions imposed by the President. It has passed the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, and it has passed the Senate twice. Some version of this effort has now passed the House of Representatives and is broadly supported all across America. I hold in my hand a list of about 50 organizations, dozens and dozens and dozens of organizations, including the American Farm Bureau, the National Farmers Union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Gulf Ports of the Americas Association, the AFL-CIO. That is a pretty broad set of groups that want to reform this practice of embargoes. I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT. We are today offering yet another amendment because there is concern that the democratic process in the agricultural appropriations House-Senate conference will not be respected. Let me be clear. We would not have to be here today offering this amendment that says ``don't enforce the law,'' if we in the Congress were allowed to change the law, which is the purpose of Congress. If you don't want to change the law, you don't need a Congress. You can have the same laws all the time. We found a law that is not working; we should change the law. This amendment will be a ``don't enforce the law'' amendment, but the truth is, our prior expressions on this are clear. We ought to change the law so we won't have to talk about withdrawing funding for enforcement. My preference is to get this issue resolved in the agricultural appropriations conference and pass embargo reform for all countries and for future sanctions. We need to send real embargo reform to the President's desk this year. That should be our objective. I will support this amendment today which I am cosponsor of, but real reform, and reforming the regime, the framework in which these sanctions are proposed, is what we ought to do. It is what we have done. I believe, ultimately, it is what we will do for the benefit of not only those who work in agriculture and who respect foreign policy but for future generations and the relations of the United States with other countries. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Arizona, for his remarks in regard to this challenge, especially as it relates to the South Pacific. Today, we have received very troublesome information about parts of Indonesia where there is this kind of tension which is threatening the peace, well-being, and the capacity of individuals to exercise their own religious beliefs in ways they see fit. This troublesome disorder is to be noted and understood, and we should speak out on it. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about something closer to home for me. Perhaps one of the most important things that has ever been known or understood in the economy of Missouri is the Missouri River. It is part of the lifeblood of our State. It transports commerce from one part of the State to another and from our State down through the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico and around the world. There are some troublesome issues regarding the flows in the Missouri River. They relate to the energy and water appropriations bill which includes specific measures relating to language in this year's bill that is identical to language found in previous bills. Under normal Senate procedure once a committee acts and reports out a bill, the bill comes to the floor, and if a Senator does not like a certain provision in the bill, then that Senator has the right to move to strike that position. That is a guaranteed right. However, it appears that one of the provisions, which is totally consistent with language that has been in previous bills regarding flows in the Missouri River system, is not to the liking of some individual Senators. In particular, the minority leader has indicated his opposition to Section 103. Senator Daschle has done what he could to prevent debate on this section, and has worked to make sure the bill does not come to the floor at all. That is a harsh and inappropriate way for us to act. If any Senator does not like a provision, then that Senator can move to strike the provision, and the Senate can vote on such a motion. Unfortunately, this election to stall; to interrupt the progress and business of the Senate; to say we do not want to allow a bill to come to the floor as it was reported by the committee and as it has come year after year is a way to interrupt the business of the Senate, is inappropriate. I was pleased that earlier this afternoon the majority leader filed a cloture motion on the energy and water appropriations measure, but it is unfortunate that he had to do so. I regret the majority leader had to take such action, but because the Democrats insisted on stalling the normal legislative process, such action was necessary. The Missouri River and the Mississippi River are the two most valued treasures of Missouri citizens. They are essential for not only transportation in our State but about 40 percent of all the people in our State get their drinking water out of those rivers. They are important for irrigation and for cost-efficient transportation. I have had the privilege through the decades of fighting to protect that resource, not only for human consumption but for transportation as well. As attorney general, I was involved in litigation that went all the way to the Supreme Court. I was pleased to be part of that, to be a moving factor in that litigation which protected our waterflows at that time in the river. I watched as the Missouri River, when it had inadequate flows, paralyzed a community. I remember years ago when I was Governor, an ice bridge developed. This was a natural impairment of the flow north of Missouri in the river and north of the city of St. Joseph. Instead of the water flowing down, the ice jam backed up the water. The river levels fell and a great city such as St. Joseph, MO, was without water. When I went to look at the water intake facility for St. Joseph, I noticed the water was a foot or two below the intake. We worked night and day to get a new pump and a new system of drawing water out of the river. Proper river flows are essential to the well- being of our State. In the committee report of the energy and water appropriations bill, Section 103 prohibits the expenditure of resources to diminish the flow or to otherwise tamper with the flow of the river because the river flows are so essential to the well-being of our State. The Corps' plan for rewriting the way the river will be managed is known as the Missouri River Master Manual. It would send additional surges of water down in the spring, which would cause flooding, and withhold additional water in the fall, which would cause low levels in the river. If you make the level of the river low in the fall, the crop which has been grown can't be shipped as efficiently when there is inadequate river flow for transportation. Of course, you may not have a crop to ship if in the spring you release so much water that you cause widespread flooding. This flooding potential concerns many of our communities. I have worked closely with the rest of the Missouri delegation in the Congress, the Missouri Farm Bureau, and the Mid- America Regional Council 2000. We uniformly oppose management of the river in a way that would cause flooding in the Spring, and then a restriction of the flow of the river in the fall which would make impossible the kind of transportation upon which our farm, agricultural, and other industries must rely. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently recommended to the Army Corps of Engineers a spring pulse or spring rise on the Missouri River. This recommendation is irresponsible and dangerous. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to do this because it is interested in improving environmental conditions for certain species of fish and birds. We all are concerned about fish and birds, the shorebirds, the piping plover, and the shark-like pallid sturgeon fish. But this protection should not come at the expense of the lives of thousands of people living downstream. Section 103 to H.R. 4733, forbids any funding in the bill from being used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual to allow for an increase in the springtime water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snowmelt period in the States. This spring release, or spring rise, or spring pulse would be dangerous for all citizens living and working downstream from Gavins Point, located on the border of Nebraska and South Dakota. It normally takes about 12 days for water to travel from Gavins Point to St. Louis. During the spring, weather in the Midwest is especially unpredictable. It is usually said if you don't like the weather, just wait a bit. If it is that unpredictable, especially in the spring, it is very difficult to correctly predict the weather for a 12-day period. And if you are going to send a big pulse of water down the river and then, as you are in the process of doing so, there is a substantial rainstorm or series of storms that develop, the very purpose of restricting flooding and providing a basis for reasonable flow in the river is defeated. If you are already sending a charge of water down the river that is closer to the capacity of the river, any additional rain from nature would create widespread flooding in the downstream communities. The combination of a spring rise and a heavy rain during the 12-day period would increase greatly the chances for downstream flooding. The spring rise would come at a time of the year when downstream citizens are the most vulnerable to flooding. The Corps' plan provides less flood control and less navigability than the current plan, thus it should not be imposed. I oppose the Corps' plan for rewriting the Missouri River Master Manual, and I call on the Corps to adopt a plan that better suits a balance among water uses. If the President decides, after we have passed the bill with this same provision in it that we have had in it for the last several years, to veto it, it is his prerogative. But what that tells the citizens of the lower Missouri basin is that the Clinton-Gore administration is willing to flood downstream midwestern communities. It is that simple. Section 103 provides the necessary protection for all citizens downstream from the Gavins Point Dam who live and work along the banks of the Missouri River. In closing, each Senator is entitled to his or her opinion on any piece of legislation, but the Senator should understand that that opinion should be reflected in the legislative process with opportunities to strike. That opinion should not be expressed by keeping legislation reported by committees from coming to the floor. We simply want to debate section 103 and any motion with regard to this commonsense provision. We are willing to live by the will of the Senate in determining what should be the outcome. We believe the availability of this legislation should not be curtailed, especially since it includes identical language found in the last several years of this same energy and water appropriations. As a matter of fact, it is the will of the committee which has sent it to the floor. With that in mind, I look forward to working to protect the interests of Missouri citizens, to protect them against flooding in the spring and to protect the output and available water resources for a flow which will support navigation in the fall. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today, the Senate passed the Conference Report reflecting the agreement between the House and Senate to provide needed relief to American families from the onerous marriage tax penalty. I am pleased to support this agreement. For too long, the current tax code has been at war with our values, penalizing the basic social institution: marriage. The American people know that this is unfair--they know it is not right that the code penalizes marriage. 25 million American couples pay an average of approximately $1,400 in marriage penalty annually as a result of the marriage penalty. Ending this penalty will give couples the freedom to make their own choices with their money. The conference agreement between the House and the Senate will make the standard deduction for married couples double that of singles. This is especially important to families that do not itemize their tax returns. It will also make the 15 percent tax bracket double the size of that for single people and fix the marriage penalties associated with the Alternative Minimum Tax and the Earned Income Credit. Doubling the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples will benefit all married couples. It is just and fair that all couples benefit from this bill, whether one spouse works outside the home, or both do so. Most importantly, it will begin to provide this much-needed relief this year, so that the American people will see that their government recognizes and values the institution of marriage. The President has indicated that he will veto this bill. That is unfortunate. If the President is truly for ending the marriage penalty, as he has said, he will sign this bipartisan bill, which passed with the support of 60 percent of the House of Representatives. The Senate has also voted on this bill in a bipartisan manner, approving the Conference Report by a vote of 60-34. I hope the President will change his mind and join us in bringing this historic tax relief to American families. This bill will help 830,000 couples in Missouri, couples like Bruce and Kay Morton, from Camdenton, MO, who have written to me and asked for me to help bring an end to this unfair penalty. With this conference agreement, the House and Senate stand united in trying to help couples like the Mortons. I respectfully ask the President to join us. This conference agreement demonstrates our support for an important principle: that families should not be taxed extra because they are married. Couples choosing marriage are making the right choice for society. It is in our interest to encourage them to make this choice. Unfortunately, the marriage penalty discourages this choice. I believe that the government, in its policies, should uphold the basic values that give strength and vitality to our culture. Marriage is one of those values, and it is time for the government to stop punishing this value. The marriage penalty has endured for too long and harmed too many couples. It is time to abolish the prejudice that charges higher taxes for being married. It is time to take the tax out of saying ``I do.''

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of considering title IV of H.R. 4461, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, as amended on July 18, 2000, by unanimous consent. (The UC is as follows: That all after the enacting clause of H.R. 4461 be stricken and the text of S. 2536 with a modified division B be inserted in lieu thereof, and that the new text be treated as original text for the purpose of further amendment, and that no point of order be waived.) At the request of the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the current tax code is at war with our values--the tax code penalizes the basic social institution: marriage. The American people know that this is unfair--they know it is not right that the code penalizes marriage. I commend the Senate on the vote we are going to take today to end this long-standing problem. Twenty-five million American couples pay an average of approximately $1,400 in marriage penalty annually as a result of the marriage penalty. Ending this penalty gives couples the freedom to make their own choices with their money. Couples could use the $1,400 for: retirement, education, home, children's needs. This bill will also provide needed tax relief to American families-- 39 million American married couples, 830,000 in Missouri. Couples like Bruce and Kay Morton, from Camdenton, MO, who suffer from this unfair penalty. Mr. Morton wrote me a note so simple that even a Senator could understand it: ``Please vote yes for the Marriage Tax relief of 2000.'' Another Missourian, Travis Harms, of Independence, Missouri, wrote to tell me that the marriage penalty hits him and his wife, Laura. Mr. Harms graciously offered me his services in ending the marriage penalty. ``I would like to thank you for your support and effort towards the elimination of the unfair `marriage tax.' If there is any way I can support or encourage others to help this dream become a reality, I would be honored to help.'' I am grateful to Travis Harms and Bruce Morton for their support. And I want to repay them by making sure we end this unfair penalty on marriage. The marriage penalty places an undue burden on American families. According to the Tax Foundation, an American family spends more of their family budget on taxes than on health care, food, clothing, and shelter combined. The tax bill should not be the biggest bill families like the Morton's and Harms' face. And families certainly should not be taxed extra because they are married. Couples choosing marriage are making the right choice for society. It is in our interest to encourage them to make this choice. Unfortunately, the marriage penalty discourages this choice. The marriage penalty may actually contribute to one of society's most serious and enduring problems. There are now twice as many single parent households in America than there were when this penalty was first enacted. In its policies, the government should uphold the basic values that give strength and vitality to our culture. Marriage and family are a cornerstone of civilization, but are heavily penalized by the federal tax system. The marriage penalty is so patently unfair no one will defend it. Those on the other side of the aisle are making a stab at addressing the marriage penalty, even though they are not willing to provide relief to all couples who face this unfair penalty. Their bill implements a choose or lose system for some couples who are subject to the marriage penalty. Their bill phases out marriage penalty relief, and does not cover all of the couples who face this unfair penalty. This issue, however, is not about income, it's about fairness. It is unfair to tax married couples more than single people, no matter what their income. The Finance Committee bill provides tax relief to all married couples. In addition, the Finance Committee bill makes sure that couples do not face the risk of differential treatment. Under the minority bill, one family with a husband earning $50,000 and a mother staying home with her children will pay more in taxes than a family with a combined income of $50,000, with the wife and husband each earning $25,000. This system creates a disincentive for parents to stay at home with their children. The Republican plan will treat all couples equally. While the minority bill is flawed, I am encouraged that they are finally acknowledging that the marriage penalty is a problem. I am also encouraged that President Clinton has also acknowledged the unfair nature of the marriage penalty. But unfortunately, Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has announced that he would advise the President to veto marriage penalty relief. I say to the President and to my colleagues on the other side: being against the marriage penalty means that you have to be willing to eliminate it. You cannot just say you oppose the penalty, and then fight to keep the penalty in law, or to keep part of the penalty in law for some people. Join us to vote for the elimination of the penalty, and let us bring this important tax relief bill to the American people together. The marriage penalty has endured for too long and harmed too many couples. It is time to abolish the prejudice that charges higher taxes for being married. It is time to take the tax out of saying ``I do.''

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. It is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Merrill and Barbara Sindt of Jefferson City, Missouri, who will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary in August. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Sindts' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Gordon Hinckley, who celebrated his 90th birthday on June 23, 2000. Mr. Hinckley is a remarkable individual. He has witnessed and been involved in many of the events that have shaped our nation into the greatest the world has ever known. The longevity of his life has meant much more, however, to the many relatives and friends whose lives he has touched over the last 90 years. Mr. Hinckley's celebration of 90 years of life is a testament to America. His achievements are significant and deserve to be recognized. I would like to join his many friends, relatives, and colleagues in wishing him health and happiness, including rich and fulfilling friendships, in the future. I salute him.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, I do not want to object, but I want to clarify. How much time have I consumed already with my explanation? Maybe I should ask, is the hour in addition to what I have already used?