Peter Fitzgerald

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton, both of whom are here, and Senators Torricelli, Bingaman, Domenici, Jeffords, McCain, and Allen, who are cosponsors of this amendment. This amendment simply seeks to ensure that any reparations received by victims of the Holocaust--reparations or settlement payments received by those victims not be subject to Federal income taxes. Actually, our tax law provides that if money is stolen from somebody, or if property is stolen from somebody, and that is later recovered, that person should not have to pay income tax on getting their own money back. However, there have been a number of conflicting revenue rulings in this area, and the victims of the Holocaust, which occurred at the hands of the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, are concerned that the reparations they are receiving from a variety of settlement funds, from banks and insurance companies in Germany, Switzerland, and elsewhere--that under the current revenue rulings of the IRS, there might be some confusion as to whether those settlement payments are taxable income. This amendment simply seeks to ensure that the IRS would not treat as taxable income any Holocaust reparations or payments. The Joint Tax Committee scored this amendment as costing $31 million over the next 10 years. It is a very small amount. There are 100,000 survivors of the Holocaust in the United States, approximately 10,000 of them from my State of Illinois. The average age of Holocaust survivors is over 80 years. Recently--just a few weeks ago--I had the opportunity to be at a Holocaust memorial service in Skokie, IL. Skokie is a village to which a large number of Holocaust refugees and survivors of the Holocaust came after World War II, and they kept coming well into the late 1950s. After appearing at that ceremony, I had the opportunity to meet many individuals who were, in fact, Holocaust survivors. I heard from their own mouths the stories of the horrors they endured at the hands of the Nazis. I saw several of the survivors with the tattoos that the SS agents had put on their arms. One woman told me she went into one of those concentration camps--I believe it was at Auschwitz--with both her parents and also with her younger brothers and sisters. As soon as she got into that camp, the Nazis killed her parents and subsequently killed her younger brothers and sisters. They kept her alive because she was a teenager and they believed that they could put her to work. Obviously, all of the assets of her family and tens of thousands, millions of others like hers were confiscated by the Nazis. There are several settlement funds that have been created to finally, 56 years after the end of World War II, pay some modest compensation to these families and Holocaust survivors and their heirs for all the sufferings they endured. In fact, the compensation is really just the return of their own money or property that rightly belonged to them. I hope we can adopt this amendment. It has the support of the administration, I am told. The previous administration also supported this measure. It was included in tax bills that were passed in the last session of Congress. Unfortunately, those overall tax bills were vetoed for other reasons. I would appreciate the support of all of my colleagues, and I certainly appreciate the willingness of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus to work with us as we try to find a possible means of replacing that slight $31 million in tax revenue that would be lost over the next 10 years. Mr. President, again, I thank my colleagues. I am going to add, at this point, Senator Gordon Smith as a cosponsor to the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank my colleague in New York. I agree with him. I think it would be beneath the dignity of this great country to actually assess a Federal income tax on those payments of compensation to the victims of the Holocaust. I thank the Senator. Both of my colleagues from New York have been very helpful. There is one other point I want to make. This bill also would ensure that payments received by Holocaust survivors not be counted in any calculation for eligibility for any of our Federal programs such as Medicaid. We would not want someone tossed out of a nursing home because they were receiving one of these payments. That is one of the benefits of this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I will be happy to do that. I have been working with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. I look forward to working with them into the evening. I appreciate their efforts to accommodate this amendment.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Holocaust Survivors Tax Fairness Act of 2001. This important legislation would prevent the federal government from imposing the federal income tax on Holocaust restitution or compensation payments that victims of their heirs may receive. More than 50 years after the end of World War II, many banks and companies in Europe are beginning to return stolen assets to survivors of the Holocaust and their heirs. In August of 1998, two of the largest banks in Switzerland agreed to distribute $1.25 billion as restitution for assets wrongfully withheld during the Nazi reign. And in February of 1999, the German government agreed to establish a fund to compensate victims of the Holocaust. The legislation I am introducing ensures that the beneficiaries of these settlements and other Holocaust restitution or compensation arrangements can exclude the proceeds from taxable income on their federal income tax forms. Holocast survivors and their families have lived through unspeakable tragedies. While the restitution settlements pale in comparison to what they have lost, this measure ensures that survivors can keep all of what was returned to them without being unnecessarily burdened by taxes. The Congress must send a clear message that to allow the federal government to tax away any reparations obtained by Holocaust survivors or their families because of their persecution by the Nazis or their sympathizers is simply unacceptable. Given that the average age of Holocaust survivors now exceeds 80 years of age, we believe it is imperative that the Congress act now to prevent the federal government from attempting to tax this money. Similar legislation was agreed to by the Senate as an amendment to the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999. The provision was retained in conference and included in the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. The final bill was vetoed, however, preventing this important provision regarding Holocaust reparations from becoming law. After over 50 years of injustice, Holocaust survivors and their families are reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. Even as we support these efforts to reclaim stolen property, we must do our part in protecting the proceeds.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, April 26 is National D.O. Day, a day when we recognize the more than 47,000 osteopathic physicians (D.O.s) across the country for their contributions to the American healthcare system. On National D.O. Day, more than 500 members of the osteopathic medical profession, including osteopathic physicians and medical students, will descend upon Capitol Hill to share their views with Congress. I am pleased that nearly 40 osteopathic representatives will be visiting our Capitol from Illinois. These representatives are practicing osteopathic physicians, staff from the American Osteopathic Association's headquarters in Chicago, and osteopathic medical students from the Midwestern University-Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine. For more than a century, D.O.s have made a difference in the lives and health of Americans everywhere. They have treated presidents and Olympic athletes. They have contributed to the fight against AIDS and the fight for civil rights. And D.O.s have been represented at the highest levels of the medical profession. Recently, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the chief medical officer for the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Surgeon General of the U.S. Army were all osteopathic physicians. As fully licensed physicians able to prescribe medication and perform surgery, D.O.s are committed to serving the health needs of rural and underserved communities. That is why D.O.s make up 15 percent of the total physician population in towns of 10,000 or less. In addition, 64 percent of D.O.s practice in the primary care areas of medicine, fulfilling a need for more primary care physicians in an era marked by the growth of managed care. Overall, more than 100 million patient visits are made each year to D.O.s. In recognition of National D.O. Day, I would like to congratulate the over 1,900 osteopathic physicians in Illinois, the approximately 630 students at Midwestern University-Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, and the 47,000 D.O.s represented by the American Osteopathic Association for their contributions to the good health of the American people.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I would like consent to withdraw it and resubmit it. I am still working on getting it so that it technically complies with all I want to achieve.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment I introduced on Friday, to be resubmitted later in the week, as there are now some technical glitches.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I have an amendment to S. 27 that was actually proposed by my own campaign treasurer and, after I started to look into it, I found out that the FEC had, in fact, made this very same recommendation to President Clinton last year and this year to President Bush. This is an amendment that will simplify the existing Federal election code limits and simplify the bookkeeping and recordkeeping requirements of the act without changing any of its substance. Right now there is a contribution limit of $1,000 per primary and per general election. Any individual can give up to $1,000 for the primary that a candidate is in and another $1,000 for the general election. It is permissible under current law for candidates to actually ask their contributors to give them $2,000 right now, as long as they designate that $1,000 is for the primary and $1,000 is for the general election. And this system has been in place since the act first came into existence in the early 1970s. The problem with the way the act is written is that if a contributor fails to designate which election their contribution is for, and that contributor has already given $1,000, and they give another $1,000, if they do not designate that that contribution is for the succeeding election--say he already gave $1,000 for the primary, and he fails to designate that his additional $1,000 contribution is for the general election, then the candidate must refund that $1,000, unless he gets the contributor to fill out a form saying for which election he or she designates the contribution. This causes a lot of bookkeeping headaches for your treasurer. I am sure if you check with your own treasurer, Mr. President, he or she would love this amendment. In fact, the treasurers of all 100 Senators would immediately see the wisdom in my amendment. My amendment would change that per election limit of $1,000 to a per cycle limit of $2,000. So, in other words, you would collect $2,000 from a contributor and not worry about whether the contributor has designated $1,000 for the primary and $1,000 for the general election. Mr. President, the FEC, in their recommendation to the President--I am going to read what they said about this. They recommended that we change this. It simply would save them a lot of time and staff resources, and it would also save our own campaigns a lot of time and bookkeeping headaches that are simply necessitated by the way the act is phrased. Instead of having a per cycle contribution limit, we have a per election limit, and we have to keep sending these redesignation forms to our contributors. The FEC, in their letter to the President in March of this year, this month, wrote: The Commission recommends that limits on contributions to candidates be placed on an election cycle basis, rather than current per election basis. Their explanation for their recommendation was as follows: The contribution limitations affecting contributions to candidates are structured on a ``per election'' basis, thus necessitating dual bookkeeping or the adoption of some other method to distinguish between primary or general election contributions. The Commission has had to adopt several rules to clarify which contributions are attributable to which election and to assure that contributions are reported for the proper election. Many enforcement cases have been generated where contributors' donations are excessive vis-a- vis a particular election, but not vis-a-vis the $2,000 total that could have been contributed for the cycle. Often, this is due to donors' failure to fully document which election was intended. Sometimes the apparent ``excessives'' for a particular election turn out to be simple reporting errors where the wrong box was checked on the reporting form. Yet, substantial resources must be devoted to examination of each transaction to determine which election is applicable. Further, several enforcement cases have been generated based on the use of general election contributions for primary election expenses or vice versa. Most of these complications would be eliminated with adoption of a ``per cycle'' contribution limit. Thus, multicandidate committees could give up to $10,000 and all other persons could give up to $2,000 to an authorized committee at any point during the election cycle. The Commission and committees could get out of the business of determining whether contributions are properly attributable to a particular election, and the difficulty of assuring that particular contributions are used for a particular election could be eliminated. Moreover, public law number 106-58 (the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill) amended the Federal Election Campaign Act to require authorized candidate committees to report on a campaign-to-date basis, rather than on a calendar year basis, as of the reporting period beginning January 1, 2001. Placing the limits on contributions to candidates on an election cycle basis would complement this change and streamline candidate reporting. It would be advisable to clarify that if a candidate participates in more than two elections (e.g., in a post- primary runoff as well as a primary in a general), the campaign cycle limit would be $3,000. In addition, because Presidential candidates might opt to take public funding for the general election, but not the primary, and thereby be precluded from accepting general election contributions, $1,000/$5,000 ``per election'' contribution limits should be retained for Presidential candidates. A campaign cycle contribution limit would allow contributors to give more than $1,000 toward a particular primary or general election, but this would be balanced by the tendency of campaigns to plan their fundraising and manage their resources so as not to be left without fundraising capability at a crucial time. Moreover, adoption of this recommendation would eliminate the current requirement that candidates who lose the primary election refund or redesignate any contributions made for the general election after the primary is over. Mr. President, we have drafted an amendment to implement this recommendation of the Federal Election Commission. The FEC general counsel's office, I have been told, is OK with the amendment as drafted. I will continue to be in touch with them over the weekend and over the next few days to see if we need to make any technical modifications at all to implement their intentions. The bottom line is that this amendment does not change at all the substance of the Federal election laws. It simply makes life a whole lot easier for candidates, especially for their financial departments, and in particular their campaign treasurers. This whole business of sending people letters and asking them to designate whether their contribution is for the primary or the general and if they don't return that designation, you have to refund their contribution--all of that, which is necessitated by the inadequate wording of the current law as it stands--is something we could avoid. It serves no public policy purpose that I can identify or that the FEC can identify. This would simplify things for candidates, their campaigns, and for the FEC. Presumably, it would free up some of the FEC's staff to focus on more serious matters that could violate the spirit of the election laws. Mr. President, on that basis, I thank you for this opportunity to introduce my amendment. I have shared it with both the Republican and Democratic sides. I would like to have unanimous support for this amendment. I can assure any Senator who votes against this amendment that their campaign treasurers will not be happy with them. This will make their lives easier. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD. That should be the name of this amendment.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes. The treasurers will love this amendment, and it would cut down on postage expenses and a whole lot of headaches. I urge its unanimous adoption.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, we have been in contact with the general counsel's office of the FEC. They just had the last few minutes for review. They have told me they are OK with the amendment, but I want to give them more time and have them scrub it over the weekend to make sure. In my own mind, I do have a couple questions on which I want to be satisfied. In particular, I have questions about how our amendment affects the requirement that you have to segregate money you have taken in the primary and general. I want to talk to the FEC about that and see whether my amendment fully comports with their intentions. I want an opportunity to make a technical correction later if it is required.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 581, a bill that will help United States Army arsenals remain competitive and productive in the 21st century. The Army arsenals have long been an important military resource. They have not only served as a cost- effective supplier of high-quality military equipment, they have also proven to be an invaluable supplier of last resort, providing mission- critical parts when private contractors have lacked the capacity to meet emergency needs or have breached their contracts with the government. This bill will help ensure that these important facilities do not fall into disuse during the periods between national emergencies and heightened military needs. Rock Island Arsenal, in my home state of Illinois, was acquired by the United States in 1804. Located on an island in the Mississippi River, the area was converted to its current function, and named Rock Island Arsenal, in 1862. Since then, Rock Island Arsenal has built weapons and military equipment for all of our nation's wars, developing a specialty in the manufacture of howitzers. Today, Rock Island Arsenal is the Department of Defense's only general-purpose metal-manufacturing facility, performing forging, sheet metal, and welding and heat-treating operations that cover the entire range of technologically feasible processes. Rock Island Arsenal also contains a machine shop that is capable of such specialized operations as gear cutting, die sinking, and tool making; a paint shop certified to apply Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings to items as large as tanks; and a plating shop that can apply chrome, nickel, cadmium, and copper, and can galvanize, parkerize, anodize, and apply oxide finishes. These capabilities have proven essential to the functioning of the United States military. In recent years, Rock Island Arsenal has been called on to produce M16 gun bolts when a private contractor defaulted on a contract. It has also produced mission-critical pins and shims for Apache helicopters when outside suppliers have proven unresponsive to the Army's needs. S. 581 will help guarantee that United States arsenals will be there again when the military needs them in an emergency, by helping to ensure that arsenals have an adequate workload in normal times. During the 1990s, the Department of Defense shifted away from direct funding of arsenals to the Working Capital Fund, ``W.C.F.'', system, under which private companies compete with the arsenals for government service and production contracts. This system has improved the efficiency of the military by promoting cost transparency and discouraging the overconsumption of arsenal goods and services. Unfortunately, implementation of the W.C.F. system has also produced some unintended consequences. As arsenals have been placed in competition with private firms, they have remained tied down by government rules that place the arsenals at a competitive disadvantage--and that hamper their efforts to secure a full workload. One of these rules is the requirement that arsenals be paid in advance for all services and products that they provide. Private firms are not required to operate under such conditions, they routinely receive payment only once they have delivered on their contract. As a result, a military department seeking goods or services, or a private contractor seeking help in supplying the government--is discouraged from contracting with an arsenal. Even when an arsenal can provide higher quality or at lower cost, the requirement of up-front payment may prove burdensome enough to convince purchasers to meet their needs elsewhere. The legislation that I introduce today will place United States Army arsenals on a more equal footing with their private competitors. It will limit the advance-payment requirement to only those circumstances where payment is less than certain, and will otherwise allow arsenals to accept payment after performance. Specifically, arsenals will be allowed to accept later payment when the United States purchases directly from an arsenal, when an arsenal supplies a contractor serving the United States, or when payment for foreign military purchases is guaranteed by the United States. In these cases, an advance-payment requirement is unnecessary--it serves only to put the arsenals at a competitive disadvantage. Application of the requirement in these circumstances should be ended. S. 581 will help ensure that Army arsenals will be able to secure an adequate workload in periods between supply emergencies. This bill will also serve taxpayers' money by encouraging efficient use of reserve resources, which must be maintained regardless of whether or not they are fully in use. Therefore, in the interest of encouraging optimal utilization of an invaluable national resource, and to help integrate the Army arsenals into the private-competition system of the Working Capital Fund, I today introduce s. 581. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 581, a bill that will help United States Army arsenals remain competitive and productive in the 21st century. The Army arsenals have long been an important military resource. They have not only served as a cost- effective supplier of high-quality military equipment, they have also proven to be an invaluable supplier of last resort, providing mission- critical parts when private contractors have lacked the capacity to meet emergency needs or have breached their contracts with the government. This bill will help ensure that these important facilities do not fall into disuse during the periods between national emergencies and heightened military needs. Rock Island Arsenal, in my home state of Illinois, was acquired by the United States in 1804. Located on an island in the Mississippi River, the area was converted to its current function, and named Rock Island Arsenal, in 1862. Since then, Rock Island Arsenal has built weapons and military equipment for all of our nation's wars, developing a specialty in the manufacture of howitzers. Today, Rock Island Arsenal is the Department of Defense's only general-purpose metal-manufacturing facility, performing forging, sheet metal, and welding and heat-treating operations that cover the entire range of technologically feasible processes. Rock Island Arsenal also contains a machine shop that is capable of such specialized operations as gear cutting, die sinking, and tool making; a paint shop certified to apply Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings to items as large as tanks; and a plating shop that can apply chrome, nickel, cadmium, and copper, and can galvanize, parkerize, anodize, and apply oxide finishes. These capabilities have proven essential to the functioning of the United States military. In recent years, Rock Island Arsenal has been called on to produce M16 gun bolts when a private contractor defaulted on a contract. It has also produced mission-critical pins and shims for Apache helicopters when outside suppliers have proven unresponsive to the Army's needs. S. 581 will help guarantee that United States arsenals will be there again when the military needs them in an emergency, by helping to ensure that arsenals have an adequate workload in normal times. During the 1990s, the Department of Defense shifted away from direct funding of arsenals to the Working Capital Fund, ``W.C.F.'', system, under which private companies compete with the arsenals for government service and production contracts. This system has improved the efficiency of the military by promoting cost transparency and discouraging the overconsumption of arsenal goods and services. Unfortunately, implementation of the W.C.F. system has also produced some unintended consequences. As arsenals have been placed in competition with private firms, they have remained tied down by government rules that place the arsenals at a competitive disadvantage--and that hamper their efforts to secure a full workload. One of these rules is the requirement that arsenals be paid in advance for all services and products that they provide. Private firms are not required to operate under such conditions, they routinely receive payment only once they have delivered on their contract. As a result, a military department seeking goods or services, or a private contractor seeking help in supplying the government--is discouraged from contracting with an arsenal. Even when an arsenal can provide higher quality or at lower cost, the requirement of up-front payment may prove burdensome enough to convince purchasers to meet their needs elsewhere. The legislation that I introduce today will place United States Army arsenals on a more equal footing with their private competitors. It will limit the advance-payment requirement to only those circumstances where payment is less than certain, and will otherwise allow arsenals to accept payment after performance. Specifically, arsenals will be allowed to accept later payment when the United States purchases directly from an arsenal, when an arsenal supplies a contractor serving the United States, or when payment for foreign military purchases is guaranteed by the United States. In these cases, an advance-payment requirement is unnecessary--it serves only to put the arsenals at a competitive disadvantage. Application of the requirement in these circumstances should be ended. S. 581 will help ensure that Army arsenals will be able to secure an adequate workload in periods between supply emergencies. This bill will also serve taxpayers' money by encouraging efficient use of reserve resources, which must be maintained regardless of whether or not they are fully in use. Therefore, in the interest of encouraging optimal utilization of an invaluable national resource, and to help integrate the Army arsenals into the private-competition system of the Working Capital Fund, I today introduce s. 581. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``MTBE Elimination Act of 2001.'' I thank my colleagues--Senators Bayh, Brownback, Kohl, and Durbin for joining me as original co-sponsors of this important legislation. I have become deeply concerned by the use and ultimate misuse of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, a nonrenewable fuel derivative, and its potential adverse health effects on those who come in contact with it. As my colleagues may remember, I introduced the ``MTBE Elimination Act of 2000" last Congress, but no action was taken in the 106th Congress to eliminate the use of this potentially hazardous chemical additive. Specifically, the ``MTBE Elimination Act of 2001'' will phase out MTBE use across the United States over the next three years, ensure proper labeling of all fuel dispensaries containing MTBE enriched reformulated gasoline, provide grant awards for MTBE research, and express the sense of the Senate that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should provide assistance to municipalities to test for MTBE in drinking water sources, as well as provide remediation where appropriate. This bill represents an important first step toward nationwide safe and healthy drinking water. Despite the potential damaging effects of MTBE, research of this chemical is still in its preliminary stages. In February of 1996, the Health Effects Institute reported that MTBE could be classified as a neurotoxicant for its acute impairment effects on humans. Further, the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and the Centers for Disease Control from December 1992 through February 1993 monitored concentrations of MTBE in the air and in the blood of humans. These studies showed that people with a higher concentration of MTBE in their bloodstream have a much greater tendency toward headaches, eye irritation, nausea, disorientation, and vomiting. Finally, the January 16, 2000 broadcast of the ``60 Minutes'' show noted, ``the EPA's position is that MTBE is a possible human carcinogen.'' Mr. President, we must remove this kind of chemical from our Nation's drinking water supply. Widespread pollution of water systems by MTBE has been perpetuated by a lack of knowledge, as well as indifference, to this potentially hazardous substance. MTBE does not readily attach to soil particles, nor does it naturally biodegrade, making its movement from gasoline to water extremely rapid. The physical properties of MTBE, coupled with its potential adverse health effects, make the use of this specific oxygenate dangerous to the American people. The elimination of the use of MTBE in reformulated gasoline should not mean the removal of the oxygenate requirement set forth under the Clean Air Act of 1990--which requires reformulated gasoline to contain two percent oxygen by weight. I believe it to be reasonable for our nation to expect both clean air and clean water, without having to eliminate the reformulated gasoline market or sacrifice our national health. According to the United States Department of Agriculture study entitled ``Economic Analysis of Replacing MTBE with Ethanol in the United States,'' replacing MTBE with the corn-based oxygenate additive ethanol would create approximately 13,000 new jobs in rural America, increase farm income by more than $1 billion annually over the next ten years, and reduce farm program costs and loan deficiency payments through an expanded value-added market for grain. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has concluded that within three years, ethanol can be used as a substitute oxygenate for MTBE in nationwide markets without price increases or supply disruptions. Ethanol has proven to be a viable, environmentally-friendlier alternative to MTBE. The Chicago reformulated gas program (RFG) has used ethanol for years, and according to the American Lung Association, Chicago has established one of the most successful RFG programs in the country. Ethanol is vitally important to my home state since Illinois is the number one producer of ethanol in the nation. Each year, 274 million bushels of Illinois corn are used to produce about 678 million gallons of ethanol. At a time when agricultural prices are at near- record lows, this increased demand is sorely needed. Recently, Tosco Corporation, one the nation's largest independent oil refiners and marketers, announced its intention to sell ethanol-blended fuel from its 1,600 retail outlets throughout California. This decision will result in the replacement of MTBE with ethanol in one-fifth of California's reformulated gasoline by the end of this year, thereby helping to protect California's water supply for future generations, while keeping its air clean. The bill that I introduce today paves the way for this important bio-based fuel to be used not only in California and the Midwest, but nationwide. By supporting bio-based fuel through legislative measures such as this bill, we are taking positive and decisive steps toward cleaning our nation's water, and the environment we will leave for our children and grandchildren. This legislation will send a signal that the Senate strongly supports bio-based fuels research and recognizes the need to find viable ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Through research programs, localized testing, and proper labeling we can help assure that MTBE is properly identified in gasoline, extracted from groundwater, and phased out of use thereby reducing the risk of future MTBE contamination. By phasing out MTBE over a three year period and replacing it with ethanol, we can help secure an ample supply of reformulated gasoline, clean water, and clean air for future generations. This bill should enjoy bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to join me in co- sponsoring this bill that is so important to the well being of the environment as well as our nation's farmers. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``MTBE Elimination Act of 2001.'' I thank my colleagues--Senators Bayh, Brownback, Kohl, and Durbin for joining me as original co-sponsors of this important legislation. I have become deeply concerned by the use and ultimate misuse of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, a nonrenewable fuel derivative, and its potential adverse health effects on those who come in contact with it. As my colleagues may remember, I introduced the ``MTBE Elimination Act of 2000" last Congress, but no action was taken in the 106th Congress to eliminate the use of this potentially hazardous chemical additive. Specifically, the ``MTBE Elimination Act of 2001'' will phase out MTBE use across the United States over the next three years, ensure proper labeling of all fuel dispensaries containing MTBE enriched reformulated gasoline, provide grant awards for MTBE research, and express the sense of the Senate that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should provide assistance to municipalities to test for MTBE in drinking water sources, as well as provide remediation where appropriate. This bill represents an important first step toward nationwide safe and healthy drinking water. Despite the potential damaging effects of MTBE, research of this chemical is still in its preliminary stages. In February of 1996, the Health Effects Institute reported that MTBE could be classified as a neurotoxicant for its acute impairment effects on humans. Further, the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and the Centers for Disease Control from December 1992 through February 1993 monitored concentrations of MTBE in the air and in the blood of humans. These studies showed that people with a higher concentration of MTBE in their bloodstream have a much greater tendency toward headaches, eye irritation, nausea, disorientation, and vomiting. Finally, the January 16, 2000 broadcast of the ``60 Minutes'' show noted, ``the EPA's position is that MTBE is a possible human carcinogen.'' Mr. President, we must remove this kind of chemical from our Nation's drinking water supply. Widespread pollution of water systems by MTBE has been perpetuated by a lack of knowledge, as well as indifference, to this potentially hazardous substance. MTBE does not readily attach to soil particles, nor does it naturally biodegrade, making its movement from gasoline to water extremely rapid. The physical properties of MTBE, coupled with its potential adverse health effects, make the use of this specific oxygenate dangerous to the American people. The elimination of the use of MTBE in reformulated gasoline should not mean the removal of the oxygenate requirement set forth under the Clean Air Act of 1990--which requires reformulated gasoline to contain two percent oxygen by weight. I believe it to be reasonable for our nation to expect both clean air and clean water, without having to eliminate the reformulated gasoline market or sacrifice our national health. According to the United States Department of Agriculture study entitled ``Economic Analysis of Replacing MTBE with Ethanol in the United States,'' replacing MTBE with the corn-based oxygenate additive ethanol would create approximately 13,000 new jobs in rural America, increase farm income by more than $1 billion annually over the next ten years, and reduce farm program costs and loan deficiency payments through an expanded value-added market for grain. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has concluded that within three years, ethanol can be used as a substitute oxygenate for MTBE in nationwide markets without price increases or supply disruptions. Ethanol has proven to be a viable, environmentally-friendlier alternative to MTBE. The Chicago reformulated gas program (RFG) has used ethanol for years, and according to the American Lung Association, Chicago has established one of the most successful RFG programs in the country. Ethanol is vitally important to my home state since Illinois is the number one producer of ethanol in the nation. Each year, 274 million bushels of Illinois corn are used to produce about 678 million gallons of ethanol. At a time when agricultural prices are at near- record lows, this increased demand is sorely needed. Recently, Tosco Corporation, one the nation's largest independent oil refiners and marketers, announced its intention to sell ethanol-blended fuel from its 1,600 retail outlets throughout California. This decision will result in the replacement of MTBE with ethanol in one-fifth of California's reformulated gasoline by the end of this year, thereby helping to protect California's water supply for future generations, while keeping its air clean. The bill that I introduce today paves the way for this important bio-based fuel to be used not only in California and the Midwest, but nationwide. By supporting bio-based fuel through legislative measures such as this bill, we are taking positive and decisive steps toward cleaning our nation's water, and the environment we will leave for our children and grandchildren. This legislation will send a signal that the Senate strongly supports bio-based fuels research and recognizes the need to find viable ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Through research programs, localized testing, and proper labeling we can help assure that MTBE is properly identified in gasoline, extracted from groundwater, and phased out of use thereby reducing the risk of future MTBE contamination. By phasing out MTBE over a three year period and replacing it with ethanol, we can help secure an ample supply of reformulated gasoline, clean water, and clean air for future generations. This bill should enjoy bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to join me in co- sponsoring this bill that is so important to the well being of the environment as well as our nation's farmers. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise in support of John Ashcroft in his nomination as our Nation's Attorney General. This nomination debate and the consideration of John Ashcroft's nomination is much different for me than my consideration of all the other nominees to President Bush's Cabinet. It is different for the reason that in the case of most other nominees, I do not know those individuals personally. Of course, I did know Senator Abraham who served well with us and has now been confirmed as our Nation's Energy Secretary. But with the exception of Senators Abraham and Ashcroft, most of the nominees come to me just from what I have heard, what I have seen in the newspapers, what others have written about those people. I do not have the personal experience that I have had in the case of John Ashcroft. I knew John Ashcroft before I joined the Senate over 2 years ago. I got to know him a little bit during the time I was running for Senator from Illinois. Then, of course, once I was sworn into office, I had the privilege of working with John Ashcroft on a regular basis. I worked with him for 2 years side by side, sometimes day in and day out. My State of Illinois is right next door to the State of Missouri, so perhaps I have had the privilege of getting to know John Ashcroft and working with him more closely than many of the other Members of this body. We, of course, have many issues that Illinois and Missouri share in common. We have a similar agricultural economy where corn and beans are the prevailing crop. We also have the Mississippi River that divides our two States. We are frequently working together on issues of concern to the Mississippi River. We also share the Greater St. Louis metropolitan region. Most of that region is in John's State of Missouri, but a large portion of it, maybe 20 percent of it, actually is across in the eastern part of the Mississippi River and in my State of Illinois. We were constantly discussing issues of job creation and economic opportunities in the Greater St. Louis region. In addition, I had the opportunity to work closely with John insofar as he was a supporter of a bill that I sponsored last year to improve the standards on child safety seats in this country. The bill went through the Senate Commerce Committee. In fact, I believe John was chairman of the subcommittee in which that issue was first taken up. I also worked very closely with Senator Ashcroft on the issue of sanction reform. Both John and I and many others, representing particularly midwestern States, were very concerned that some of the sanctions our Government put on other countries, banning the sale of products from our country to other countries around the world that may have bad records in one regard or another, were hurting people that they were not intended to hurt and were not affecting the governments. At the same time, they were shooting our own farmers in the foot. I supported John's efforts to lift the sanctions with respect to food and medicine that our country had placed on a number of nations around the world. There are many other issues. In fact, my staff gave me two pages of issues that I worked very closely on with John Ashcroft. I am not going to go through and rebut one by one all the little points that have been made. In fact, I think many people have already done a good job rebutting some of the disinformation that has been put out. I think Senator Ashcroft did an outstanding job defending his own record before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Of the people I have known over the course of my public life, I would have to tell my colleagues that John Ashcroft has few equals in terms of character and integrity. John Ashcroft is a man of utmost character and integrity--as much, if not more so, than anyone else I have ever met in public life. When I heard that President Bush had nominated John Ashcroft to be Attorney General, I knew that I had disagreed with John Ashcroft on many issues during the course of the last 2 years. I had voted differently than he on any number of issues, maybe some of which have been used as an argument against John Ashcroft. But I thought: Thank God that President Bush has had the wisdom to put someone who is absolutely unimpeachable, irreproachable, and an absolute straight arrow in that office of Attorney General. I believe character and integrity are, hands down, the most important qualifications for that job and, indeed, just about any job in public life. Many people have raised the question, Will John Ashcroft enforce the laws? Clearly, there are many laws on the books that he would not have voted for and did not vote for, or, if they came up again, would not vote for. There are many laws on the books that many of us would not have voted for. But when the question comes up about John Ashcroft enforcing the laws, the thought that has gone through my head is, I know John Ashcroft well enough to believe with wholehearted confidence that if John Ashcroft says he will enforce the laws, he will enforce the laws. He is so stellar, so 24-carat is his honor and integrity, that I believe him without question. One of the other things that really has not been discussed or brought up in adequate defense of John Ashcroft--as bright as all my colleagues are in this illustrious body, the Senate, so many of whom are brilliant and had brilliant academic careers--is that I have to say John Ashcroft is one of the brightest and most articulate public servants with whom I ever had the privilege of serving. I think you can see that if you look at his early career and his undergraduate degree from Yale. He attended the University of Chicago Law School, a renowned institution in my home State. And many people do not even know that this man, who has spent most of his life in public office in so many different elected posts in the State of Missouri, was in fact a coauthor, I believe, with his wife of a business law textbook. It is hard to imagine when he found the time to do that. But so brilliant, so talented, and hard-working is John that he has a remarkable degree of accomplishment in academics, in public service, and in music and other areas. He is a wonderful, outstanding man. Finally, without belaboring this subject on which I think the points and counterpoints have been made now thoroughly on both sides of the aisle, the final thought with which I would like to leave the Senate is that the attacks that have been made on John Ashcroft simply don't compute with the John Ashcroft from my neighboring State whom I knew and served with day in and day out for 2 years. I don't think even the people of Missouri would recognize the characterizations of this man whom they elected to be their attorney general, their Governor, and their Senator and who has had such a long and distinguished career. And even before he was an elected officer, he was the State auditor of the State of Missouri. He is one of the most qualified people ever to be nominated for the office of Attorney General. I urge my colleagues, some of them who may disagree with votes John Ashcroft may have taken in his many years in the Senate, to reconsider and think about how important is his character and integrity, and just the fact that we can all sleep well at night knowing we have an absolute straight arrow in the highest law enforcement position in this country. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (``CFMA''), the proposed legislation to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and to amend the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA''). This legislation is the Senate companion of H.R. 5660, which Congressman Thomas Ewing introduced yesterday in the House of Representatives and which is part of the final appropriations measure. As an original co-sponsor of the CFMA, I am proud to join Chairmen Gramm and Lugar in supporting legislation to provide much needed regulatory relief to the United States futures exchanges, to remove the eighteen-year-old ban on single stock futures, and to bring legal certainty in the multi-trillion dollar derivatives markets. The CFMA gives a substantial boost to Chicago's futures industry and the 200,000 jobs that depend on it. The Chicago futures exchanges will be given an opportunity to compete on a level playing field with the world markets. Burdensome federal regulations will be removed and a new regulatory structure will be implemented that will give our nation's most important futures exchanges the ability to compete equally with world markets in product innovation and the ever-changing demands of the marketplace. Chicago's exchanges will now have the opportunity to offer single stock futures so that they can compete with global markets already trading those types of futures. This is potentially an enormous market for Chicago's exchanges and U.S. investors. It goes without saying that this market is absolutely necessary for Chicago to remain the center for world futures trading. I commend Chairman Lugar on his efforts to act swiftly to modernize the CEA and to implement the recommendations of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets (``PWG''). The challenges involved in such an undertaking are enormous and I appreciate Chairman Lugar's thoughtful and comprehensive approach to this complex task. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and General Legislation, I have been actively involved in the evolution of the CFMA and am committed to working closely with Chairman Lugar, Chairman Gramm, and my other colleagues to ensure that the United States derivatives markets remain strong, competitive, and viable. The CFMA codifies the recommendations of the PWG to enhance legal certainty for over-the- counter (``OTC'') derivatives by excluding from the CEA certain bilateral swaps entered into on a principal-to-principal basis by eligible participants. The market for OTC derivatives has exploded over the past two decades into a multi-trillion dollar industry. These large and sophisticated markets play an important role in the global economy and legal certainty is a critical consideration for parties to OTC derivative contracts. Accordingly, the CFMA recognizes that legal certainty for OTC derivatives is vital to the continued competitiveness of the United States markets and achieves this certainty by excluding these transactions from the CEA. The provisions of the CFMA also address the problem that federal regulation has not adapted to the rapid growth of the financial markets and today serves as a substantial restriction on market competitiveness and modernization. In order for the United States to maintain the most efficient markets in the world, regulatory barriers to fair competition must be removed. The CFMA reduces the inefficiencies of the CEA by removing constraints on innovation and competitiveness and by transforming the CFTC into an oversight agency with less front-line regulatory functions. The provisions for three kinds of trading facilities with varying levels of regulation provide needed flexibility to both traditional exchanges and electronic trading facilities by basing oversight of the futures markets on the types of products they trade and on the investors they serve. Finally, the CFMA removes the Accord's prohibitions on the trading of single stock futures and small indices. Stock index futures have matured into vital financial management tools that enable a wide variety of investment concerns to manage their risk of adverse price movements. The options markets and swaps dealers offer customers risk management tools and investment alternatives involving both sector indexes and single stock derivatives. It seems only fair that futures exchanges be allowed to compete in this important market. The CFMA lifts the ban on single and index stock futures restrictions to allow the marketplace to decide whether these instruments would be useful risk management tools and to enhance the ability of the U.S. financial markets to compete in the global marketplace. The bill reforms the Accord to allow both futures and securities exchanges to trade these products under the jurisdiction of their current regulators. The CFMA also allows both the SEC and the CFTC to enforce violations of their respective laws regardless of whether the products are traded on a futures or securities exchange and requires that the agencies share necessary information for enforcement purposes. The CFMA represents an arduous effort to remove burdensome regulatory structures and provide much needed legal certainty to the United States derivatives markets. This effort has produced comprehensive legislation that is designed to remove impediments to innovation and regulatory barriers to fair competition for the United States financial markets. The positive impact of this legislation on Chicago's futures markets cannot be overstated. The CFMA is vital to Chicago remaining the derivatives capital of the world and gives Chicago's futures exchanges the ability to lead the way in the potentially explosive single-stock futures market. restricting cruise ship gambling

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to clarify the history and intent of section 14 of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act, which passed the Senate on Wednesday. This section of the legislation is based on the Child Passenger Protection Act of 2000, which I introduced on February 10, 2000 with my colleague from Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln, and my colleague from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum. The purpose of the Child Passenger Protection Act of 2000 is to enhance children's safety in motor vehicles. It calls for the adoption of improved child restraint safety performance standards and testing requirements, and it requires the Secretary of Transportation to provide parents with better consumer information about child restraints. Child deaths in motor vehicle crashes in the United States have declined some since 1975, but significant work remains to be done in the area of child passenger safety. Motor vehicle crashes are the single leading cause of death and serious injury for young children in the United States. Each year, up to 600 children under the age of five die in car crashes, and up to 70,000 are injured as occupants in motor vehicle crashes. Motor vehicle crashes cause about one of every three injury deaths among children 12 and younger in this country. A child restraint that is installed and used correctly can prevent many injuries and deaths. The failure of some consumers to use age- and weight-appropriate child restraints has been well documented. Many consumers who purchase and use child restraints have little guidance or information with which to distinguish among the broad array of models, sizes, shapes and features of child restraints that are being sold in retail stores. A child restraint that is well designed can prevent still more child injuries and deaths. The former top safety official at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), Dr. Ricardo Martinez, stated, in a letter dated September 14, 1999 to all manufacturers of child restraints sold in the United States: ``[m]any restraints have been engineered to barely comply with some of the most safety-critical requirements of the [Federal] standard.'' NHTSA also has questioned the efforts of some child restraint manufacturers to have child restraint defects characterized as ``inconsequential'' to avoid recall campaigns, and the agency recently suggested that child restraints be assigned safety ratings. NHTSA is the agency within the United States Department of Transportation that monitors the safety of child restraints. NHTSA's primary method for verifying that a child restraint is designed to meet Federal safety standards is its compliance testing program. In compliance tests, Federal regulators subject the child restraint to a sled test that simulates a frontal collision with a stationary object. The sled test used by NHTSA to verify a child restraint's performance does not consider how that restraint will perform in rear-impact, rollover, or side-impact crashes; and the sleds used in government compliance tests bear limited resemblance to the interiors of today's passenger vehicles. These sleds feature flat bench seats with lap belts that were common in automobiles of the mid-1970s, but which do not apply to many of the passenger vehicles that are on our roads these days. Child restraints are too often marketed for children who are heavier than the anthropomorphic test dummies used by NHTSA in these sled tests. One private group's testing has shown that child restraints tested with a child at the highest weight recommended by the manufacturer have failed. NHTSA should allow child restraints to be marketed for children at specific weights only if the restraint has been tested at those weights. The current Federal standard for child restraints, known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213, is overdue to be upgraded to better reflect new developments in technology. While the current safety standard for child restraints specifies that child restraints be tested at an impact of 30 mph, tests are regularly conducted at speeds as low as 27.6 mph. The Government does not crash test any child restraints in actual motor vehicles; and it has not required that child restraint manufacturers simplify and standardize instructions for installing and using child restraints. Finally, although head injuries from motor vehicle collisions frequently are the cause of serious injuries or fatalities, many makes and models of child restraints do not offer side-impact padding or other protection from head injuries in side-impact crashes. The Child Passenger Protection Act requires the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to initiate a rulemaking that would address these and other deficiencies in our current child restraint system. Under this legislation, DOT will also begin a comprehensive program to provide information to consumers for use in making informed decisions in the purchase of child restraints. The Secretary must issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish such a program within 12 months of the bill's enactment, and it must issue a final rule within 24 months of the bill's enactment. The Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism held a field meeting on June 19, 2000 in St. Louis, MO, to discuss the Child Passenger Protection Act. My colleague from Missouri, Senator John Ashcroft, chaired this field meeting, at which the subcommittee heard testimony from NHTSA, highway safety advocates, and a pediatric surgeon concerning the current state of child passenger safety and additional ways to improve safety. S. 2070 passed the full Committee on Commerce, with a substitute amendment, by voice vote on September 20, 2000. This committee amendment to S. 2070, which has been incorporated into section 14 of the TREAD Act, also requires a study, within 12 months of the bill's enactment, of automobile booster seat use and effectiveness. In addition, this committee amendment requires DOT to develop a 5-year strategic plan to reduce deaths and injuries caused by the failure to use an appropriate booster seat for children between the ages of 4 and 8 years. The bill thus focuses more attention on an issue that automobile safety advocates have dubbed the ``forgotten child problem.'' This problem exists for children, usually between the ages of four and eight years, who have outgrown their infant child restraints but who do not fit properly in adult seat belts. I want to close by extending my thanks to all who have so strongly supported this legislation, including the American College of Emergency Physicians, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the Easter Seals KARS program, State Farm Insurance, SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A., the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, the co-authors of the book Baby Bargains, Consumers Union, and the American Automobile Association. I congratulate my colleague from Illinois, Congressman John Shimkus, who introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives, for his fine work on getting this legislation included in the TREAD Act and through the House of Representatives on Tuesday. I am pleased that this important piece of legislation passed the Senate unanimously last week.