John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the concerns of Missouri farmers and ranchers about concentration in the agriculture sector and about individual farmers' ability to compete and to get fair prices for their commodities. Missouri is a ``farm state'', so ensuring fair competition in markets is an important issue to me. The state of Missouri is ranked second in the list of states with the most number of farms--only Texas has more. Missouri's varying topography and climate makes for a very agriculturally diverse state. Farmers and ranchers produce over 40 commodities, 22 of which are ranked in the top ten among the states. Missouri is a leader in such crops as beef, soybeans, hay, and rice, as well as watermelon and concord grapes. Having diversity and the ability to change has allowed Missouri farmers to maintain their livelihood for generations. More than 88 percent of the farms in Missouri are family or individually owned, and 8 percent are partnerships. It is easy to see that Missouri is a state that values small and family farms--which are the bedrock of Missouri's rural communities. As I have traveled around Missouri--visiting every county in the state--Missouri farmers and ranchers have repeatedly told me that increasing concentration of the processing and packing industry has resulted--and will continue to result--in a less competitive market environment and lower prices for producers. I have been responding to these concerns, and I am taking further action today. Last year, I asked the Department of Justice to create a high-level post within the Antitrust Division to specialize in agriculture-related mergers and transactions. The Administration responded by appointing a representative for agriculture in the Department of Justice. This appointment is a step in the right direction, but producers still have multiple concerns that need to be addressed. Today, I am introducing three bills to address Missouri and American farmers' concerns about agriculture concentration and market competition. In addition to listening to Missouri farmers on this issue, I have reviewed a resolution that was considered in the Missouri State Legislature about competition in the agricultural economy. The Ninetieth General Assembly of Missouri called upon the 106th Congress to take an initiative on federal law governing agriculture concentration. Missouri State Concurrent Resolution 27 (S. Con. Res. 27) is a bipartisan resolution outlining what the Missouri legislature recommends the federal government should do to address the issue of concentration. The resolution passed the Missouri State Senate and was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee to the full House. In drafting the package of bills I am introducing today, I studied the recommendations and objectives in State Senator Maxwell's Missouri resolution as well as including important provisions of my own. Mr. President, the bill I'm introducing today--the Fair Play of Family Farms Act--does the following things: First, this legislation adds ``sunshine'' to the merger process. It will give the Department of Agriculture more authority when it comes to mergers and acquisitions. This will heighten USDA's role in review of all proposed agriculture mergers so that the impact on farmers will be given more consideration, and will make these reviews public. The public will be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed merger, and the USDA will be required to do an impact analysis on producers on a regional basis. I want to ensure that if two agri-businesses merge, the impact on farmers are completely evaluated. Second, my bill creates a permanent position for an Assistant Attorney General for Agricultural Competition. This position will not simply be appointed by the President or by the Attorney General, but the position will require Senate review and confirmation. Also, my bill provides additional staffing for this new position. In addition, this bill provides additional funds and requires the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) to hire more litigation attorneys, economists, and investigators to enforce the Packers and Stockyard Act. An important element of this provision is that it requires GIPSA to put more investigators out ``in the field'' for oversight and investigations. I want to make sure that there are not just more attorneys and economists in Washington, D.C., but that there are more people out doing investigations and oversight. Because there has been some concerns that the Packers and Stockyards Act does not cover the entire poultry industry, this legislation also requires an analysis of why the poultry industry is not covered, and requires GAO to offer suggestions for how the disparity between poultry and livestock can be remedied. This bill addresses another problem I was informed about when I was out visiting Missouri farmers--and that is the issue of confidentiality clauses in contracts signed by farmers. Several farmers were concerned about confidentiality clauses in the contracts with agri-business that they were told make it illegal for farmers to share the contract with others, even their lawyers and bankers. I want to ensure that farmers are able to get the legal and financial advice they need, so this bill ensures that such confidentiality clauses do not apply to farmers' contacts with their lawyers or bankers. The bill also creates a statutory trust for the protection of ranchers who sell on a cash basis to livestock dealers. Right now, if ranchers deliver their cattle to a dealer and then the dealer goes bankrupt, the rancher is not protected. My bill would set up a trust for the rancher, so that if the dealer goes bankrupt, the rancher would be at the front of the line to get paid. There are similar trusts already set up for when a rancher sells livestock to a packer, and this legislation extends the same protections to ranchers when they sell their livestock to dealers. One of the recommendations from the Missouri legislature that I included in the bill allows GIPSA to seek reparations for producers when a packer is found to be engaged in predatory or unfair practices. This section specifies that when money is collected from those that are damaging producers, the money should go to the farmers, not to the federal government. This bill will lead to a more fair playing field for Missouri farmers and ranchers. It address concerns of Missourians that I have visited with and incorporates the outline of the Missouri State Resolution. Finally, I am pleased to be the Senate sponsor of two bills that have already been introduced in the other Chamber by the distinguished Representative from Missouri, Congressman Jim Talent. I would like to commend Congressman Talent for the work he has done to help the Missouri agriculture community. Representative Talent's bills on value added agriculture are a positive step for Missouri and U.S. producers. Therefore, I would like to introduce these two bills in the Senate to ``help put farmers back in the driver's seat.'' The Value-Added Development Act for American Agriculture provides technical assistance for producers to start value-added ventures. This bill helps family farmers compete by giving farmers the opportunity to take a greater share of the profit from the processing industry. The legislation will provide technical assistance to producers for value- added ventures, including engineering, legal services, applied research, scale production, business planning, marketing, and market development. The funds would be provided to farmers through grants requests, which will be evaluated on the State level. It has long been my opinion that farmers know how best to farm their land, meet market demands, and make a profit. If the ideas of farmers are cultivated on a local and state level, farmers will likely have more flexibility to make wise decisions for markets in their home states and regions. States would have the opportunity to apply for $10 million grants to start up an Agriculture Innovation Center. The state boards will consist of the State Department of Agriculture, the largest two general farm organizations, and the four highest grossing commodity groups. The Agriculture Innovation Center will then use the funds to help farmers finance the start-up of value added ventures. Once it is determined that the farmers' ideas for a value added venture could be beneficial, the State Agriculture Innovation Center can give the farmers assistance with plans, engineering, and design. When the farmer is actually ready to begin implementation of the value added project, the third bill I am introducing will help out. The Farmers' Value-Added Agricultural Investment Tax Credit Act would create a tax credit for farmers who invest in producer owned value- added endeavors--even ventures that are not farmer-owned co-ops. This would provide a 50% tax credit for the producers of up to $30,000 per year, for six years. The three bills I am introducing today are important to the continuation of the American farmer over the next century. I know that these bills will benefit the producers of Missouri, and in turn benefit all of America.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for yielding time to me to speak on a very important issue. In the 1970s, Congress sought to regulate fuel economy for various vehicles in the United States, and recently, as a result of the continuation of that program, there has been an effort to continue to escalate the amount of fuel economy that is demanded from companies that produce automobiles. Since CAFE was enacted, we have had a weight reduction in cars of about 1,000 pounds per car. That is the way you get better fuel economy--carry less, and reduce the weight of the car in order to get better fuel economy. I point out that there are some very serious consequences of reducing the weight of a car by a thousand pounds. I indicate that one of those serious consequences has been highlighted in USA Today in a major feature article from July 2 of last year, ``Death by the Gallon.'' A USA Today analysis of previously unpublished fatality statistics discovers that 46,000 people have died because of the 1970's-era push for greater fuel efficiency which has led to smaller cars-- Read, ``lighter cars.'' For a number of reasons, I think it is in our best interest not to force our auto manufacturers to produce lighter and lighter cars-- 46,000 people represents 46,000 families. I think we want to be a part of a voice that says don't make it riskier to drive on the highways. There are a number of individuals who would say: This kind of statistical analysis isn't the right thing. They say fuel economy has gone up, and the number of fatalities on our highways has gone down. Therefore, it must be that cars are safer in spite of the fact that they are lighter. Very frankly, that is a pretty primitive sort of analysis, and it is misleading. It is not correct. I have in my hand a letter addressed to me from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. I will ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record. I would like to read from the letter. Here is what this letter says: There are many powerful forces at work that have produced the overall decline in the traffic fatality rate: increasing rates of safety belt use, less drinking and driving, and a growing share of miles traveled on relatively safe Interstate highways, to name a few of those important forces. Here is important language: It would be easy for these favorable forces to mask or conceal any adverse safety effects of CAFE in overall data. In fact, our national times series analyses published in 1989 (Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 32, April 1989, pp. 112-3) show that, once these favorable effects are controlled for in a national time- series model, the average weight of the vehicle fleet is significantly and NEGATIVELY associated with the fatality rate. In other words, more vehicle weight (less fuel economy) is associated with a smaller fatality rate. In other words, more vehicle weight and less fuel economy is associated with a smaller fatality rate. Conversely, the more weight you have in the vehicle, the lower your fatality rate, and the more weight you take out of the vehicle, the higher your fatality rate. Those who have suggested that this 46,000 number is not a reliable number simply are simplistically interpreting the data. When you control for factors such as the reduction in drunk driving, when you control for the factors such as airbags and seatbelts, when you control for factors such as the increased number of miles driven on interstate highways, we still have to live with the fact that 46,000 people have died because we have mandated that vehicles be made lighter and unsafe. It is clear that this is a tremendous human toll to pay. Due to higher gasoline prices, there are those who would argue that if we suddenly have lighter vehicles, the fuel savings will remediate the problem that we have no energy policy in the United States. I think that is less than realistic. We need an energy policy in the United States. We need to have the opportunity to develop our own energy resources. Trying to get a few more miles per gallon on the highway and lightening our vehicles even further, subjecting more people to the fate of the 46,000 who have already died, is not going to solve the problem we have energy-wise around the world. We will solve the problem when we decide that America will make a commitment to some of its own energy and energy independence. I rise today to oppose this motion that instructs the conferees on the part of the Senate to fight the position expressed in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives measure properly recognizes that to take additional weight out of vehicles as a result of a mandate for additional corporate average fuel economy is unwise. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency that administers CAFE, found increasing the average weight of each passenger car on the road by 100 pounds saves 300 lives annually. Rather than decreasing, we might be able to increase and save lives. A number of studies have been conducted to determine the actual effect of CAFE standards on highway safety. The Competitive Enterprise Institute found that of the 21,000 car occupant deaths that occurred last year, between 26 and 4,500 in just 1 year were attributable to the Federal Government's new car fuel economy standards. That is not consequential; 4,500 is nearly 100 people per State on average who die in car accidents because Congress is mandating weight be taken out of cars. I ask unanimous consent to have two letters printed in the Record on which I will now comment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The 1989 Harvard University/Brookings Institution study determined that the current CAFE standard of 27.5 miles per gallon is responsible for between a 14 and 27 percent increase in the annual traffic deaths, since the new car fleet must be downsized in order to meet stricter standards. Further, the 1992 National Academy of Sciences study concluded that the downsizing of automobiles due to fuel economy requirements has a direct impact on passenger safety. The study found ``safety and fuel economy are linked because one of the most direct methods manufacturers can use to improve fuel economy is to reduce vehicle size and weight.'' Stunning advances are being made to improve safety in other respects. To give away those advances by imposing lighter and lighter vehicles raises very, very, very serious and troubling questions. The most troubling conclusion from the study that was conducted by the National Academy of Sciences: ``it may be inevitable that significant increases in fuel economy can occur only with some negative safety consequences.'' The National Academy of Sciences study also said, ``the CAFE approach to achieving automotive fuel economy has defects that are sufficiently grievous to warrant careful reconsideration of the approach.'' The National Academy of Sciences says careful reconsideration of this entire approach ought to be undertaken. If the National Academy of Sciences is suggesting we need to carefully reconsider this approach, I am not sure we ought to be in the business of extending the approach or enlarging that approach. These standards are killing people, yet there are those who want to make the standards even tougher, even more deadly. Based on experience and the research, increasing CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon, which is less than the proposal supported by the President and the Vice President, would cause up to about 57,00 deaths a year. At some point, I hope we will get the attention of policymakers and ask ourselves if we really want to sacrifice, on this altar of fuel economy, that many lives a year. Of course, that is included in this special USA Today report. Mr. President, 46,000 people is equivalent to an entire town, such as Joplin, MO, in my home State. The deaths of 46,000 people would wipe out the entire town of Blue Springs, MO, or all of Johnson and Christian Counties in Missouri. The average gas mileage for passenger vehicles in 1975 was 14 miles per gallon; today it is 20 miles per gallon. That averages 7,700 lost lives for every gallon of increased fuel efficiency. I am not sure 46,000 lives are worth it for improved fuel efficiency. There are a number of alternatives to lightening vehicles for fuel efficiency. Some of the alternatives are in the process of being developed in the capitals of the automotive industry, whether in Detroit or other sections around the country. They relate to fuel cells. They relate to combination strategies. They relate to large flywheels that capture the momentum of a car as it stops, and as that momentum is captured in the flywheel it is regained as the car is started again. There are many things that are being done. Some in the automotive industry say if we mandate additional fuel economy standards immediately, the research resources which are supporting the development of these new technologies will have to be shifted back over into weight reduction techniques immediately to meet demands. So instead of moving toward long-term changes in efficiency, we get to the short run, which loses more lives and impairs our ability to develop the kind of fuel cell technology, the kind of combined energy technologies that result in safer and more efficient cars. I asked the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for an opinion on raising CAFE standards and the impact on highway safety. The Institute said: Even in single vehicle crashes, which account for about half of all passenger vehicle occupant deaths, people in lighter vehicles are at greater risk. The letter stated: The more safer vehicles the manufacturer sells, the more difficult it becomes to meet CAFE standards. The idea of elevated CAFE requirements is at war with the idea of safe occupancy in the automobile. The simple idea or notion that says fatalities have been going down while weight has been going down in cars, therefore it must be safer to be in lighter cars, is a simple notion, but it is an incorrect notion. It ignores the other factors. It ignores factors such as seatbelt use, airbag deployment, divided highways, the kinds of things highway design has done to elevate safety standards. I make one thing very clear: I am in favor of promoting cleaner air. I believe we must be responsible environmentally. However, there is a level at which we ought to consider the risk to human lives. The reason we want clean air is that dirty air impairs the health and well-being of human beings. So the reasons we are pursuing are the same. We want to save people who might be included in these gruesome statistics of 46,000 people dying. While I want to have cleaner air, I don't think it is necessarily done by putting people on the altar of lighter vehicles and having them lose their lives when we can find other ways of achieving that. Consumers are not choosing smaller cars. They look at convenience. They look at safety. They look at where their children are going to be riding, and how they will get there. They are buying larger cars. Safety is one of the three main reasons people purchase SUVs. Small cars are only 18 percent of all vehicles on the road, but they account for 37 percent of vehicle deaths. You have to think about that for a moment. That is a startling statistic. Small cars are only 18 percent of the vehicles on the road. Yet they account for 37 percent of the vehicle deaths--or that was the figure in 1997. I doubt if the data has significantly changed. Some people argue that the reason the small cars are troublesome is because they get into wrecks with bigger cars; they are getting into accidents with SUVs. Frankly, the facts do not support that claim. Based on figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Board, only 1 percent of all small car deaths involved collisions with mid-size or large SUVs--1 percent. One percent of their accidents, yet their fatality rate is 37 percent; in spite of the fact they are only 18 percent of the cars on the road, 37 percent of all the traffic deaths. Car-buying experts have said that only 7 percent of new vehicle shoppers say they will consider buying a small car. According to this source, 82 percent who have purchased small cars say they will not buy another. Safety-conscious consumers--certainly my constituents in Missouri-- understand the need for safety and are buying larger vehicles. But now Washington wants to tell residents in my State what kind of car they can buy. Washington wants to increase the level of risk, basically, that will attend driving those cars. The lighter the car, according to the National Academy of Sciences and the National Highway Traffic Safety Board, the higher the risk. We fight drunk driving. We mandate seatbelt use. We require manufacturers to install airbags. Yet today we are being asked to tell the House we will not accept their policy of providing for Americans the opportunity of choosing cars that are heavy enough to be safer. We want to mandate, somehow, that we take additional pounds out of cars. I was stunned by the data developed by our own agencies that said if you add 100 pounds, you save 300 lives. I suppose it is not scientifically correct to say if you took 100 pounds out, you would lose 300 lives--maybe you would. You might lose more. I would hate to be the person who had to make up the list of the 300 names, or of the thousand names, or however many names there are, of the lives that would be lost because we refused to adopt an approach which says: We have gone far enough with the Federal mandates on weight reduction and fuel economy. We should allow what is already happening in the automotive industry, a tremendous surge of research and technology, much of it spurred by our own incentives and initiatives, to develop alternative technologies which can provide for the transportation needs that we have with greater efficiency, without putting so many people at risk. I urge my colleagues to reject this motion, the motion which would instruct the conferees not to accept section 318 of the bill as passed by the House of Representatives.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the concerns of Missouri farmers and ranchers about concentration in the agriculture sector and about individual farmers' ability to compete and to get fair prices for their commodities. Missouri is a ``farm state'', so ensuring fair competition in markets is an important issue to me. The state of Missouri is ranked second in the list of states with the most number of farms--only Texas has more. Missouri's varying topography and climate makes for a very agriculturally diverse state. Farmers and ranchers produce over 40 commodities, 22 of which are ranked in the top ten among the states. Missouri is a leader in such crops as beef, soybeans, hay, and rice, as well as watermelon and concord grapes. Having diversity and the ability to change has allowed Missouri farmers to maintain their livelihood for generations. More than 88 percent of the farms in Missouri are family or individually owned, and 8 percent are partnerships. It is easy to see that Missouri is a state that values small and family farms--which are the bedrock of Missouri's rural communities. As I have traveled around Missouri--visiting every county in the state--Missouri farmers and ranchers have repeatedly told me that increasing concentration of the processing and packing industry has resulted--and will continue to result--in a less competitive market environment and lower prices for producers. I have been responding to these concerns, and I am taking further action today. Last year, I asked the Department of Justice to create a high-level post within the Antitrust Division to specialize in agriculture-related mergers and transactions. The Administration responded by appointing a representative for agriculture in the Department of Justice. This appointment is a step in the right direction, but producers still have multiple concerns that need to be addressed. Today, I am introducing three bills to address Missouri and American farmers' concerns about agriculture concentration and market competition. In addition to listening to Missouri farmers on this issue, I have reviewed a resolution that was considered in the Missouri State Legislature about competition in the agricultural economy. The Ninetieth General Assembly of Missouri called upon the 106th Congress to take an initiative on federal law governing agriculture concentration. Missouri State Concurrent Resolution 27 (S. Con. Res. 27) is a bipartisan resolution outlining what the Missouri legislature recommends the federal government should do to address the issue of concentration. The resolution passed the Missouri State Senate and was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee to the full House. In drafting the package of bills I am introducing today, I studied the recommendations and objectives in State Senator Maxwell's Missouri resolution as well as including important provisions of my own. Mr. President, the bill I'm introducing today--the Fair Play of Family Farms Act--does the following things: First, this legislation adds ``sunshine'' to the merger process. It will give the Department of Agriculture more authority when it comes to mergers and acquisitions. This will heighten USDA's role in review of all proposed agriculture mergers so that the impact on farmers will be given more consideration, and will make these reviews public. The public will be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed merger, and the USDA will be required to do an impact analysis on producers on a regional basis. I want to ensure that if two agri-businesses merge, the impact on farmers are completely evaluated. Second, my bill creates a permanent position for an Assistant Attorney General for Agricultural Competition. This position will not simply be appointed by the President or by the Attorney General, but the position will require Senate review and confirmation. Also, my bill provides additional staffing for this new position. In addition, this bill provides additional funds and requires the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) to hire more litigation attorneys, economists, and investigators to enforce the Packers and Stockyard Act. An important element of this provision is that it requires GIPSA to put more investigators out ``in the field'' for oversight and investigations. I want to make sure that there are not just more attorneys and economists in Washington, D.C., but that there are more people out doing investigations and oversight. Because there has been some concerns that the Packers and Stockyards Act does not cover the entire poultry industry, this legislation also requires an analysis of why the poultry industry is not covered, and requires GAO to offer suggestions for how the disparity between poultry and livestock can be remedied. This bill addresses another problem I was informed about when I was out visiting Missouri farmers--and that is the issue of confidentiality clauses in contracts signed by farmers. Several farmers were concerned about confidentiality clauses in the contracts with agri-business that they were told make it illegal for farmers to share the contract with others, even their lawyers and bankers. I want to ensure that farmers are able to get the legal and financial advice they need, so this bill ensures that such confidentiality clauses do not apply to farmers' contacts with their lawyers or bankers. The bill also creates a statutory trust for the protection of ranchers who sell on a cash basis to livestock dealers. Right now, if ranchers deliver their cattle to a dealer and then the dealer goes bankrupt, the rancher is not protected. My bill would set up a trust for the rancher, so that if the dealer goes bankrupt, the rancher would be at the front of the line to get paid. There are similar trusts already set up for when a rancher sells livestock to a packer, and this legislation extends the same protections to ranchers when they sell their livestock to dealers. One of the recommendations from the Missouri legislature that I included in the bill allows GIPSA to seek reparations for producers when a packer is found to be engaged in predatory or unfair practices. This section specifies that when money is collected from those that are damaging producers, the money should go to the farmers, not to the federal government. This bill will lead to a more fair playing field for Missouri farmers and ranchers. It address concerns of Missourians that I have visited with and incorporates the outline of the Missouri State Resolution. Finally, I am pleased to be the Senate sponsor of two bills that have already been introduced in the other Chamber by the distinguished Representative from Missouri, Congressman Jim Talent. I would like to commend Congressman Talent for the work he has done to help the Missouri agriculture community. Representative Talent's bills on value added agriculture are a positive step for Missouri and U.S. producers. Therefore, I would like to introduce these two bills in the Senate to ``help put farmers back in the driver's seat.'' The Value-Added Development Act for American Agriculture provides technical assistance for producers to start value-added ventures. This bill helps family farmers compete by giving farmers the opportunity to take a greater share of the profit from the processing industry. The legislation will provide technical assistance to producers for value- added ventures, including engineering, legal services, applied research, scale production, business planning, marketing, and market development. The funds would be provided to farmers through grants requests, which will be evaluated on the State level. It has long been my opinion that farmers know how best to farm their land, meet market demands, and make a profit. If the ideas of farmers are cultivated on a local and state level, farmers will likely have more flexibility to make wise decisions for markets in their home states and regions. States would have the opportunity to apply for $10 million grants to start up an Agriculture Innovation Center. The state boards will consist of the State Department of Agriculture, the largest two general farm organizations, and the four highest grossing commodity groups. The Agriculture Innovation Center will then use the funds to help farmers finance the start-up of value added ventures. Once it is determined that the farmers' ideas for a value added venture could be beneficial, the State Agriculture Innovation Center can give the farmers assistance with plans, engineering, and design. When the farmer is actually ready to begin implementation of the value added project, the third bill I am introducing will help out. The Farmers' Value-Added Agricultural Investment Tax Credit Act would create a tax credit for farmers who invest in producer owned value- added endeavors--even ventures that are not farmer-owned co-ops. This would provide a 50% tax credit for the producers of up to $30,000 per year, for six years. The three bills I am introducing today are important to the continuation of the American farmer over the next century. I know that these bills will benefit the producers of Missouri, and in turn benefit all of America.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res. 319, which the Senate approved on Friday, during National Homeownership Week. I thank my colleagues for supporting this important resolution which affects the security and welfare of Missourians and all Americans. This resolution addresses the importance of placing quality housing within reach of a greater number of Americans as well as improving housing opportunities for Americans at all income levels. I, along with my colleagues, support the efforts of Habitat for Humanity and ``The House the Senate Built'' project. As you know, the largest debt most families take on in their lifetimes is a home. Over 65 percent of Americans own a home, as do approximately 80 percent of Americans over the age of 50. This represents real progress. In 1940, fully 56 percent of Americans were renters. Clearly, America has come a long way. People buy homes for different reasons. A home can be a place of safety to raise a family, the potential of financial security, a sense of community. All around Missouri, and across this great nation, couples of all ages agree that buying a home is among the essential steps a family takes to ensure stability and prosperity in their lives. While homes are a worthwhile investment, they also are expensive. Real estate experts recommend that families buy homes valued at over three times their annual income--a sum far greater than what families could pay back in a year, or two, or even five. So, most Americans take out a mortgage. Once this burden of debt is behind them, they are free to dream new dreams --pay for their children's or grandchildren's education, travel, or make other investments. Homeownership is an important factor in promoting economic security and stability for American families. The level of homeownership among foreign-born naturalized citizens who have been in the United States for at least six years is the same as the level of homeownership of the Nation as a whole. When families such as these, who are new to our shores, prosper, we as a nation prosper. This resolution expresses the Senate's concern for improving homeownership in America. The resolution commends the nonprofit housing organization, Habitat for Humanity, and supports their commitment to partner with the United States Senate to strengthen neighborhoods and communities by building simple and affordable homes with low-income buyers. I thank Senator Brownback for offering this resolution and endorse its passage.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I call amendment No. 3304 and send a modification to the desk that I believe has been cleared by both sides, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his continuing support for this amendment and his continuing support for our national defense. I also thank my cosponsors, Senators Bond, Conrad, Landrieu, and Breaux. This amendment will provide an additional $23 million, bringing the total to $43 million, for the development of an extended-range cruise missile, which is the successor to what is known as the CALCM, the Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile. The Defense authorization bill contains $86.1 million for this project. This amendment increases the appropriation to half of the authorized amount. According to the Air Force and their officials, this new total, $43 million, is needed to start this program. This cruise missile will be launched from the B-52 bomber to accurately strike strategic targets deep inside enemy territory without significant risk to our pilots or our planes. It will provide the Air Force its only air-launched, long-range, all-weather, precision weapon with a range of over 600 miles. I believe this amendment has been approved by both sides, and I thank the chairman and ranking member for their support. It is important we have this kind of capacity. We have found that our ability to have precision capacity for striking the enemy is very important to the maintenance of our own independence and the protection of our own fighting individuals in our Armed Forces. I am grateful for the cooperation in this respect, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of George Abraham Thampy, of Maryland Heights, Missouri. George correctly spelled ``demarche'' to win the National Spelling Bee held last week in Washington, D.C. The week prior, George placed second in the National Geography Bee, also held in Washington, D.C. I would like to offer my congratulations to this young scholar who has worked diligently to not only reach, but also win, the National Spelling Bee. George's performance has been exemplary and I'm confident it will serve to promote a heightened interest in academic achievement. George also tied for fourth place in 1998 and finished in a third place tie last year. I look forward to the continued success of Missouri home school families such as George's, and hope to continue promoting the kind of freedom that encourages parents to take an active role in guiding the course of their children's education. I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of this year's National Defense Authorization Act. Senator Warner and Senator Levin, along with the entire committee, have my deepest thanks for their tremendous work with respect to this country's national defense. Their hard work and dedication on behalf of our servicemen and women is evident throughout the entire Act. Senator Warner, in particular, has been instrumental in bringing to the floor a bill that provides our country with the national defense it desperately needs and deserves. To the Committee's credit, this Act continues the trend, begun with last year's Authorization Bill, of providing a real increase in the authorized level of defense spending. The Committee has once again recognized that people are the most important aspect of our military and our troops must be treated accordingly. This Act authorizes, among other things, a well-deserved 3.7 percent pay raise for military personnel, important quality of life provisions, and addresses several important health care concerns to ensure our active-duty and retired personnel have the medical care they justly deserve. Mr. President, although people make our military the best in the world, our troops must have the superior equipment to ensure continued success in every conflict. We must not send our sons and daughters into war without the right tools for victory. To this end, I would like to thank Senator Warner specifically for his support of a very important project--the extended-range conventional air-launched cruise missile project (CALCM-ER). In addition to Senator Warner, I would also like to thank Senator Bond, Senator Conrad, Senator Landrieu, and Senator Breaux for their work in support of this important project, in the Defense Authorization Act. The Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile, or CALCM, is a converted nuclear cruise missile that is launched from a B-52. This invaluable weapon is the Air Force's only conventional air-launched, long-range, all-weather precision weapon. Fired more than 600 nautical miles from its target, this missile can strike strategic targets deep inside enemy territory without significant risk to our pilots or planes. General Mike Ryan, the Air Force Chief of Staff, praised the CALCM's invaluable capabilities when he said in a written statement dated February 10, 2000 that ``CALCM continues to be the Commander in Chief's first strike weapon of choice during contingency operations, as demonstrated by its superb performance during Operations Desert Fox and Allied Force.'' Due to the weapon's great performance and subsequent heavy demand, the number of CALCMs in the Air Force inventory dwindled to below 70 last year. Through continued conversion of the nuclear cruise missiles, the current number is around 200, but the Air Force has concluded that this is simply not enough to meet our military's need. And due to the limited number of convertible nuclear cruise missiles, the Air Force needed to search out additional avenues of creating an extended range cruise missile with similar capabilities of the CALCM. Mr. President, the Air Force has identified a suitable solution. In a study commissioned in last year's Defense Authorization bill to deal with this problem, a commission concluded that, and I quote, ``Of specific interest to the Air Force is the need for an extended range cruise missile in the midterm that would be a modification to an existing cruise missile in the inventory. This option meets the Air Force's two-fold requirement of increasing the inventory of cruise missiles as quickly as possible and providing an extended range missile capability to protect our aging bomber force from current and mid-term threats while long range cruise missile requirements are studied.'' In order to see these conclusions become a reality, I, together with Senators Bond, Conrad, Landrieu, and Breaux, have worked to see the addition of $86.1 million in the Air Force's Research and Development account for the extended range conventional air-launched cruise missile program. The Armed Services Committee has graciously agreed with us and authorized this amount in the Defense Authorization Act--and I thank the Committee, and particularly Senator Warner, for their assistance. In the upcoming Defense Appropriations bill, Senator Stevens has been particularly understanding of the Air Force's need of the Extended Range Cruise Missile and has worked with me to provide appropriations for this program. I want to offer him a personal thanks for his support of this vital program. I truly appreciate his efforts. However, I have been informed that in order to start the process and see these important weapons are in the hands of our troops, additional funds will be needed. In order to rectify this problem, I plan on offering an amendment to increase the available funds for the Extended Range Cruise Missile program by $23 million so that work can begin on the new cruise missile. This will bring the total amount to $43 million, which is half of the authorized amount and enough to start development on this important missile. Mr. President, again I want to thank Senator Warner and Senator Stevens for their continued and tireless service to our nation's defense.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, Medicare paperwork requirements burden America's seniors, health care providers, and federal government staff that manage Medicare. In 1998, the average processing time for appeals of claims denied under Medicare Part A was 310 days. For Medicare Part B, the average appeal time was 524 days. Waiting periods of a year or longer are too long for America's seniors to wait. These lengthy waiting periods tell me that there must be room for us to improve the way we administer Medicare. HCFA regulations governing Medicare consist of 110,000 pages--six times as long as the Tax Code, which is 17,000 pages. In addition, HCFA uses 23 different forms to administer the Medicare program. According to Dr. Nancy Dickey, Immediate Past President of the American Medical Association, for most doctors, ``the biggest challenge is getting through mountains of Medicare paperwork.'' Let me give you some examples of how paperwork burdens and related regulations are affecting the Medicare program. Recently Dr. Joseph Marshall, a Washington, DC., gynecologist, became so frustrated with HCFA regulations that he chose to give his Medicare patients free visits, so that he would avoid sending a bill to Medicare. HCFA would not allow it. HCFA told him that if he did not bill HCFA, he could be fined and imprisoned. A nonprofit Minnesota organization, Allina, which serves 35,000 seniors, expects to spend $2 million annually in paperwork related burdens. And Medicare paperwork burdens have forced increasing numbers of seniors to resort to ``insurance claim service'' firms to help them complete Medicare paperwork. These firms charge $20 to $75 an hour. This is not the tax code I am referring to. This is Medicare, the program that is supposed to bring health care to elderly Americans, not bury them and their doctors under mountains of paperwork. During the Clinton Administration, more than a quarter of the 110,000 pages of Medicare regulations and paperwork have been added. In April of last year, HCFA proposed 93 new regulations based on the Balanced Budget Act alone. Mr. President, drowning doctors and patients alike in a morass of paperwork must end. The seniors who have been promised Medicare coverage throughout their working lives deserve the best possible coverage. The doctors who treat them deserve our gratitude, not bureaucratic burdens and indifference. Therefore, today I am introducing the ``Patients Before Paperwork Medicare Red Tape Reduction Act of 2000.'' This legislation would establish a Commission to examine inefficient and superfluous Medicare paperwork requirements and related regulations. The Commission will include physicians, hospital administrators, senior citizens, nursing home and long term care administrators, and health care plan representatives, the very people best able to determine which forms are necessary to ensure quality coverage, and which forms create unfair burdens and time-wasting mandates from Washington. The Commission will be responsible for reviewing existing paperwork burdens, with the goal of reducing those burdens. It will streamline and simplify the coding method for Medicare services, facilitate electronic filing and the elimination of paperwork, and demonstrate that existing and proposed paperwork requirements and related regulations have proven benefits, including a positive health benefit for consumers. The Commission will also explore the important issue of how patient- doctor relationships have been impacted by onerous paperwork requirements that force doctors to spend more time examining forms than examining patients. This legislation would alleviate the burden that Medicare paperwork imposes on millions of Medicare beneficiaries, health care providers, and our own federal government. By establishing this Commission, we would create the opportunity to decrease Medicare paperwork burdens on seniors and promote efficiency within the health care industry and within the federal government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is my great privilege to speak on the passage of H.R. 3639 as I am the sponsor of the Senate's companion bill, S. 2416. This bill will name the State Department's headquarters at 2201 C Street in Washington, DC, the ``Harry S Truman Federal Building.'' First, I would like to provide my deepest thanks to my esteemed co-sponsor who have joined this effort. From the onset, this proposal has had strong bi-partisan support in both Houses. Senators Bond, Warner, DeWine, and Moynihan and Representatives Roy Blunt and Ike Skelton have been incredibly helpful in seeing this proposal become a reality. Furthermore, I would like to thank the Honorable Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, for her unqualified support and cooperation for honoring President Harry Truman befittingly honored in this manner. Today I enjoy the privilege, granted to me by the citizens of Missouri, of occupying the Senate seat formerly held by Harry S Truman. Truman left this seat in January 1945 to become Vice President, and by April of that year assumed the office of President of the United States in the wake of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's death. The day after becoming President, Truman told a group of reporters that ``boys, if you ever pray, pray for me now . . . I feel like the moon, the stars, and all the planets have fallen on me.'' As the new President, Harry Truman inherited a world on fire. The most destructive war in human history still raged on in Europe and Asia; and Truman, the only chief executive in this century who did not enjoy a university education, faced a most crucial role bringing the war to a close and constructing a viable international system in the postwar. Truman, whose strong personal integrity and vast common sense was forged in the small towns of western Missouri, brilliantly succeeded. This bill will name the building that houses our Nation's Department of State--the agency responsible for international relations--in honor of Missouri's favorite son and one of our country's greatest statesmen. This is benefitting, for it was the decisions made by President Truman in the realm of foreign policy that made his Presidency one of the most monumental and influential in our country's history. President Harry Truman led during one of the most trying times in our nation's tumultuous history. During Truman's years in the White House, crisis compounded crisis overseas and hard decisions continually confronted a President who stoically dealt with the awesome responsibilities he had to face. After Truman assumed office he successfully led the United States to victory against the Axis powers. However, the end of the Second World War brought little respite for the new President from Missouri. The cooperation Truman, and most Americans, hoped to find with the Soviet Union collapsed as an Iron Curtain descended across the heart of Europe. Behind it, the creation of totalitarian Communist regimes confronted the United States with a new dark challenge--the cold war. In response to this newest danger, President Truman led the free world forward. He emphasized the need to support free people and assist those who resisted attempted subjugation by armed minorities and outside pressures. To this end, Truman began the United States' single most successful foreign aid initiative, the Marshall plan. Under Truman's leadership, this ambitious program saved the economies of Western Europe and set vital United States allies on the path of full recovery within a democratic political framework. President Harry S Truman realized that economic recovery of war torn areas would not, in itself, secure the free world from Communist aggression. Therefore, President Truman spearheaded the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, one of the most successful military alliances of all time and the cornerstone of Western Europe's defense for the past five decades. Europe was not the only place where President Truman took a stand for freedom and democracy in the face of aggression and hostility. When Communist North Korea blatantly invaded South Korea in 1950, only Truman's quick action, and continued resolve, made possible South Korea's escape from the control of North Korea's totalitarian regime. Throughout the world, in Northern Iran, Berlin, China, and the Eastern Mediterranean, Truman's strong and wise leadership, grounded in a small town Missouri sense of right and wrong, heroically guided our country through some of its most dangerous years. In addition to his commitment to fight Communist aggression, the institutions created during the Truman years--such as the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency--eventually ensured victory in the cold war, and enhanced the United States strength in the years after. Surely Winston Churchill exhibited his always impressive observational abilities when he told Truman in 1950 that ``. . . you, more than any other man, have saved Western Civilization.'' I am proud to be a part of this effort today to see President Harry S Truman so honored. More than any other post-war President he shaped the world we live in today. To name the headquarters of the United States State Department after this fellow Missourian is a fitting and just choice.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to honor one of the great cities in Missouri: Kansas City. On June 3, 1850, the Town of Kansas was incorporated. Three years later, the town was reincorporated as the City of Kansas and renamed Kansas City in 1889. Today, Kansas Citians are celebrating the sesquicentennial of Kansas City, Missouri. Kansas City is situated at the point of entry at the confluence of the Missouri and Kansas Rivers. In the beginning, Kansas City was known as the last point of civilization before venturing into the untamed West. The settlement quickly prospered as an outfitting post for gold prospectors and homesteaders who were moving west. Because of its geographical location in the middle of the United States, Kansas City was destined to develop into one of our nation's most important trading markets and distribution hubs for goods and services. As Kansas City began to grow and prosper it became a major region for raising and sending cattle to market. Kansas City quickly emerged as the largest cattle market in the world. Since that time, each Fall, the American Royal Festival is held to pay tribute to this rich cultural heritage. Two words come to mind when people talk about Kansas City. Those two words are Jazz and Barbecue. Kansas City is world renowned for both. One also must not forget the grandeur of the Christmas lights that adorn Country Club Plaza, viewed annually by thousands. Kansas City is home to the Liberty Memorial which honors America's sons and daughters who defended liberty and our country through their service in World War I. This Memorial serves as a tribute to ensure that the sacrifices made by those brave men and women are not forgotten. Union Station was the gateway for many World War II service men and women passing through Kansas City on their way to service. Now newly refurbished it still stands tall and stately as a major tourist attraction. In the 1960s, Kansas City emerged as a powerhouse in professional sports. Lamar Hunt brought the Chiefs NFL football team to Kansas City, and Ewing Kauffman was awarded a major league baseball franchise. The Kansas City Chiefs and the Kansas City Royals have both captured world pennants. From its vibrant past to its glowing future, Kansas City is a community that remains on the cutting edge of technology, industry, medical research, manufacturing, and sports. At the dawn of a new century, Kansas City will continue to grow and prosper and rise to her highest and best. Mr. President, it is a distinct privilege to represent this great city in the United States Senate. I request that my colleagues join me in recognizing Kansas City for its 150 years of contributions to our great land and paying tribute to the KC150 celebration, Kansas City's sesquicentennial.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize the winner of the American Sportfishing Association's Lifetime Achievement Award, Mr. Johnny Morris, who is also a friend of mine. This award is being given to Johnny today in recognition of his outstanding lifetime contribution to sportfishing. Johnny Morris is the founder of Bass Pro Shops, which offers anglers and sportsmen the same equipment that the tournament professionals use. His business has expanded from its original store to include eight additional shops, a catalog, a line of Bass Pro products and a wholesale operation that supplies more than 7,000 independent sporting goods stores in the United States and several foreign countries. Since 1970, Johnny has provided a place for sportsmen, and the entire family, to outfit their outdoor and sporting activities. Because of my love for the outdoors and fishing, the Bass Pro Shops has long been one of my favorite places in Springfield to visit. I am not alone. The Bass Pro Shops is one of Missouri's top tourist sites, attracting over three and a half million visitors a year. In addition to outfitting anglers, Johnny donates ten percent of Bass Pro Shops' earnings to conservation efforts, which benefit fishing areas far beyond Missouri's borders. Johnny believes ``the future of the sport and of our business depends more on conservation and how we manage our natural resources than absolutely anything else.'' To further that belief, Johnny is an outspoken supporter of not-for-profit and youth organizations that support or raise awareness of conservation issues. Organizations such as the Missouri Beautification Association, which helps clean up trash along Missouri's roadways and riverbanks, and ``Operation Game Thief,'' a program launched to curb poaching in Missouri, have benefitted from Johnny Morris' support. In March 1998, the first ever World's Fishing Fair was hosted by Bass Pro Shops, and the proceeds were given to Missouri forests and fisheries. I personally have witnessed Johnny's commitment to his community through the many educational events which Bass Pro Shops hosts. Great Outdoors Day, for example, brings together families to learn more about hiking, fishing, archery, shooting and conservation through hands-on experience. He also hosts Kids' Fishing Fun Day in Springfield, an event that brings thousands of young participants to a local pond to try their hand at sportfishing. His efforts show that individual initiative to preserve one's local environment for future generations is not only responsible citizenship but just plain good sense. I commend Johnny Morris both for receiving this award and for his efforts to enrich the fishing experience for all Americans and to promote conservation through the Bass Pro Shops.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pension Opportunities for Women's Equality in Retirement (POWER) Act of 2000. This legislation is important because the current tax code often fails to give women--especially women who take time off to raise children-- sufficient opportunities to earn a large enough pension to guarantee their financial security in retirement. The facts demonstrate that women need help in building pensions for their future. In America today, two-thirds of women over 65 have no pension other than Social Security. This translates into 300,000 women in my home state of Missouri and 14 million women nationwide. At the same time, the median income from assets for women age 65 and over is only $860 a year. Retirement is often compared to a three-legged stool, with the three legs being pensions, savings, and Social Security. Now, everyone knows what happens to a three legged stool when one of the legs is missing: it falls over. But these statistics shows that many, too many, American women are trying to manage their retirements on only one leg of the stool. As a result of the lack of pensions and relatively low savings among American women, older women are twice as likely as older men to be living near or below the federal poverty threshold. Further, the poverty rates for widows, divorced women, and never-married women are significantly higher than the rate for all elderly women. The 20 million elderly American women--including 440,000 in Missouri--carry an extremely high risk of poverty. The causes for this risk can be found in the tax code and pension rules. One of the key elements of pension building is called vesting. Employees cannot build pension assets until they vest, or serve at a particular job for a redetermined amount of time, often 5 years. Employers have a perfectly good reason for vesting requirements--they want to encourage job stability--and there is no inherent bias in these requirements. But the effect of these requirements is to make it harder for women to build up pension assets. The reason for this is that the median job tenure for women is 3.8 years, well below the median job tenure for men, as well as the 5 years most pension plans require for vesting. Another problem women face is that 59 percent of women have not figured out how much they need to save for retirement. When workers, men and women alike, are younger, they are frequently not thinking of how much they need to save for retirement. Younger workers are concerned with mortgages, school loans, children's needs. When these workers get older, and start thinking about retirement, they often increase the amount of money they will put away for retirement. Unfortunately women, who have often spent less time in the workplace, have less time in which to make the required `catch-up' contributions that will help create a stable and secure retirement. This process is made even harder by existing rules that limit the amounts of the catch- up contributions. Given the difficulties women, especially unmarried women, face in their retirement years, I believe that it is time for the Congress to step up and to ensure that retirement security law provides for higher contribution limits for working women, easier catch-up to make up for years women missed in the labor force, and increased portability of pensions. The POWER Act of 2000 will do three major things: First, the bill will increase contribution limits, allowing workers to contribute more money to retirement accounts during their working years, thereby ensuring that their retirements will be more secure. For workers who are over fifty, the bill allows additional pension contributions of up to 50 percent more than allowed under current law. This provision is particularly helpful to women who leave the labor force to raise their children, and then want to ``catch-up'' when they are older by increasing their contributions in the years leading up to retirement. This bill also requires employers to vest employees earlier, so that women, who have shorter average job tenures, can accrue pension benefits earlier. The bill's third section eases portability of pensions among workers who switch jobs. The bill eases rollovers and requires that rollovers apply to all retirement plans. In addition, the bill extends pension rollovers to include post-tax as well as pre-tax distributions, and calls for the post-tax distributions to be accounted for separately. These provisions are not controversial. They have all passed both the Senate and the House of Representatives as part of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act. President Clinton vetoed that earlier bill. I disagree with the President, but he is entitled to his opinion. On these provisions, however, it is impossible to claim that these female- friendly provisions will cost too much money. The provisions in this bill will help all workers save more for retirement, and develop larger pensions for their golden years. This bill will particularly help women, who face a much greater risk of poverty. While the POWER Act will help both women and men save for retirement, it will correct specific pension inequalities in the current law that particularly hurt women. Missouri's nearly 900,000 working women certainly will benefit through enhanced opportunities to create financial security for retirement. In Missouri, 65 percent of working age women are in the paid labor force. According to the Missouri Women's Council, only 26 percent of older women receive a pension, compared with 47 percent of men. In addition, the pensions that women do receive are significantly less than those of men--$4,200 for women, on average, compared with $7,800 for men. I hope that the Senate will take quick action on this matter, to help American women provide for safe and secure retirements.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pension Opportunities for Women's Equality in Retirement (POWER) Act of 2000. This legislation is important because the current tax code often fails to give women--especially women who take time off to raise children-- sufficient opportunities to earn a large enough pension to guarantee their financial security in retirement. The facts demonstrate that women need help in building pensions for their future. In America today, two-thirds of women over 65 have no pension other than Social Security. This translates into 300,000 women in my home state of Missouri and 14 million women nationwide. At the same time, the median income from assets for women age 65 and over is only $860 a year. Retirement is often compared to a three-legged stool, with the three legs being pensions, savings, and Social Security. Now, everyone knows what happens to a three legged stool when one of the legs is missing: it falls over. But these statistics shows that many, too many, American women are trying to manage their retirements on only one leg of the stool. As a result of the lack of pensions and relatively low savings among American women, older women are twice as likely as older men to be living near or below the federal poverty threshold. Further, the poverty rates for widows, divorced women, and never-married women are significantly higher than the rate for all elderly women. The 20 million elderly American women--including 440,000 in Missouri--carry an extremely high risk of poverty. The causes for this risk can be found in the tax code and pension rules. One of the key elements of pension building is called vesting. Employees cannot build pension assets until they vest, or serve at a particular job for a redetermined amount of time, often 5 years. Employers have a perfectly good reason for vesting requirements--they want to encourage job stability--and there is no inherent bias in these requirements. But the effect of these requirements is to make it harder for women to build up pension assets. The reason for this is that the median job tenure for women is 3.8 years, well below the median job tenure for men, as well as the 5 years most pension plans require for vesting. Another problem women face is that 59 percent of women have not figured out how much they need to save for retirement. When workers, men and women alike, are younger, they are frequently not thinking of how much they need to save for retirement. Younger workers are concerned with mortgages, school loans, children's needs. When these workers get older, and start thinking about retirement, they often increase the amount of money they will put away for retirement. Unfortunately women, who have often spent less time in the workplace, have less time in which to make the required `catch-up' contributions that will help create a stable and secure retirement. This process is made even harder by existing rules that limit the amounts of the catch- up contributions. Given the difficulties women, especially unmarried women, face in their retirement years, I believe that it is time for the Congress to step up and to ensure that retirement security law provides for higher contribution limits for working women, easier catch-up to make up for years women missed in the labor force, and increased portability of pensions. The POWER Act of 2000 will do three major things: First, the bill will increase contribution limits, allowing workers to contribute more money to retirement accounts during their working years, thereby ensuring that their retirements will be more secure. For workers who are over fifty, the bill allows additional pension contributions of up to 50 percent more than allowed under current law. This provision is particularly helpful to women who leave the labor force to raise their children, and then want to ``catch-up'' when they are older by increasing their contributions in the years leading up to retirement. This bill also requires employers to vest employees earlier, so that women, who have shorter average job tenures, can accrue pension benefits earlier. The bill's third section eases portability of pensions among workers who switch jobs. The bill eases rollovers and requires that rollovers apply to all retirement plans. In addition, the bill extends pension rollovers to include post-tax as well as pre-tax distributions, and calls for the post-tax distributions to be accounted for separately. These provisions are not controversial. They have all passed both the Senate and the House of Representatives as part of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act. President Clinton vetoed that earlier bill. I disagree with the President, but he is entitled to his opinion. On these provisions, however, it is impossible to claim that these female- friendly provisions will cost too much money. The provisions in this bill will help all workers save more for retirement, and develop larger pensions for their golden years. This bill will particularly help women, who face a much greater risk of poverty. While the POWER Act will help both women and men save for retirement, it will correct specific pension inequalities in the current law that particularly hurt women. Missouri's nearly 900,000 working women certainly will benefit through enhanced opportunities to create financial security for retirement. In Missouri, 65 percent of working age women are in the paid labor force. According to the Missouri Women's Council, only 26 percent of older women receive a pension, compared with 47 percent of men. In addition, the pensions that women do receive are significantly less than those of men--$4,200 for women, on average, compared with $7,800 for men. I hope that the Senate will take quick action on this matter, to help American women provide for safe and secure retirements.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bridging the Digital Divide Act of 2000, a bill to make it easier for working Americans to obtain computers and computer equipment so that no one is left behind in the new Internet economy. This legislation makes it possible for employees to accept computers offered by their employers without having to pay the IRS taxes on the value of the computer. Mr. President, the high-tech sector is an increasingly important part of our economy, creating new synergies and opportunities for Americans of all ages. The more we can do to encourage every American to participate in the Internet revolution, the more productive we as a nation will be. But the benefits of the high-tech revolution, while lucrative, must not be limited to only some of our citizens. The great promise of the Internet revolution is that the benefits and rewards are accessed at the individual level; not just reserved for big businesses or multinational corporations. Our government should facilitate, not hinder, bringing that promise to each American. In the long term, I believe that being hooked up to the Internet will be as universal as television. It is important to remember that the Internet is a new technology, one that few people had heard of ten years ago. We have gone from 5.8 million U.S. households online in 1994 to almost 40 million in 1999. By 2003, it is projected that 60 million households will be hooked up to the Internet. In the short term, however, it is important to facilitate the availability of the Internet to all Americans. While many citizens have been taking advantage of the opportunities the Internet has to offer, too many Americans and Missourians have been left behind. Too many people are opting out or being left behind by the Internet economy. According to Forrester Research, income is the main driver of Internet adoption. Americans who earn more, participate more, and thereby develop the ability to earn even more. According to a 1998 study by the Department of Commerce, households with income of $75,000 and more are over 20 times more likely to have Internet access than those at the lowest income levels. This divide among income levels also indicates a divide along racial lines as well. According to the same Department of Commerce report, black and Hispanic households are roughly two-fifths as likely to have Internet access as white households. Overall, according to Forrester Research, only 33 percent of African American households are on-line, ten percent fewer than the national average. In my home state of Missouri, great progress has been made toward the goal of bringing the state on-line. Since 1989, during my tenure as Governor, Missouri has managed a statewide network that connects state government departments and transmits voice, data, and video between them. The state Department of Administration runs the network, which connects government offices statewide over 14 nodes. In addition, according to the Department of Commerce, 42 percent of Missouri households have computers. Despite this progress, there is still more to do. In terms of Internet usage, Missouri ranks 32nd out of the 50 states, with only 24.3 percent of households connected to the Internet in 1998. Clearly, it is in Missouri's interest to promote increased connectedness. Across the nation, those who appreciate the power and opportunities inherent in the Internet continue to increase their involvement in the high-tech world. 60 percent of computer sales are being made to households that have already purchased a computer, demonstrating that these households recognize the importance of remaining current and up to date with their computer equipment. At the same time, only 40 percent of computer sales are being made to households purchasing a computer for the first time. If we want more Americans to experience the high-tech economy, we should encourage first time computer purchases and find ways to make computer ownership easier for families who are currently without. According to Dr. Mark Dean, a specialist in advanced technology development for IBM, the solution to the digital divide is to put computers in as many homes as possible. Unfortunately, when employers have tried to help bridge this gap by providing their employees with computers and Internet access, the Internet Revenue Service has widened the digital divide by treating the new equipment as a ``taxable event,'' or in other words, requiring the employee to pay income tax on the value of the computer. Recently, the Ford Motor Company began a laudale effort to increase involvement of its employees in the high-tech economy. In February, Ford announced that it would give all of its 350,000 employees free computers for their homes. Ford is doing this because they recognize the value of having a workforce that is computer literate and internet savvy. Ford understands that in the digital economy, on-line workers are more productive workers--whatever their responsibilities are with the company. Unfortunately, the IRS does not see things the same way. The IRS approach is to tax everything it can get its hands on, including the computers Ford is providing to employees to help bridge the digital divide. According to the IRS, the employees who receive these computers from their employer are liable for tax on the value of the computers. Mr. President, this is wrong. When companies make the move to bring all of their employees into the 21st century, the government should not make it harder on the workers to accept the technology by increasing their taxes. Ford's employees should not be penalized for having an employer that understands the importance of a computer-literate workforce. The fact is that computers are a vital business tool, for all employees, and Ford has demonstrated its understanding of this fact by providing these computers for every employee, from the newest worker to the CEO. Ford's employees should not have to suffer as a result of the IRS's 19th century approach to tax policy. It is for this reason that my bill, the Bridging the Digital Divide Act of 2000, instructs the IRS not to treat computers provided to all employees by an employer as taxable income to the employee. This measure is in the interest of employees and employers alike. And because computers in the home will help increase our economic productivity and hence our output, we can expect that the long term impact of this provision will prove beneficial not just to workers and their families but to the nation's economy as well. Mr. President, many politicians stand up and complain about the problem of the ``digital divide.'' The Ford Motor Company has actually found a solution--a private sector solution--for its employees. The response of the government should be to thank Ford and encourage other companies to do what Ford has done--to take action that is in the best interest of its workers, not just for today, but for the future as well. But instead, the government response is to tax the recipients. I hope that other companies will follow Ford's example. By enacting this legislation, we may be making it possible for the private sector to help solve the digital divide, and will at least be ensuring that the government will not put the taxman in the way of the bridge- builders of the new economy.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bridging the Digital Divide Act of 2000, a bill to make it easier for working Americans to obtain computers and computer equipment so that no one is left behind in the new Internet economy. This legislation makes it possible for employees to accept computers offered by their employers without having to pay the IRS taxes on the value of the computer. Mr. President, the high-tech sector is an increasingly important part of our economy, creating new synergies and opportunities for Americans of all ages. The more we can do to encourage every American to participate in the Internet revolution, the more productive we as a nation will be. But the benefits of the high-tech revolution, while lucrative, must not be limited to only some of our citizens. The great promise of the Internet revolution is that the benefits and rewards are accessed at the individual level; not just reserved for big businesses or multinational corporations. Our government should facilitate, not hinder, bringing that promise to each American. In the long term, I believe that being hooked up to the Internet will be as universal as television. It is important to remember that the Internet is a new technology, one that few people had heard of ten years ago. We have gone from 5.8 million U.S. households online in 1994 to almost 40 million in 1999. By 2003, it is projected that 60 million households will be hooked up to the Internet. In the short term, however, it is important to facilitate the availability of the Internet to all Americans. While many citizens have been taking advantage of the opportunities the Internet has to offer, too many Americans and Missourians have been left behind. Too many people are opting out or being left behind by the Internet economy. According to Forrester Research, income is the main driver of Internet adoption. Americans who earn more, participate more, and thereby develop the ability to earn even more. According to a 1998 study by the Department of Commerce, households with income of $75,000 and more are over 20 times more likely to have Internet access than those at the lowest income levels. This divide among income levels also indicates a divide along racial lines as well. According to the same Department of Commerce report, black and Hispanic households are roughly two-fifths as likely to have Internet access as white households. Overall, according to Forrester Research, only 33 percent of African American households are on-line, ten percent fewer than the national average. In my home state of Missouri, great progress has been made toward the goal of bringing the state on-line. Since 1989, during my tenure as Governor, Missouri has managed a statewide network that connects state government departments and transmits voice, data, and video between them. The state Department of Administration runs the network, which connects government offices statewide over 14 nodes. In addition, according to the Department of Commerce, 42 percent of Missouri households have computers. Despite this progress, there is still more to do. In terms of Internet usage, Missouri ranks 32nd out of the 50 states, with only 24.3 percent of households connected to the Internet in 1998. Clearly, it is in Missouri's interest to promote increased connectedness. Across the nation, those who appreciate the power and opportunities inherent in the Internet continue to increase their involvement in the high-tech world. 60 percent of computer sales are being made to households that have already purchased a computer, demonstrating that these households recognize the importance of remaining current and up to date with their computer equipment. At the same time, only 40 percent of computer sales are being made to households purchasing a computer for the first time. If we want more Americans to experience the high-tech economy, we should encourage first time computer purchases and find ways to make computer ownership easier for families who are currently without. According to Dr. Mark Dean, a specialist in advanced technology development for IBM, the solution to the digital divide is to put computers in as many homes as possible. Unfortunately, when employers have tried to help bridge this gap by providing their employees with computers and Internet access, the Internet Revenue Service has widened the digital divide by treating the new equipment as a ``taxable event,'' or in other words, requiring the employee to pay income tax on the value of the computer. Recently, the Ford Motor Company began a laudale effort to increase involvement of its employees in the high-tech economy. In February, Ford announced that it would give all of its 350,000 employees free computers for their homes. Ford is doing this because they recognize the value of having a workforce that is computer literate and internet savvy. Ford understands that in the digital economy, on-line workers are more productive workers--whatever their responsibilities are with the company. Unfortunately, the IRS does not see things the same way. The IRS approach is to tax everything it can get its hands on, including the computers Ford is providing to employees to help bridge the digital divide. According to the IRS, the employees who receive these computers from their employer are liable for tax on the value of the computers. Mr. President, this is wrong. When companies make the move to bring all of their employees into the 21st century, the government should not make it harder on the workers to accept the technology by increasing their taxes. Ford's employees should not be penalized for having an employer that understands the importance of a computer-literate workforce. The fact is that computers are a vital business tool, for all employees, and Ford has demonstrated its understanding of this fact by providing these computers for every employee, from the newest worker to the CEO. Ford's employees should not have to suffer as a result of the IRS's 19th century approach to tax policy. It is for this reason that my bill, the Bridging the Digital Divide Act of 2000, instructs the IRS not to treat computers provided to all employees by an employer as taxable income to the employee. This measure is in the interest of employees and employers alike. And because computers in the home will help increase our economic productivity and hence our output, we can expect that the long term impact of this provision will prove beneficial not just to workers and their families but to the nation's economy as well. Mr. President, many politicians stand up and complain about the problem of the ``digital divide.'' The Ford Motor Company has actually found a solution--a private sector solution--for its employees. The response of the government should be to thank Ford and encourage other companies to do what Ford has done--to take action that is in the best interest of its workers, not just for today, but for the future as well. But instead, the government response is to tax the recipients. I hope that other companies will follow Ford's example. By enacting this legislation, we may be making it possible for the private sector to help solve the digital divide, and will at least be ensuring that the government will not put the taxman in the way of the bridge- builders of the new economy.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Thomas Pilkington as he retires from over thirty-six years of service to General Motors. Tom began his career with General Motors in 1964 as a Suggestion Plan Investigator at the Chevrolet Motor Division Plant in Framingham, Massachusetts. Through hard work and determination, Tom achieved numerous promotions, including Interviewer and later Safety Inspector. In 1970, Tom was appointed Supervisor of Labor Relations at the Chevrolet Assembly Plant at Ypsilanti, Michigan, Supervisor of Salaried Personnel Administration in 1972, and later that year, he became Supervisor of Labor Relations. In 1973, Tom became General Supervisor of Labor Relations followed by General Supervisor of Industrial Relations in 1976. The following year, he was named Administrator of Labor Relations at the GMAD-Central office in Warren, Michigan. Within a month, he became Administrator of Salaried Personnel. In October of 1977, Tom was named Personnel Director at the GMAD- Tarrytown plant in Tarrytown, New York, until his transfer in 1982 to Wentzville, Missouri, as Personnel Director. Tom Pilkington's long tenure of service demonstrates his perseverance, hard work and dedication. His outstanding service to General Motors over the years is truly admirable. I urge the Senate to join me in congratulating Thomas Pilkington and wishing him, his wife, Marilee, and their family the very best as they move on to face new challenges, opportunities, and rewards.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in tribute to all the men and women in law enforcement in this country. This week, May 14-20, is National Police Week, set aside to honor the men and women behind the badge. In 1962, Congress passed and President Kennedy signed a joint resolution proclaiming May 15 of each year as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the calendar week of each year during which such May 15 occurs as Police Week, ``in recognition of the service given by the men and women who, night and day, stand guard in our midst to protect us through enforcement of our laws,'' from Public Law 87-726. Sadly, between 140 and 160 law enforcement officers die in the line of duty each year. On average, 21,433 officers are injured in the line of duty each year. In honor of the thousands of officers who have given their lives to protect the people of this Nation, I am pleased to announce an important step that the Senate took yesterday in furtherance of a much needed change in the current federal law. Last September I introduced S. 1638, a bill to expand the educational opportunities under the Deegan program, named after slain Federal officer Bill Deegan, for the families of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. This bill honors those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defending our communities by making available Federal funds to those officers' spouses and dependent children in order to pursue secondary education. Yesterday, on National Peace Officers Memorial Day, the Senate unanimously passed S. 1638. I want to thank the Senate for taking this action, and urge the House to do the same. I want to thank the co-sponsors of this bill--Senators Collins, Grams, Robb, Tim Hutchinson, Dodd, Abraham, Specter, Bryan, Gregg, Helms, and Biden. I am very pleased by the bipartisan support for the bill, and for the endorsements of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association and other law enforcement organizations. This bill extends retroactively the benefits created under the 1992 law to the surviving spouses and dependent children of law enforcement officials who were killed between 1978 and the current start dates of the program. It is important to extend these benefits back to the year 1978 because under the existing program, a large number of dependent children currently between the ages 8 and 21, those born between 1978 and 1992, are excluded from participating in the program merely because their parent was killed before 1992. Pushing back the date allows these dependent children, currently facing the prospect of paying for secondary education in the often financially strained environment of a single-parent family, also to benefit from this program. This goal is consistent with the intent of the original law: an effort to show our gratitude to the maximum number of dependent children of slain law enforcement officers. This provision affects the families of an estimated 4,100 officers, including more than 60 in Missouri. The bill makes these spouses and dependent children eligible for up to $5820 a year for 4 years if they enroll in full-time study at an approved secondary school. In short, it helps the loved ones of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defending the rest of us by allowing them to pursue their dreams to move forward with their lives and continue their education. On this occasion, I also want to thank a very important organization headquartered in Camdenton, MO--the Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc. [COPS]. COPS was organized in 1984 with 110 members. Today COPS' membership is over 10,000 families. Concerns of Police Survivors, provides resources to assist in the rebuilding of the lives of surviving families of slain law enforcement officers. Furthermore, COPS provides training to law enforcement agencies on survivor victimization issues and educates the public of the need to support the law enforcement profession and its survivors. To help those families begin rebuilding their shattered lives, COPS is again hosting the National Police Survivors' Seminars as part of National Police Week--the second day of this seminar is occurring today in Alexandria, VA. For 15 years, COPS' National Police Survivors' Seminars have provided survivors of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty the opportunity to interact with other survivors and have access to some of the best mental health professionals available. I wish to thank COPS for the many programs that they operate in addition to the Police Survivors' Seminars, including scholarships, peer-support at the national, State, and local levels, ``C.O.P.S. Kids'' counseling programs, the ``C.O.P.S. Kids'' Summer Camp, Parents' Retreats, trial and parole support, and other assistance programs. We owe a debt of gratitude to the hundreds of thousands of police officers who protect the lives and property of their fellow Americans. By the enforcement of our laws, these same officers have given our country internal freedom from fear and are responsible for helping our nation lower its crime rates again this year. These men and women, by their patriotic service and their dedicated efforts, have earned the gratitude of us all. Officers who give their lives to protect our freedom leave behind families that must cope with the terrible loss. When this tragedy occurs, we have an obligation to help the spouses and children of fallen heroes. One way to help is to offer the opportunity to pursue their education. I thank the Senate for supporting this bill, and urge the House of Representatives to pass this legislation quickly.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I want to discuss an issue that, judging from my discussions with Missourians, establishing the right trade policy with China is of increasing concern to Americans, and Missourians in particular. Missourians want more opportunities to use their economic freedom to shape the future for their families. They want increasing opportunities to sell their products. They want reciprocity and fairness. This is why I want to ensure that Missouri businesses, farmers, and workers will get what they are promised. Access to a market that is almost one- fourth of the world's population can create higher paying jobs. But if China doesn't live up to its agreements like in the past--no new jobs will be created in Missouri. The WTO agreement that the United States concluded with China last November could give Missourians substantial benefits. Tariffs on industrial goods could fall from 25 to 9 percent--this means that all of the parts manufacturer5s for aerospace, automobiles, appliances would all face substantial ``tax decrease.'' Also, tariffs on agricultural goods would be reduced from 31 to 17 percent. Missouri, as a leader in agricultural production, would benefit substantially from these reductions. Cattlemen and pork producers would experience significant gains when tariffs are dropped to 12 percent. I also want Missouri farmers to have direct access to Chinese consumers instead of having to go through a bunch of middle-men. In addition, China has made commitments to eliminate eventually many of its current restrictions on services, such as distribution, banking, insurance, telecommunications, accounting, consulting, and other financial services. But these are the promises that are on paper. Missourians in the ``Show-Me'' state are leery of relying only on promises when they don't know whether there is adequate enforcement. I've visited many factories where the workers want to make sure that they get a fair shake. They want real opportunities. They don't want hollow promises. I've been all over the state visiting farm families, and this is what they want as well. Several of my constituents have a fairly accurate perspective on China's record of not voluntarily living up to its agreements. Let me read from a constituent letter, from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 9, Bridgeton, Mo., dated March 17, 2000: China has a history of failing to live up to every other trade agreement it has signed with the United States (the 1992 Memorandum on Prison Labor, the 1996 Bilateral Agreement on Unilateral Property Rights, the 1994 Bilateral Agreement on Textiles, and the 1992 memorandum of Understanding on Market Access). I think this constituent has a pretty accurate assessment of China's dismal trade record. Quite honestly, China's trade record has been poor. In a 1992 agreement, the so-called ``Market Access'' Agreement, Missouri farmers, ranchers, and workers weren't actually given much market access. In 1995 China eliminated 176 licensing requirements, but then imposed 400 new de facto licensing requirements. By 1999, China had removed over 1,0000 quotas and licenses, but the U.S. Trade Representative reports that China is erecting new barriers to restrict imports. Also, despite the commitment not to require import substitution, China announced a new ``Industrial Policy for the 1990s'' which could undermine the U.S. automobile, telecommunications, transportation, machinery, electronics, and construction industries. Another one of my constituents has additional concerns that once we approve PNTR, the U.S. will lose substantial leverage. From the International Association of Fire Fighters of Kansas City, Mo, Local Union No. 42, dated March 28, 2000: Granting PNTR will . . . reduce our ability to use unilateral tools to respond to continued Chinese failure to live up to its commitments. Our ability to take unilateral action is our only leverage against the Chinese government. Proponents of PNTR admit that only by using unilateral actions we were able to make even modest progress on intellectual property rights. The Chinese government has not lived up to the promises they made in every single trade agreement signed with the U.S. in the past ten years. This Missourian is absolutely correct. In 1994 when we negotiated the WTO, the United States gave up the right to threaten a level of retaliation that was ``appropriate in the circumstances'' to get compliance. However, now we are bound to retaliate at a level that the WTO decides. We have seen where this has taken us with exporting our beef to Europe--absolutely nowhere. We need to avoid creating an endless lawsuit with China that gets us nowhere. Missourians want some guarantees that they will in fact get export opportunities and not just a lot of litigation with no real results as with the Europeans in the beef and banana cases, where the retaliation level was reduced by the WTO body. My goal is consistent with the ``show me'' state. It is straight- forward. Open China's market to Missouri goods and services. In order to do that, however, we must have enforcement that works. That is why I am proposing the ``SHOW ME'' Act. My bill is simple. It would require the Administration to work out an arrangement with China whereby if the U.S. wins a WTO case but can't get compliance, China would agree not to challenge the U.S. level of retaliation. The Administration could negotiate this concession from China as a side letter to the November agreement or could negotiate as a part of the protocol of the accession phase. There is precedent for this requirement. The Administration negotiated a 12 to 15 year phase out of special rules for safeguards and anti-dumping and countervailing duties (which are tools to protect our market), yet they did not work out a 15 year phase out of use of Section 301 (which is a foreign market opening tool). Both are needed-- surge protection and market access tools. Market access is crucial to the farming community in Missouri, which gets about one-fourth of its farm income from overseas sales. In closing, Mr. President, quite frankly, there is declining satisfaction in America's heartland with our inability to pry open foreign markets. The only way we will rebuild is with real enforcement. A lot of my constituents from the ``Show Me'' state want to see more assurances from us and the Administration that what happened on the EU beef and banana cases won't reverberate through the Chinese market. They want our trade policy to create jobs in practice, not just in theory.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I want to discuss an issue that, judging from my discussions with Missourians, establishing the right trade policy with China is of increasing concern to Americans, and Missourians in particular. Missourians want more opportunities to use their economic freedom to shape the future for their families. They want increasing opportunities to sell their products. They want reciprocity and fairness. This is why I want to ensure that Missouri businesses, farmers, and workers will get what they are promised. Access to a market that is almost one- fourth of the world's population can create higher paying jobs. But if China doesn't live up to its agreements like in the past--no new jobs will be created in Missouri. The WTO agreement that the United States concluded with China last November could give Missourians substantial benefits. Tariffs on industrial goods could fall from 25 to 9 percent--this means that all of the parts manufacturer5s for aerospace, automobiles, appliances would all face substantial ``tax decrease.'' Also, tariffs on agricultural goods would be reduced from 31 to 17 percent. Missouri, as a leader in agricultural production, would benefit substantially from these reductions. Cattlemen and pork producers would experience significant gains when tariffs are dropped to 12 percent. I also want Missouri farmers to have direct access to Chinese consumers instead of having to go through a bunch of middle-men. In addition, China has made commitments to eliminate eventually many of its current restrictions on services, such as distribution, banking, insurance, telecommunications, accounting, consulting, and other financial services. But these are the promises that are on paper. Missourians in the ``Show-Me'' state are leery of relying only on promises when they don't know whether there is adequate enforcement. I've visited many factories where the workers want to make sure that they get a fair shake. They want real opportunities. They don't want hollow promises. I've been all over the state visiting farm families, and this is what they want as well. Several of my constituents have a fairly accurate perspective on China's record of not voluntarily living up to its agreements. Let me read from a constituent letter, from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 9, Bridgeton, Mo., dated March 17, 2000: China has a history of failing to live up to every other trade agreement it has signed with the United States (the 1992 Memorandum on Prison Labor, the 1996 Bilateral Agreement on Unilateral Property Rights, the 1994 Bilateral Agreement on Textiles, and the 1992 memorandum of Understanding on Market Access). I think this constituent has a pretty accurate assessment of China's dismal trade record. Quite honestly, China's trade record has been poor. In a 1992 agreement, the so-called ``Market Access'' Agreement, Missouri farmers, ranchers, and workers weren't actually given much market access. In 1995 China eliminated 176 licensing requirements, but then imposed 400 new de facto licensing requirements. By 1999, China had removed over 1,0000 quotas and licenses, but the U.S. Trade Representative reports that China is erecting new barriers to restrict imports. Also, despite the commitment not to require import substitution, China announced a new ``Industrial Policy for the 1990s'' which could undermine the U.S. automobile, telecommunications, transportation, machinery, electronics, and construction industries. Another one of my constituents has additional concerns that once we approve PNTR, the U.S. will lose substantial leverage. From the International Association of Fire Fighters of Kansas City, Mo, Local Union No. 42, dated March 28, 2000: Granting PNTR will . . . reduce our ability to use unilateral tools to respond to continued Chinese failure to live up to its commitments. Our ability to take unilateral action is our only leverage against the Chinese government. Proponents of PNTR admit that only by using unilateral actions we were able to make even modest progress on intellectual property rights. The Chinese government has not lived up to the promises they made in every single trade agreement signed with the U.S. in the past ten years. This Missourian is absolutely correct. In 1994 when we negotiated the WTO, the United States gave up the right to threaten a level of retaliation that was ``appropriate in the circumstances'' to get compliance. However, now we are bound to retaliate at a level that the WTO decides. We have seen where this has taken us with exporting our beef to Europe--absolutely nowhere. We need to avoid creating an endless lawsuit with China that gets us nowhere. Missourians want some guarantees that they will in fact get export opportunities and not just a lot of litigation with no real results as with the Europeans in the beef and banana cases, where the retaliation level was reduced by the WTO body. My goal is consistent with the ``show me'' state. It is straight- forward. Open China's market to Missouri goods and services. In order to do that, however, we must have enforcement that works. That is why I am proposing the ``SHOW ME'' Act. My bill is simple. It would require the Administration to work out an arrangement with China whereby if the U.S. wins a WTO case but can't get compliance, China would agree not to challenge the U.S. level of retaliation. The Administration could negotiate this concession from China as a side letter to the November agreement or could negotiate as a part of the protocol of the accession phase. There is precedent for this requirement. The Administration negotiated a 12 to 15 year phase out of special rules for safeguards and anti-dumping and countervailing duties (which are tools to protect our market), yet they did not work out a 15 year phase out of use of Section 301 (which is a foreign market opening tool). Both are needed-- surge protection and market access tools. Market access is crucial to the farming community in Missouri, which gets about one-fourth of its farm income from overseas sales. In closing, Mr. President, quite frankly, there is declining satisfaction in America's heartland with our inability to pry open foreign markets. The only way we will rebuild is with real enforcement. A lot of my constituents from the ``Show Me'' state want to see more assurances from us and the Administration that what happened on the EU beef and banana cases won't reverberate through the Chinese market. They want our trade policy to create jobs in practice, not just in theory.