Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to clarify a section in the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report. The language directs EPA to take no action to initiate or order the use of certain technologies such as dredging until certain steps have been taken with respect to the National Academy of Sciences report, with exceptions for voluntary agreements and urgent cases. It is my understanding that after June 30, 2001, or when EPA has properly considered the NAS report, whichever comes first, the conferees intend that EPA could proceed to finalize any such plans and act on those plans through steps to initiate or order dredging and other technologies, as appropriate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is also my understanding that in directing EPA to properly consider the NAS report, the conferees are not intending to change the normal criteria by which EPA selects remedies, such as the factors laid out in CERCLA, the National Contingency Plan, and applicable guidance. Instead, the conferees are asking EPA to disseminate the report to officials within the Agency who make remedy selection decisions and to ask them to review it as part of the larger body of research on scientific and technical issues associated with hazardous waste cleanup. The NAS report is not being singled out for special deference greater than it would otherwise receive.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is also my understanding that urgent cases would include situations in which contaminated sediments, either alone or through their accumulation in fish, cause significant risks to public health such as increases in cancer risks, reproductive effects, or birth defects.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask if I can have 5 more minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator Leahy, for helping us get an addition to this legislation that we think is critically important. I also extend my thanks to Senator Brownback of Kansas for his assistance in enabling us to get our particular section of this bill into place. Mr. President, a light comes as a result of the fact that we have our female colleagues with us in this Senate. How hard they work to get things done on both sides of the aisle. What a difference it has made in the way we operate. Many of us were here before there was a reasonable presence of women--and it is not yet ``reasonable''; I will strike that word. But that will change in time. We are getting there. They have helped to bring to the consciousness of all America the kinds of abuses that are perpetrated against women and young children who are female--disgusting practices that shock us all; trafficking in young women, forcing them into virtual slavery and being sexually exploited, and losing their identity in the process. It is a humiliation few can imagine. I commend the authors of this bill. Also, I commend them for including the section on violence against women. Mr. President, 3 years ago, when we were hard at work trying to reduce gun violence in our society, I offered a piece of legislation to prohibit those who had even as little as a misdemeanor charge proven against them from getting guns. It was a tough battle, and we were on the losing side a couple of times, with the old song about it which is ``the camel's nose under the tent, and you will be controlling guns,'' and so forth, instead of thinking about how many lives we would save. We know that about 150 times a year a woman has a gun pointed at her head--and I guess the reverse is also true occasionally--and is told, ``I will blow your head off'' in front of children. What kind of wounds does that leave even if the trigger isn't pulled? It is a terrible memory for all of those who are either victims or witnesses. With the help of President Clinton, we were finally able to get a piece of legislation in a budget bill that had to be done--it is almost 4 years now, and it had to be done and it passed and was signed into law--to prevent spousal and children abusers from getting permits to own a gun. The result is that almost 35,000 gun permits have been denied to these people--35,000 potential opportunities for a man to put a gun against a woman's head and threaten to take her life. So I support this bill with these two sections. I have added a section-- myself and Senator Mack of Florida--that talks about helping those who have been victims of terrorism, whether on our shores or away from America. American citizens are deserving of protection. I am pleased the Senate is going to pass this package of worthy legislation. The underlying Trafficking Victims Protection Act addresses a very serious human rights issue in Europe and elsewhere, where people are trafficking particularly for sexual exploitation. Finally, we are taking action to combat trafficking and to help these victims. I am pleased that this conference report will also reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and expand coverage to include new programs for immigrant women, elderly women, and women in the military service. Throughout my career, I have worked to help prevent domestic violence. I strongly supported the original Violence Against Women Act, which Congress passed in 1994. I am so pleased that we are going to take care of those aberrations of behavior that leave women and families devastated. But we are getting onto another subject, as well, which I think is critical, and that is to provide justice for victims of terrorism as part of the trafficking victims protection conference report. Mr. President, we all talk about our objections and abhorrence of terrorist attacks against American citizens, whether abroad or at home, and I had an experience that was almost in front of my eyes which shocked me and caused me to think about how we might prevent terrorism against our citizens at any time, at any place. One of those victims was a young woman named Alisa Flatow. She was a junior at Brandeis University and she was studying in Israel for a time. In 1995, on April 9, she boarded a bus that took her from a place called Ashkelon to another destination. She never arrived. Shortly after noon, when the bus was in the Gaza Strip, a suicide bomber drove a van loaded with explosives into the bus. Seven passengers were killed. Alisa Flatow was among those injured. An Israeli Defense Forces helicopter rushed her to a hospital in a community nearby. It was the same day I arrived in Israel from a trip in the Middle East. When I arrived there, our U.S. Ambassador informed me of the terrible tragedy that had occurred and that one of them was a constituent from New Jersey and that she had been severely injured in that attack. I immediately reached her home in West Orange, NJ, an area very familiar to me because I lived near that neighborhood. I spoke to her mother, Rosalyn, and was informed that Alisa's father, Steve, was already on his way to Israel. By the time he arrived, the emergency surgery had failed to save his daughter's life. She died on April 10. She was 20 years old. For any of those who have children, they know that 20 years of age is almost the beginning of life. I have three daughters and a son. Those were marvelous years as they approached the end of their college terms and prepared for life beyond. But that didn't prevent a faction of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad from claiming responsibility and being proud of what they did with that suicide bombing. What good was it going to do their cause to have one mission of terrorists to frighten people and prevent them from conducting their lives as they would like to without any specific gain to be had? There was a sponsor who paid something to somebody to have these young people assassinated. It was Iran. That is one of the reasons that country is still on the State Department's list of terrorist countries. I want to tell you, Mr. President, that I am befuddled by some of the policy decisions we make.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank Senator Leahy. There is no stronger advocate for the protection and safety of our citizens than President Clinton. But I don't understand why we take a country such as Iran and start to deal with them in trade of insignificant items. Would you believe--I am almost embarrassed to say it--that caviar, pistachio, Persian rugs are vital items for the well-being of our society? It is outrageous. But there are differences in point of view. I am not a professional diplomat. Maybe I fail to understand the longer term value of something that looks trivial to me as I express myself. For the past five years, I have been proud to stand with Steve Flatow in his effort to achieve some measure of justice for the killing of his daughter. He and I both want to hold Iran accountable. But Alisa Flatow was not Iran's only victim. Matt Eisenfeld of Connecticut and Sarah Duker of New Jersey, a young American couple in Israel, also were killed in 1996 when a suicide bomb from an Iran- sponsored group ripped through a bus they had boarded. One cannot comprehend what these missions are supposed to accomplish. I don't want to bring the situation in Israel and the Middle East up to a full-scale debate at this moment. But there can be nothing gained by assaults against people or their property. I made a speech yesterday in which I pleaded with Mr. Arafat to stop the hatred of his people; to stop the inflammation; to stop the propaganda that induces this kind of hatred and action; to stop ugly cartoons about people who inhabit Israel, the Jewish community; and to stop the anti-Semitic diatribes that still occur in Palestine. Stop it; stop it. Well-known journalist Terry Anderson and others were held hostage in Lebanon in the late 1980s by captors funded by Iran. They and their families also deserve justice, as do the families of those killed when the Cuban government in 1996 deliberately shot down two planes used by Brothers to the Rescue. Mr. President, The Antiterrorism Act of 1996 gave American victims of state-sponsored terrorism the right to sue the responsible state. The law carved out a deliberately narrow exception to the sovereign immunity protections our laws afford other countries.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Vermont if I may have 5 more minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Vermont not only for his graciousness in extending to me additional time but for the help and guidance that he gave as we tried to put this piece of legislation into law. Our goal then, and our goal now, is to allow American victims to receive some measure of justice in U.S. courts and to make state sponsors of terrorism pay for the death and devastation they have wrought. Victims of terrorism have put the 1996 law to good use. The Flatow family won a U.S. court judgment against Iran in 1998. Other victims of terrorism won similar cases. The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act helps the victims collect compensatory damages they've won fair and square in our nation's courts. Foreign countries that sponsor terrorism should have to pay for the awful toll that terrorist attacks take on families like the Flatows. And we hope that making terrorist states pay that price will deter them from sponsoring terrorism in the future. Let me close, by thanking the many cosponsors and Senators who have helped advance this legislation. I particularly would like to thank Senator Mack, who has been with me every step of the way, and Gary Shiffman on his staff. I also want to thank Frederic Baron of my staff who worked so hard on this bill. I think this bill is a good example of bipartisan cooperation for a worthy cause--helping provide justice for American victims of terrorism abroad. I am sure this legislation will pass overwhelmingly, but I want this message to go out across this globe: that if you sponsor terrorism against American citizens, you will pay a price. We ought to be unrelenting in that. I was proud of our country when we moved against Afghanistan to pay for the perpetrators of dastardly acts against American citizens and their interests. We can never step aside and argue whether or not it is appropriate. We have to find out by testing the waters, by making sure that the legislation is there. If there is a challenge, so be it. But we have to indicate we will not stand by and let this happen without repercussions to those who sponsor terrorism. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as we adopt this valuable legislation, I consider it important to clarify the history and intent of subsection 1(f) of this bill, as amended, in the context of the bill as a whole. This is a key issue for American victims of state-sponsored terrorism who have sued or who will in the future sue the responsible terrorism- list state, as they are entitled to do under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996. Victims who already hold U.S. court judgments, and a few whose related cases will soon be decided, will receive their compensatory damages as a direct result of this legislation. It is my hope and objective that this legislation will similarly help other pending and future Anti-Terrorism Act plaintiffs when U.S. courts issue judgments against the foreign state sponsors of specific terrorist acts. I am particularly determined that the families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 should be able to collect damages promptly if they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of a U.S. court that Libya is indeed responsible for that heinous bombing. More than 2 years ago, I joined with Senator Connie Mack to amend the fiscal year 1999 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill to help victims of terrorism who successfully sued foreign states under the Anti-Terrorism Act. That amendment, which became section 117 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999, made the assets of foreign terrorist states blocked by the Treasury Department under our sanctions laws explicitly available for attachment by U.S. courts for the very limited purpose of satisfying Anti-Terrorism Act judgments. Unfortunately, when that provision came before the House-Senate Conference Committee, I understand the administration insisted upon adding a national security interest waiver. The waiver, however, was unclear and confusing. The President exercised that waiver within minutes of signing the bill into law. The scope of that waiver authority added in the Appropriations Conference Committee in 1998 remains in dispute. Presidential Determination 99-1 asserted broad authority to waive the entirety of the provision. But the District Court of the Southern District of Florida rejected the administration's view and held, instead, that the President's authority applied only to section 117's requirement that the Secretaries of State and Treasury assist a judgment creditor in identifying, locating, and executing against non-blocked property of a foreign terrorist state. The bill now before us, in its amended form, would replace the disputed waiver in section 117 of the fiscal year 1999 Treasury Appropriations Act with a clearer but narrower waiver of 28 U.S.C. section 1610(f)(1). In replacing the waiver, we are accepting that the President should have the authority to waive the court's authority to attach blocked assets. But to understand how we intend this waiver to be used, it must be read within the context of other provisions of the legislation. A waiver of the attachment provision would seem appropriate for final and pending Anti-Terrorism Act cases identified in subsection (a)(2) of this bill. In these cases, judicial attachment is not necessary because the executive branch will appropriately pay compensatory damages to the victims from blocked assets or use blocked assets to collect the funds from terrorist states. This legislation also reaffirms the President's statutory authority to vest foreign assets located in the United States for the purposes of assisting and making payments to victims of terrorism. This provision restates the President's authority to assist victims with pending and future cases. Our intent is that the President will review each case when the court issues a final judgment to determine whether to use the national security waiver, whether to help the plaintiffs collect from a foreign state's non-blocked assets in the U.S., whether to allow the courts to attach and execute against blocked assets, or whether to use existing authorities to vest and pay those assets as damages to the victims of terrorism. Let me say that again: It is our intention that the President will consider each case on its own merits; this waiver should not be applied in a routine or blanket manner. I hope future Presidents will use the waiver provision only as President Clinton will use other provisions of the current bill: to aid victims of terrorism and make its state sponsors pay for their crimes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what a wonderful coincidence it is that I came to the floor to hear my good friend, Senator Byrd, make such exaggerated remarks about my accomplishments but never about our friendship. Around here, our seats are based on seniority. You kind of move to the middle or to the front as your seniority improves. But it is not where you sit that counts; it is where you stand. Senator Byrd has stood for the right things for this country for more years than any of the people in this room will remember because it has been such a long history. It is not newly emplaced. There is a commercial around that is often seen on television and radio that says--I think it is for PaineWebber --when PaineWebber speaks, everybody listens. That is an adaptation because when Senator Byrd speaks, everybody listens. And everybody can read Senator Byrd's books on the history of the Senate to learn what it really takes to be a Senator. It takes more than just getting a slice of the largess that we call funds; it takes more than the incredible loyalty, as profound as it is, such as Senator Byrd has to this State--it transcends those things-- that, frankly, has made a difference in the world in which we live. Whenever there is a question, whenever Senator Byrd speaks--and my experience is principally on our side of the aisle because we have our weekly meetings and occasional get-togethers--people listen because he is the historian of the Senate. He is, in many ways, the conscience of the Senate. He is a spokesman for the Senate, not just because he is an eloquent speaker but because of his knowledge and character. I thank the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, my friend, Robert C. Byrd, for his comments. There is always a degree of eloquence and recall when he speaks. And if you have some spare time, if you ever want to hear about the history of battles that took place in Roman times or the list of Kings and Queens of the UK from a time earlier than William the Conqueror to the present date, how they died and what they stood for or what counts in terms of the Constitution of this country, Senator Byrd has that knowledge. Senator Byrd walks around with the Constitution in his pocket just as people walk around with phone numbers, and it is used and remembered. It was a happy day for me when I was able to get on the Appropriations Committee and join Senator Byrd on so many issues for which we have fought. He reminds us that there is kind of a cultural aspect in the United States that so many of us want to give something back. I learned to give back by watching my parents as they struggled to raise a family in very tough times, with very modest wages and opportunities. I understood it in the Army when my father was on his deathbed, my mother was 36 years old, and my sister was 12. That was our family. My father was 42. I did it because it was my duty. At that time, I saw what happened to a family that was without health insurance, without any Social Security, without any kind of a benefit that would really help a widow with a small family. Not only did my father die and leave the grief that followed, but his sickness, which lingered for a year, took any and all resources the family had. As a matter of fact, debts piled up as my father disintegrated. So I saw what happens to people who don't have a way of taking care of these needs. I saw what happens when a family is bereft of the opportunity to recover from that kind of a challenge. I was lucky in some ways because as we lost a great man in our household, I was the beneficiary of an opportunity to help my family later on. The GI bill allowed me to go to a university that otherwise would have been out of my reach, no matter how far we stretched. We didn't have student loans and the kind of scholarships that exist now. I was a soldier and I had the GI bill. It armed me with an avenue to the future not simply because, as I have said here before, of the subjects I studied but because of the horizons that were opened to me about what could be, not that to which I was accustomed. My experiences taught me about giving back. It is an honor and a privilege to be able to give back, whether it is to help create an industry--Senator Byrd referred to our business success. Two colleagues and I started a business, as they say, without a dime. Today, that company employs not 16,000, as it did when I came to the Senate in 1983, but 33,000 people. It is a business that was begun by three kids, literally, who came from the wrong side of town--the right side of the street but the wrong side of town. On our side of the street there were hard-working people. Most of them were immigrants, I would say. They knew they had to work with their hands to make a living. They weren't the scientists, the doctors, and the professionals we see today coming out of colleges. They didn't even have a chance, for the most part, to get to high school. So we created an industry, not just a company. What good fortune there was in our lives. The fact is that we are all healthy and we have terrific grandchildren. I have eight of them and the oldest is only 6, and they are more satisfied to see and talk to Senator Byrd than anything else in life. The next great honor to me, after fatherhood, was to come to the Senate and to be able to be in this body--even with all of its defects--which reflects the structure of man and the structure of community. But if you look beyond the defects, you can see how many great people have come through this place and how many great people have yet to be recognized who are now Members of this great institution. Mr. President, I leave with considerable misgivings. I am not happy about the decision I have made to leave. I do know this: Just as we came at different times in our lives, others will follow us who will also make contributions, who also will do the right thing for the people of our country. This country is in good hands. Every moment may not be a great moment, but this country's fundamentals are in place to make sure society will continue to grow and progress and harmonize in the years ahead. When we look at the defects, we see problems here and there and everywhere. But look beyond that. Look at the number of great people we have in our country who are fair-minded people. Look at what is happening now in the Presidential race, where one fellow is an Orthodox Jew who has been accepted and embraced across the country because the country is so fair. They are looking at this person as an individual and judging him on his ability to serve. That is what tells us about the character of our people. When you look at places in Government, you see people who, though listed as minorities, are great achievers, whether in administrative posts or law or science. That is what we are looking at as we look ahead into this 21st century. I thank all of my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats. I believe that I am considered at times an argumentative fellow by some of my colleagues on the other side. That doesn't mean there is no affection. One of the things that Senator Byrd portrays is character--a very special kind of character. It is amazing to me how much respect and admiration one can have for people with whom one can have enormous differences and yet have incredible affection for them because they are respected for their beliefs, even though those beliefs may differ at times with the ones you hold. Whether it is the most ardent progressive or liberal or the most ardent conservative, they are done honestly. They are expressed honestly with respect for people. That should be our mission--not to try to overturn or lecture people at various stages, but when someone comes here, having been selected by his or her State to serve, that is their entrance to the debate; their entrance to legislate; their entrance to decisionmaking and how this country is going to function. I don't want to leave here with a tear in my eye. I may feel that way, perhaps, but I am so proud that I was able to serve my country and to be a part of the Senate. Senator Byrd could give you the statistics immediately. I round it off. I think it is about 1,820 people--1,853. I knew Senator Byrd would be precise--1,853 have had the privilege of serving here since the founding of this country. Think about it. Millions of people have lived and passed through society, and, in all those 200 years, 1,853 have been granted the honor and the privilege of serving here. When it comes time to pack up the bags and leave, I will not do it necessarily willingly, but I will do it gratefully, knowing that I have had a chance to be here to witness history in the making, which occurs almost daily, and to know that someday one of my grandchildren--the oldest is six; he has some way to go before he goes to college--will be able to look in the database from his home, from his school, and say: There was my grandfather. He was the one who stopped smoking on airplanes. He was the one who raised the drinking age to 21--saving thousands of families from having to mourn the loss of a child. But he was the one who did other things to help this country that will last way beyond his service in the Senate. I say to Senator Byrd that when he gives testimonial, it has meaning and credibility. It is special, and I truly appreciate it. Mr. President, I ask whether the Senate is going to remain open for a while or do we have an order that would have us be closing down soon?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am thoroughly upset about what is happening in the Middle East--watching people cower in fear, and some dying moments later as violence escalates. It is a terrible sight to see on television. It is a terrible sight to see in pictures and in the newspapers. It is terrible news to hear reports that after so much effort and so much concern for peace there is this carnage. I think everyone probably knows that I have had a longtime interest in Israel. I have been there many times. But I also have an active interest in a peace resolution. I got to know some of our friends in the Palestinian community. I got to know Mr. Arafat and the people who assisted him--and the Palestinian Authority. Whether a child is Jewish or Moslem or whether he or she is an Israeli citizen or whether he or she is someone out of the refugee camps in Palestine and the surrounding areas, or from the nation of Lebanon, I don't like to see any child taken from a family. I want to make a point. I visited Gaza. I was at the airport just weeks before it opened--maybe days. It was very close in time. I was very enthusiastic about giving help to the Palestinians to get their economy going and providing some hope and vision for them so their lives could be improved and their freedoms expanded. I think it is fair to say that Israel is taking enormous risks in that promotion, particularly the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Barak, who went further, I believe, than anybody else in Israel. We all know that Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated because of his beliefs by someone in the Israeli community of the same faith--Jewish. He died for his interest in peace. But I don't understand how there can be joy expressed in the destruction of Joseph's tomb or to see books and artifacts destroyed and burned, and people taking joy and gloating over the killing of an Israeli. They are people who are beyond control. We condemn their acts of violence against the Arabs in the area and within the state of Israel. I condemn that violence. It is not acceptable wherever it occurs. However, I say to the Palestinian Authority, they have no right to use weapons that were given to provide police and law enforcement against the country that gave it to them in the first place. They have no right to promote violence, no right to have television programs coming over Palestinian television that talk about it being necessary to kill people in Israel, to destroy the country. That kind of action, that kind of encouragement, is antithetical to the possibilities of peace or the possibilities of life. Anti-Semitic articles, cartoons, and newspapers, whether it be in Syria or even with our friends in Egypt or Lebanon, are unacceptable. Those are the kinds of things that ultimately promote violent action from one people to another. I want our friends--Mr. Arafat, the people in the Palestinian Authority--to understand they will get nowhere by promoting assaults on Israel, whether they be on person or territory. It is not going to do them any good in the final analysis. A state of conflict, of war, is going to be painful to people on both sides. There will be no victors. Help came from the United States to try to elevate the standard of living in the Palestinian community because people such as I promoted it. I was active on the issue. I wanted to show good faith and provide funds for the Palestinians to get their airport open. I visited the economic settlements they were erecting, development settlements to give jobs to people, to give hope to people. I supported it enthusiastically. I think what is going on is unacceptable by any standard. The United Nations resolution issued last week was so lopsided that it looked as if they were trying to eliminate Israel from the family of nations. I don't understand it--encouraging the criticism of Israel and denigrating Israeli efforts to make peace, at some considerable risk again, as we have seen. Those young men captured and taken someplace in Lebanon or wherever, captured by a group that considers violence the way to resolve things--Hezbollah is proud of the fact they kidnap people. That is not the way peace is going to evolve or relationships develop. I hope sense will come to the area very soon because what we see there is not, in my view, a limited conflict but, rather, a possibility that we will be seeing a conflict that will be very hard to put out. I hope we will soon hear better news from that area. I urge Mr. Arafat to curb violence where he sees it among his people. It cannot be fostered. It cannot be encouraged and at the same time gain the advantages that I am sure he would like to see for his people; that is, a peaceful existence and an improved quality of life. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Conference Agreement on the Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. I have served on the Appropriations Committee for all but 2 years of my 18-year career in the Senate. For 14 of those years, I have served either as chairman or ranking member of the Transportation Subcommittee. I can say without reservation--and I compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Shelby, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for the work they did--that this is the best transportation bill in those 14 years. The bill makes historic investments in our transportation infrastructure and, simultaneously, takes dramatic steps forward in our efforts to improve safety. Under this Conference Agreement, funding for highways will total almost $33.4 billion, a 16 percent increase over the Fiscal Year 2000 level. Funding for our nation's mass transit systems will grow by 8.4 percent. Investment in our nation's airports will grow by an astronomical 69 percent, and funding for the FAA's facilities and equipment account, which makes critical investments in the modernization of our nation's air traffic control infrastructure will grow by 22 percent. The bill also includes substantial growth in the critical accounts that ensure safety in all modes of transportation. Funding for the Coast Guard's operating budget will grow by 15 percent and funding for the FAA's operating budget will grow by almost 10 percent. The new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will receive a funding boost of almost 70 percent--an investment that is long overdue in addressing the problem of truck safety. Most importantly, Mr. President, this Conference Agreement includes a provision establishing a new national intoxication standard at .08 blood alcohol content. This provision has passed the Senate twice before. First, during Senate consideration of the last highway bill and, most recently, as part of this Transportation Appropriations bill. Indeed, this bill passed the Senate by a vote of 99-0, the first time in my memory that we had not even one dissenting vote on the Transportation bill. The .08 provision contained in this conference report represents a historic step forward in the federal government's effort to combat drunk driving. Not since we passed the Minimum Drinking Age Act, a law I championed back in 1984, have we made such significant progress in saving lives on our highways. The .08 provision in this conference agreement largely follows the outline of the Minimum Drinking Age Act. It imposes sanctions on states' highway construction funds at an increasing level until they adopt the national .08 standard. States that have their funds sanctioned will have the opportunity to have that highway funding restored so long as they adopt the national standard within the first six years after enactment of this bill. But states should not wait for the sanctions to even begin--I urge states to act as soon as possible and save lives now. The reason for a national .08 standard is simple--the medical and scientific communities confirm that you are too drunk to drive at .08 blood alcohol content. Critical driving skills, such as steering and braking decrease by as much as 60 percent at .08 BAC. NHTSA estimates that this provision will save more than 500 lives per year. And the Senate should be very proud of its efforts today to spare 500 families from that horrifying phone call in the dark of night telling them that one of their loved ones has died at the hands of a drunk driver. There are a great many people to thank for our success in this bipartisan effort. Most importantly, I would like to thank the Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Shelby, who has stuck by me on this provision since the very beginning. As I've mentioned, this was truly a bipartisan effort. And it was not easy. We faced stiff opposition from powerful interests. My Chairman showed great courage and stood up for the safety of America's families. I also want to thank Chairman Wolf, the Chairman of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. Through his six years as Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, Representative Wolf has been a true champion for safety. He is the leading congressional expert in the area of truck safety and he spent months convincing his colleagues of the merits of a national intoxication standard. I also want to thank President Clinton and Vice President Gore who both personally lobbied the Conferees on this issue, along with members of their staff, including John Podesta and Jack Lew of OMB. I would also like to thank Millie Webb, a victim of a .08 driver and the President of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. She lost a daughter and a nephew--both about 4 years of age--to a drunk driver. She then gave birth to a child prematurely who became blind early in her life. This has been Millie's interest for some years because the driver who committed this horrible crime had a blood alcohol content of .08. She is here today to witness this law becoming effective because she didn't want any other families to suffer the pain and grief she went through. I also want to thank Brandy Anderson, MADD's Congressional representative and the rest of the MADD leadership. In addition, I want to thank Jackie Gillan and Stephanie Mennen of Advocates for Highway Safety. The help of these public interest groups was critical to getting this law passed. They deserve a great deal of credit. In recent months, my office has resembled a ``war room'' on the .08 issue, doing everything we can in concert with MADD and Chairman Wolf to see to it that the .08 provision could become law this year. I want to thank the members of Mr. Wolf's staff, especially John Blazey and Stephanie Gupta, as well as members of my own staff, Peter Rogoff, Sander Lurie, Dan Katz, Denise Matthews, Gabrielle Batkin, and Laurie Saroff who have worked tirelessly on behalf of this provision. I also want to thank one individual who is no longer on my staff. During consideration of TEA-21, Elizabeth O'Donohue was a tireless advocate for the .08 provision. We were able to get the .08 provision adopted in the Senate on the TEA-21 bill, but we ran into an ambush in the House of Representatives, thanks to the negative work of the liquor lobby. While Liz is no longer with my staff, I want to recognize the extraordinary groundwork that she laid in past years. There is no question that her efforts contributed greatly to our success here today. In addition, I want to thank Tom Howarth, a former member of my staff who helped us get the 21 year old minimum drinking age passed, and has worked for years to make the .08 standard the law of the land. I also want to thank Senator Shelby's excellent staff, including Wally Burnett, Joyce Rose, Paul Doerrer, Tom Young and Kathy Casey. Finally, as I make my parting comments as a leader on the Transportation Subcommittee, I want to make one last request of my colleagues. When the Senate considers a new highway bill in 2002 or later, I will no longer be a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee or the Senate and I certainly am not going to be in a position to work as hard as I did in the past on this issue. There is no question, when the Senate considers a new highway bill, there could be an attempt to repeal the national .08 standard. I am sure my colleagues are sensible people and I implore them not to bend to the pressure of those that would bring more bloodshed to our highways. I urge my colleagues not to flinch from their commitment to safety. Please do not condemn 500 American families a year to the tragedy of losing a loved one to drunk driving. I urge my colleagues to maintain a national drunk driving policy based on safety, sanity and science. You must not bend to those who would seek to undo the progress we have made. I yield the floor for this my last transportation bill as a Member of the Senate. I have enjoyed my service on this subcommittee. I think it has been important to the country, but particularly to my State, to see the improvements we have been able to make on highway safety and mass transit. Finally, I think we are on our way to getting high-speed rail service and inner-city rail service in place. That is the only way to relieve the congestion in the skies and on the highways. There is no more room in the skies for additional airlines, no matter what we put on the ground. I hope we will give high-speed rail the resources it needs to say to those people who are unable to make their business appointments or their contacts because of delayed flights, here is one way to make a difference in the way we travel in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Senator Gorton, about one aspect of the conference report. Mr. Chairman, the conference report to the Interior Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001 does not include funding for construction projects in the Great Falls Historic District, located in the City of Paterson, New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, by way of background, the Great Falls Historic District was established in Section 510 of Public Law 104-33, the Omnibus Parks bill of 1996. This legislation, which I coauthored, is designed to preserve the historic character of the City of Paterson, New Jersey. Like Lowell, Massachusetts, Paterson holds a prominent place in our nation's industrial past. Few people realize that Paterson was the first planned industrialized city. Alexander Hamilton himself chose the area around the Great Falls for his laboratory, and he established the Society for Useful Manufacturers right in Paterson. The work of its citizens and the wealth of its natural resources soon caused Paterson to thrive, and it became a mecca for countless numbers of immigrants, including my own family. The skills and spirit of these immigrants made Paterson one of our nation's leading centers for textile manufacturing, earning the nickname ``Silk City.'' Mr. Chairman, the 1996 legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide grants through the Historic Preservation Fund for up to one-half of the costs of preparing a plan for the development of historic, architectural, natural, cultural, and interpretive resources within the Great Falls District. The Secretary may also provide matching funds for implementation of projects identified in the plan. The total federal authorization for the Great Falls Historic District is $3.3 million. Mr. Chairman, since the authorizing legislation establishing the Great Falls Historic District specifically enables the City to receive up to $250,000 in matching federal funds for preparation of a historic preservation plan, the Secretary could provide these funds through the funds provided in the conference report for the Historic Preservation Fund.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Great Falls Historic District would be eligible to receive up to $250,000 of these funds for preparation of a historic preservation plan, and that, once these plans are completed, an additional $50,000 in matching funds is available from the Historic Preservation Fund for technical assistance and $3 million is available for restoration, preservation, and interpretive activities. Mr. Chairman, I would like to include a letter from the Mayor of the City of Paterson to the regional director of the National Park Service, expressing the City's interest in moving forward with development of the Great Falls development plan. I hope that this letter will confirm to the Service and to the Chairman and Ranking Member, that the City is fully prepared to provide the necessary match to develop the plan. I am confident that the City will work closely with the Service on development of a plan, and that, once it is completed, the City may apply for the remaining authorized funds for completion of specific projects.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Abel and Mary Nicholson House National Historic Site Study Act of 2000. This bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Abel and Mary Nicholson House located in Elsinboro Township, Salem County, New Jersey, as a unit of the National Park System. As part of the study the Secretary would also be required to consider management alternatives to create an administrative association with the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. The bill I am introducing today would authorize the National Park Service to acquire this land in compliance with the service's standard rules and regulations. Mr. President, the Abel and Mary Nicholson House is prized for its architectural and historical significance to, not only my state, but, our entire nation. It is a unique resource which can provide unparalleled opportunities for studying our national cultural and natural heritage. Situated along Alloway Creek, a tributary of the Delaware River, the house is surrounded by an intact cultural landscape of farm fields, wetlands and forests. The original access to the house was from the creek, as rivers were the highways of 18th century America. The Abel and Mary Nicholson House is a Delaware Valley, brick, patterned-end mansion constructed in 1722. The original portion of the house has existed for 280 years with only routine maintenance, no major remodeling or restoration, and without the intrusion of either electricity or a central heating system. It stands alone as the only known, pristine survivor of an Anglo-American building tradition that existed for three quarters of a century. The Nicholson House is changing the thinking of architectural historians about the construction and use of rooms in the earliest houses of the Delaware Valley. The house has been called an architectural Rosetta stone that provides new insight to our understanding of the use and function of interior space during the 18th century. Additionally, Mr. President, an 1859 addition to the house enhances the significance of the property with a similar level of architectural integrity. Mr. President, the Abel and Mary Nicholson House also has cultural significance in its well-documented associations with the earliest Quaker settlement in North America and the first permanent English settlement in New Jersey. Abel Nicholson arrived in New Jersey at the age of three. He was brought to New Jersey by his father, Samuel Nicholson, a follower of John Fenwick. They arrived in 1675, seven years before William Penn arrived to settle Philadelphia. John Fenwick was the founder of Greenwich and Salem, New Jersey, the first permanent English-speaking settlements on the Delaware River. Samuel Nicholson purchased 2,000 acres in Elsinboro Township, New Jersey and a 16-acre lot in the City of Salem where he constructed a home. It was in the Salem house that the first Salem Meeting of the Society of Friends was organized in 1676. In 1680, Samuel Nicholson donated the Salem house to the Salem Meeting and relocated to the Elsinboro property. In 1693, Abel Nicholson married Mary Tyler, the daughter of another Quaker. Abel and Mary Nicholson built the present house, in 1722, which historians believe either replaced or abutted the earlier structure built by his father. Mr. President, the Nicholson House represents the Mid-Atlantic region's colonial history and traditions. Because of its architectural integrity and what it is teaching scholars about how 18th century building spaces were used, it is considered to transcend regional significance and ranks as one of America's iconic early structures. Mr. President, the Abel and Mary Nicholson House is a national treasure that deserves consideration for preservation and protection so it can continue to teach future generations of Americans about the contributions and lives of the early Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a resolution honoring Oskar Schindler and Varian Fry, two individuals to whom approximately 3,200 individuals owe their lives and the world owes a tremendous debt of gratitude. The tragedy of the Holocaust, which claimed the lives of more than 13 million people, will forever stand as a painful reminder of the frailty and value of human life. During this dark hour of history, two remarkable individuals among many other heroes, Oskar Schindler and Varian Fry, overcame difficult and dangerous circumstances and risked their lives to save their fellow human beings. The deeds of Oskar Schindler, a German factory owner immortalized by such authors as Thomas Keneally and film maker Steven Spielberg, have inspired millions of people around the world. During the Nazi occupation of Poland, Mr. Schindler put his life on the line and demonstrated that one person truly can make a world of difference. Mr. Schindler acquired an enamelware factory in Zablocie, on the outskirts of Krakow. The factory, which produced mess kits and field kitchenware for the Nazi army, was staffed by Jews drawn from the Krakow ghetto. When the Jews of Krakow were transferred to the Plaszow concentration camp, Schindler arranged for his workers to be housed at the factory. After the factory was disbanded and the workers sent to the camp, Schindler used his connections and personal fortune to secure their release and transfer. Through his cunning and perseverance in the face of adversity, Oskar Schindler succeeded in saving the lives of over 1,200 Jews. One of the individuals whom Schindler saved was Abraham Zuckerman, a constituent of mine and a great American in his own right. Mr. Zuckerman knows perhaps better than anyone else what a heroic individual Oskar Schindler was. As a builder, Mr. Zuckerman, along with other Schindler survivors, have honored Oskar Schindler with over 20 Schindler Courts, Terraces and Plazas throughout New Jersey. Oskar Schindler was named a ``Righteous Gentile'' by Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust Remembrance Authority, on April 28, 1962. Today, over 6,000 descendants of the Jews saved by Schindler live in the United States and Europe. I think it is high time that the United States government officially recognize Oskar Schindler's incredible contribution to humanity. Awarding him the Congressional Gold Medal is a fitting way to pay tribute to a man who touched the lives of so many people from all over the world. Another remarkable individual who overcame adversity and acted with extraordinary courage is Varian Fry, an American editor from New York. During World War II, Mr. Fry volunteered to travel to Nazi-occupied Marseilles, France, where he helped form the Emergency Rescue Committee. Working with a small group of associates, Mr. Fry offered assistance to Jews and antifascist refugees threatened with extradition to Nazi Germany under the ``Surrender on Demand'' clause of the Franco- German Armistice. Varian Fry was instrumental in the rescue of approximately 2,000 individuals, including artists Marc Chaggal, Andre Breton and Max Ernst. Mr. Fry was the first American to be awarded the ``Certificate of Honor'' and the ``Righteous among Nations'' medal by Yad Vashem in 1996. The United States Holocaust Memorial Council honored Mr. Fry with its highest honor, the Eisenhower Liberation Medal in 1991. He has also been awarded France's top civilian honor, the ``Croix de Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur.'' Yet sadly, Varian Fry's heroism and bravery have yet to be officially recognized by the American government. Mr. President, the Talmud states that, ``Whoever saves a single life saves the world entire.'' As we are left to wonder and mourn what the world has lost in the lives of those who perished during the Holocaust, we rejoice in the company and contributions of their survivors. We are enriched not only by the presence of the survivors, but by the example that Oskar Schindler and Varian Fry set for all of Humanity. Their actions are a testament to the ability of all people to act righteously and courageously even under the worst of circumstances. The heroic deeds of Oskar Schindler and Varian Fry are sterling examples of heroism and humanitarianism. It is time the United States government recognize and pay tribute to these men and the noble deeds they performed. Oskar Schindler and Varian Fry are highly deserving of the Congressional Gold Medal. I sincerely hope that the 106th Congress will take up and pass this resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Endangered Species Recovery Act. The bill will update the original Endangered Species Act, provide tax and other incentives for landowners, and help increase the number of species that are recovered and taken off the protected list. The bill has been endorsed by the 380 conservation, religious, and scientific organizations that belong to the Endangered Species Coalition. Public support for strong endangered species protection is high. Also, a majority of the nation's biologists are convinced that a mass extinction of plants and animals is underway. Some believe this loss of biological diversity will pose a major threat to humans in the coming century. At least one in 8 known plant species (which provide medical, commercial, and agricultural benefits) is threatened with extinction. The bill I introduce today includes provisions that will help both landowners and the species themselves. The bill incorporates tax proposals endorsed by both property-rights and conservation organizations. The bill establishes a tax exclusion for cost-sharing payments under the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, an enhanced deduction for the donation of a conservation easement, an exclusion from the estate tax for property subject to an Endangered Species Conservation Agreement, and an expansion of the estate tax exclusion for property subject to a conservation easement. The bill significantly revises the Administration's current ``No Surprises'' policy, which allows private landowners to alter or destroy endangered species habitat under a long-term unmodifiable permit. The bill requires the best available science, invites more public participation, and requires adaptive management for development permit. The developer files a performance bond to cover the costs of all reasonably foreseeable circumstances (such as wildfires, plant diseases, and other natural events that can have devastating impacts on weakened populations of wildlife). Then a Habitat Conservation Plan Trust Fund is established to cover all other unforeseeable costs--a safety net for landowners and species--while allowing changes to the permit when needed to protect species. The bill also encourages ecosystem planning on a regional basis, through multi-species, multi-landowner plans, which is essential since ecosystems do not run along political boundaries. The bill encourages cooperation between various levels of government and different jurisdictions, by allowing groups of private landowners to pool resources, and allowing local governments to administer habitat plans. The bill streamlines the permit process and establishes an Office of Technical Assistance. The bill also allows small landowners that have a minimal impact on endangered species to benefit from a quick and easy permit process and to receive planning assurances. The bill clarifies the standards for approving federal actions that may impact endangered or threatened species. Under the existing law, pesticide application, river damming, forest clearcutting, and other habitat destruction are judged by their impact on the survival of imperiled wildlife. The bill requires that taxpayer-funded activities must not reduce the likelihood of recovery. In addition, the bill improves the chances for recovery by identifying specific management actions and biological criteria in recovery plans, placing deadlines on final recovery plans, and encouraging federal agencies to take preventative measures before a species becomes endangered. The bill implements recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences on improving the scientific basis of important endangered species decisions. For unprotected species that means providing protection before population numbers are too low to recover. For listed species that means using independent scientists to peer review large- scale, multi-species habitat conservation plans. It also means asking biologists to set benchmarks and science-based conservation goals to better tell us what it will take to recover and eventually delist an imperiled species. While federal actions already undergo review to ensure minimal impacts on endangered species, the bill requires that federal agencies also make efforts towards further recovery or to consider the cumulative impacts of their actions. The bill requires federal agencies to help plan for species recovery and then implement those plans within their jurisdictions. The bill also requires agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on imperiled species in other nations. The bill expands public participation by requiring public notification when a federal activity may impact wildlife in a community. The bill also requires public participation in large-scale regional habitat planning. Local citizens may participate in the first steps of regional habitat planning, review relevant science, and work with developers to achieve the best possible plans. If those plans are not met, the bill allows citizens to require the government to take action. The Endangered Species Recovery Act will protect the species and landowners alike. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a resolution honoring Oskar Schindler and Varian Fry, two individuals to whom approximately 3,200 individuals owe their lives and the world owes a tremendous debt of gratitude. The tragedy of the Holocaust, which claimed the lives of more than 13 million people, will forever stand as a painful reminder of the frailty and value of human life. During this dark hour of history, two remarkable individuals among many other heroes, Oskar Schindler and Varian Fry, overcame difficult and dangerous circumstances and risked their lives to save their fellow human beings. The deeds of Oskar Schindler, a German factory owner immortalized by such authors as Thomas Keneally and film maker Steven Spielberg, have inspired millions of people around the world. During the Nazi occupation of Poland, Mr. Schindler put his life on the line and demonstrated that one person truly can make a world of difference. Mr. Schindler acquired an enamelware factory in Zablocie, on the outskirts of Krakow. The factory, which produced mess kits and field kitchenware for the Nazi army, was staffed by Jews drawn from the Krakow ghetto. When the Jews of Krakow were transferred to the Plaszow concentration camp, Schindler arranged for his workers to be housed at the factory. After the factory was disbanded and the workers sent to the camp, Schindler used his connections and personal fortune to secure their release and transfer. Through his cunning and perseverance in the face of adversity, Oskar Schindler succeeded in saving the lives of over 1,200 Jews. One of the individuals whom Schindler saved was Abraham Zuckerman, a constituent of mine and a great American in his own right. Mr. Zuckerman knows perhaps better than anyone else what a heroic individual Oskar Schindler was. As a builder, Mr. Zuckerman, along with other Schindler survivors, have honored Oskar Schindler with over 20 Schindler Courts, Terraces and Plazas throughout New Jersey. Oskar Schindler was named a ``Righteous Gentile'' by Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust Remembrance Authority, on April 28, 1962. Today, over 6,000 descendants of the Jews saved by Schindler live in the United States and Europe. I think it is high time that the United States government officially recognize Oskar Schindler's incredible contribution to humanity. Awarding him the Congressional Gold Medal is a fitting way to pay tribute to a man who touched the lives of so many people from all over the world. Another remarkable individual who overcame adversity and acted with extraordinary courage is Varian Fry, an American editor from New York. During World War II, Mr. Fry volunteered to travel to Nazi-occupied Marseilles, France, where he helped form the Emergency Rescue Committee. Working with a small group of associates, Mr. Fry offered assistance to Jews and antifascist refugees threatened with extradition to Nazi Germany under the ``Surrender on Demand'' clause of the Franco- German Armistice. Varian Fry was instrumental in the rescue of approximately 2,000 individuals, including artists Marc Chaggal, Andre Breton and Max Ernst. Mr. Fry was the first American to be awarded the ``Certificate of Honor'' and the ``Righteous among Nations'' medal by Yad Vashem in 1996. The United States Holocaust Memorial Council honored Mr. Fry with its highest honor, the Eisenhower Liberation Medal in 1991. He has also been awarded France's top civilian honor, the ``Croix de Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur.'' Yet sadly, Varian Fry's heroism and bravery have yet to be officially recognized by the American government. Mr. President, the Talmud states that, ``Whoever saves a single life saves the world entire.'' As we are left to wonder and mourn what the world has lost in the lives of those who perished during the Holocaust, we rejoice in the company and contributions of their survivors. We are enriched not only by the presence of the survivors, but by the example that Oskar Schindler and Varian Fry set for all of Humanity. Their actions are a testament to the ability of all people to act righteously and courageously even under the worst of circumstances. The heroic deeds of Oskar Schindler and Varian Fry are sterling examples of heroism and humanitarianism. It is time the United States government recognize and pay tribute to these men and the noble deeds they performed. Oskar Schindler and Varian Fry are highly deserving of the Congressional Gold Medal. I sincerely hope that the 106th Congress will take up and pass this resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand that I have 15 minutes based on the unanimous consent agreement that we just concluded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am getting very close to the end of my Senate career. One of the issues I consider vital in terms of my knowledge and experience in the Senate for these last 18 years is that I have learned, among several other serious problems, of a problem that looms large and is often ignored. That is, how do we establish our transportation system to satisfy the growing needs for travel in this country? I see a crisis looming in our country because of congestion and because of our inability to move in a timely and reasonably comfortable fashion. We constantly read about delays at airports. As a matter of fact, these days I can almost never travel by air without resigning myself to the fact that I am not going to get there on time. There is a very good chance that I am going to miss my connection. There is a very good chance that a flight may be canceled. There is a very good chance that it is going to be a stressful, tough trip. I was fortunate enough to be a grandparent for the eighth time. My son lives in Colorado. I am, as everyone knows, I hope, from New Jersey. My son and his wife just had their first child, my number eight grandchild. The oldest is six years old. They are little kids. They are an awful lot of fun. I would like to see more of them if I could do it and still make sure I perform the duties necessary to represent the people of New Jersey and the people of this country. The trip I made consisted of two legs: one to Denver, CO, and the next one a short trip outside of Denver. It was on a Saturday. It wasn't on a busy weekday. It left an hour late from Newark. We were told that we should plan on a refueling stop in Wichita, KS. I have nothing against Kansas. I just didn't want to stop there if I didn't have to, because I was in such a hurry to get out and see my newest granddaughter. Her name is Hannah Lautenberg. I wanted to see her in the worst way. We stopped in Wichita long enough, about 40 minutes, to add more fuel. Why did we leave the Newark airport to start on a trip knowing full well that we weren't going to have enough fuel to make the trip? They said, based on the passenger load, the baggage load, and the severe headwinds that we were going to run into, we had to provide for circling over Denver Airport in case that was necessary. We managed to take on the fuel. We didn't have to circle over Denver. The weather was reasonable. But it was enough for me to miss my next flight. I called ahead and tried to reserve the second flight 2 hours later and was told that it was canceled and that the one 2 hours after that was full. Normally I would have exploded. But nobody would have cared. The worst thing is that you kind of resign yourself to saying, ``Oh, well, that is what I expected.'' Instead of getting a 30-minute airplane ride, I took a 2\1/2\ hour van ride bouncing along the pavement and trying to figure out what to do to keep myself amused during that period of time. It was hard to read. I got to see that beautiful grandchild. Boy, was I happy, too. She was as glorious as my daughter-in-law and my son described her. I thought she looked a lot like me. They said no. But it was a pleasant experience. I stayed overnight and planned to take a 1:30 flight out because I had only come in 5 o'clock the night before to Denver, CO from New Jersey. But I was told that the short flight was canceled and that I have to go back in the van. I have nothing against the van, the company, or the driver. It was just a lot of time to spend together with a stranger. That is what I did. I got back having missed two legs of the flight for which I paid in advance. I am not blaming that particular airline. It is terrible what we have adjusted to. We have adjusted to poor performance. We have adjusted to discomfort. We have adjusted to not having services that we paid for. That is the kind of society we created. I have all kind of friends. I come out of the corporate world, as the distinguished occupant of the Chair knows, and am accustomed to business travel. In the days before I came to the Senate, you would have a reservation and arrive kind of at the last minute, get on the plane, arrive on time, do your business, and get on your way. It is not so anymore at all. Again, it is not simply because the airlines are neglectful or that the airlines aren't trying. They simply can't carry the load. We have to face up to it. If you have bad weather in Denver, CO, you can bet your boots that you will be held up by aviation travel throughout the country. If you have bad weather, as we do even in Washington, DC, where sometimes they say the weather is always sunny-- it is hard to believe that--you get stuck, and you feel it all over the country. We had a meeting at the Newark airport. I sat down with people from the FAA, the Secretary of Transportation, people from the controllers operation, people who manage the airports, and people from the Air Transport Committee who operate the airlines. I asked one question: Is the sky a finite place or can we say it is infinite and just put every airplane that you can get in the sky up there without feeling the impact? I don't think they were surprised. I was. The answer was no. It is crowded up there. I went to a place in central southern New Jersey just about two- thirds of the way down where a couple of weeks ago we had an airplane crash. Two airplanes with a total of 11 people collided in the sky on a bright, sunny day. All 11 people died. It was a miracle that more people on the ground were not killed. I don't want to get too grizzly. But part of the airplane fell through a house roof with people in it. It was a stark reminder about how this system is overloaded. I fly a lot in the second seat in the airplane, listen to the radio, and do some of the observing that one has to do in an airplane cockpit. I hear over the collision warning system ``traffic,'' ``traffic,'' ``traffic.'' That means that there are airplanes close enough to you that you had better be careful. I point these out because we have our heads in the sand. We are not facing up to the problem. There is no more room in the sky. I can tell you this: There are no communities that I have seen begging for more airplanes to come into their airports. I have not seen anybody that says, let's not build more highways. I don't care if the cars pass underneath my window making noise all night. I don't care if my kids read that excessive carbon monoxide and other emissions come out of automobiles and diesel trucks. I don't know of anybody saying that. They are saying, help us get around more effectively. There is one way to do that, Mr. President; that is, get this country into the 21st century transportation mode. Not too long ago, I was on a trip to NATO and went from Brussels, Belgium, to Paris, France, a distance of 200 miles in about an hour and 25 minutes. We are 250 miles from New York. Sometimes I make it in a cool 4 hours by air, because I have to get on the plane. One time they told me: Get on the plane, Senator. I want you to know that we are moving away from the gate but we are going to wait 3 hours because of the line-up of traffic before we can take off. But we have to pull away from the gate. So please make the adjustment. In 1987 I had the good fortune to understand the problem and wrote the law that banned smoking in airplanes. It happened right here. It was a tough fight, but we got it through. I thought, my goodness, suppose we had to sit in an airplane 3 hours before we took off today with the people who are accustomed to smoking in airplanes saying to the pilot while banging on the door: Let us smoke. It would have been awful, and people across the country would have been in rebellion if they had to do that. So there is a solution: Get on with an investment in high-speed rail. I have heard debate on this floor that distresses me, from intelligent people, from people who say: No, we don't want to spend any more on Amtrak, we have spent enough. This is a cash guzzler. The fact of the matter is, we haven't done the job that we planned or that we thought we should have. We have spent $23 billion, approximately, since Amtrak--as we know it now--was developed in the early 1970s. It sounds like a lot of money, but it isn't a lot of money, not when we consider what we put into aviation, what we put into airports over the same period of time. I repeat, $23 billion since 1971. Since that period of time, we have spent $160 billion on aviation programs, $380 billion on highways. Yes, we do collect a highway tax, and I am not saying we haven't done a pretty good job in building highways and airports. I am glad to see things being updated and upgraded. The fact of the matter is, when it is compared to $23 billion in Federal subsidies for high-speed rail, it is a drop in the bucket. Germany is going to spend $70 billion in a decade upgrading its high- speed rail system. We ought to learn from that. To say just because a State doesn't have active rail service they don't want it to happen is crazy. Everybody doesn't have the same kind of aviation airline service we have in Chicago or New York or Los Angeles or Dallas, TX. But we help the system perform. We pay funds into FAA and build control towers and build a flight service network. Why? Because it is good for the country. And so is high-speed rail, even if it doesn't touch your neighborhood. As a matter of fact, we have a bunch of locations that are going to be beneficiaries of high-speed rail. They are included in 14 of the most congested urban areas that are designated high-speed corridors, including Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, Atlanta, GA, Houston, TX, Washington, DC, and Portland, OR, just to name a few of the places that are going to benefit by investments in high-speed rail. However, we have a problem convincing people from those States that it is good for them, that we ought to be spending more money on getting this system up to snuff. I proposed a piece of legislation that calls for $10 billion worth of capital investment by Amtrak over the next 10 years to try to bring the system up to grade for the 21st century. That is on top of other subsidies for which we appropriate funds. It gives them the ability to sell $10 billion worth of bonds. The Federal Government does have to take some cost for providing a tax credit for bondholders. The benefits are enormous. Within 2 weeks, we will see the first high-speed rail train set come into Washington. It will be there just as a showpiece to tell us what is coming. Very soon thereafter, within 4 or 5 weeks, we will be seeing high-speed rail service or modified high-speed rail service in this corridor, between Washington and New York. We started in New York, the New York to Boston route. It is not truly high-speed rail; it is modified high-speed. It took an hour and a half off a 5\1/2\-hour trip, and the trains are loaded. It is as if people were standing on the platform for weeks waiting to find a train ride that would get them to their destinations, depending on weather, overcrowded skies, congestion all over the place, getting in your car and sitting there with all of the toxic emissions, all of the pollution, waiting for the traffic to move along. It was indeed a blessing, recognized by the public. When we get the system in the New York to Washington area, it will be considerably less than a 3-hour trip. That competes very effectively with aviation and the shuttle flights. We have approximately 100 flights a day. I don't want to deprive the airlines of revenue. That is not my mission. My mission is to help the American public get to their destinations on time, not miss connections, and to feel more comfortable, and lift the spirit of people who have to travel for a living, or recreationally, for family reunions or all kinds of reasons--to make it easier. That is the mission we are on. We have endorsements from many organizations. I know the occupant of the Chair was a member of the National Governors' Association when he was the Governor of Ohio. They endorse high-speed speed rail. National Conference of State Legislatures; U.S. Conference of Mayors; we have environmentalists; the American Road and Transportation Association; the AFL-CIO, Rail Labor Division; all people who have an interest in seeing high-speed rail. And newspapers that think about these things and whether or not they are going to be affected by this: The New York Times, the Houston Chronicle, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Tampa Tribune, Minneapolis Star Tribune, and other newspapers support this investment in high speed rail. I think we ought to get on with it. I plead with my colleagues, don't let this be a last-ditch stand to try to uproot the possibilities of getting these trains underway, getting this track underway, getting the signal systems underway. It will make a difference in lives all across this country. Some of those whose States are serviced or will be serviced by this high-speed rail connection have to recognize what it means to them directly and step up to the plate and say this will be a national asset, even if it doesn't touch any of the cities in my State. Recognizing time is precious and not wanting to hold the present occupant of the chair to a stricter schedule than he would like, I am feeling very generous and sympathetic because I know I am going to be able to call on the occupant of the chair to help us with the high- speed rail situation. I thank the chair for the courtesy of permitting me to make these comments. This is a milestone for America. It is a very important point in how we see ourselves getting from here to there. I hope my colleagues will support this with enthusiasm, knowing very well this is going to be the mode of transportation that is essential to continue to carry out our responsibilities. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will soon pass my legislation, S. 522, the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and the managers' amendment that is before the Senate. This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Akaka, Boxer, Cleland, Dodd, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin, Lieberman, Moynihan, Smith of New Hampshire, Sarbanes, and Torricelli. Many Americans who visited the beach this summer went home with more than just a tan. They brought back illnesses they contracted because they swam in contaminated water without realizing it. Unfortunately, whether you get sick from your trip to the beach depends on which state you happen to be in. That's because states do not have uniform standards for coastal water quality. For 10 straight years, Mr. President, the Natural Resources Defense Council has issued its report, ``Testing the Waters,'' which provides a comprehensive, highly reliable assessment of the quality of the nation's waters. Since 1991, first with then-Representative Bill Hughes of New Jersey and subsequently with Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey, I have introduced legislation to require states to adopt consistent coastal water quality standards to protect beachgoers from contamination. This legislation also would call on states to develop beach water quality monitoring and notification programs. Over the years, I've been greatly concerned about the increase in beach closings and advisories throughout the nation. In 1999, according to the NRDC's 10th annual report, there were more than 6,100 beach closings and advisories at our nation's oceans, bays and Great Lakes. Since 1988, there have been more than 36,156 beach closings and advisories. There is some good news in this information, Mr. President. For one, it indicates a greater vigilance by state and local governments. Since the first NRDC report was issued and citizens learned more about the risks at their beaches, at least nine states and many local governments have initiated or expanded their coastal water quality monitoring programs. This shows that many states and local governments are deeply concerned about the health hazards faced by people who swim in contaminated water. However, these data show us that we continue to have serious water pollution at our nation's beaches. For example, 70 percent of beach closings and advisories in 1999 were prompted by state and local government monitoring programs that detected bacteria levels exceeding state or local water quality standards. These bacteria levels have been associated with a variety of gastrointestinal diseases. This bill would ensure that all coastal states apply the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's criteria for detecting bacteria in their beach waters. Mr. President, the goal of this bill is to ensure that no matter where people go to the beach, they will know that a uniform level of protection is being applied. Right now, only seven states have adopted the criteria that the EPA called on states to adopt back in 1986. This bill give states three- and-a-half years to bring their standards up to where President Reagan's EPA said they should have been 14 years ago. The second part of my bill provides incentive grants to help states set up beach monitoring and public information programs. Right now, only nine states comprehensively monitor most or all of their beaches. These are Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania. My bill does not say how a state should monitor its beaches or how that information should get to the public. To help the states, the EPA would be required to develop monitoring and notification guidance. While we often don't know the exact source of coastal water pollution, we suspect that in many cases, sewer overflows and street runoff following heavy rainstorms are partly responsible. My bill focuses on a critical need: for states to set uniform standards and provide information to the public. My bill does not seek to regulate these sources of pollution. I sincerely hope that the Senate will address this key concern in the next Congress. Finally, my bill would require the EPA to establish a publicly available database containing the information states submit about their monitoring programs. Right now, Mr. Chairman, only California, Delaware, New Jersey, North Carolina and Rhode Island compile and publicize records of beach closings and bacteria levels. The legislation would encourage all coastal states and the EPA to provide this information to the public. I want to thank the managers of this bill, Senator Bob Smith and Senator Baucus, for their leadership in bringing this bill before the full Senate. I also want to recognize the members of the Committee staff for working so diligently on this legislation. In particular, I want to compliment John Pemberton and Ann Klee of the Majority Staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee; Jo-Ellen Darcy of the Minority staff of the Committee; and Amy Maron and Ruth Lodder of my personal staff. Many organizations also made significant contributions to this bill. I want to thank the Natural Resources Defense Council, American Oceans Campaign, Center for Marine Conservation, Surfrider Foundation, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, and the Coastal States Organization for their hard work.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the United States is now considering a bill authorizing the President to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to the People's Republic of China when that country joins the World Trade Organization. This can radically improve our relationship with the world's most populous country. There is so much at stake, in my view. That is why I traveled last month to China to meet with China's leadership and some of its people, to see for myself what is happening in China, and to ensure that I make a well-informed decision on this day. Some of what I saw, quite frankly, disturbed me. But I also saw and heard encouraging things that gave me hope about China's future. And I have concluded that the best way to promote positive change in China is to grant China permanent normal trade relations status. Many Americans, including environmental activists and members of organized labor and human rights groups, believe this vote is about far more than trade. And I agree. We cannot consider trade policy without understanding the implications for the economy, our society, and the environment in America and the world. Moreover, the granting of PNTR would eliminate the annual debate over granting normal trade relations, which we used to call MFN, to China. That annual debate allowed us to review all aspects of our relationship with China and developments in that country. Successive administrations and Congresses achieved progress on issues of importance to Americans by raising them in the context of that annual review. This time, however, we are not merely considering whether China has made sufficient progress in economic, social, environmental and human rights reforms to merit extending the opening of our market--China's largest export market--for another year. Rather, we are considering whether China is on a firm enough course of progress that we can justify an act of faith and open our market permanently as China joins the WTO and substantially opens its markets to American goods and services. That is why I traveled to China a few weeks ago, joined by my good friend the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin. I went so I could better understand China and raise my concerns with China's leaders about human rights, labor conditions, national security and the environment. I went to see for myself the condition of China's cities and rural areas, to compare the wealthy coast and the underdeveloped interior, to talk to garment workers and farmers, to assess the extent of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, to measure progress on human rights protection and environmental protection, and to look into the proliferation of weapons and the intimidation of Taiwan, to consider the abuse of power and the rule of law. China presented a very mixed picture. The patriotic Catholic Bishop in Shanghai, Bishop Jin, expressed it well when he said, ``China is very complicated.'' One thing was obvious: China is undergoing a tremendous transformation as a result of Deng Xiaoping's 1978 decision to open China to the world. The past two decades have seen the rise of free enterprise and international trade, and many of the Chinese people have experienced a dramatic improvement in their standard of living. China's GDP growth, while surely lower than official estimates, has averaged more than 6 percent over the past two decades and remains strong despite the impact of the Asian financial crisis. China's economic development is amazing, particularly in the modern city of Shanghai. I would like to speak briefly about some of the issues I raised with China's leaders and that will need to be addressed as we proceed in our strengthened relationship with China. We have to consider the national security aspects of the U.S.-China relationship. The United States and China are not natural or historic enemies. But serious problems and tensions exist. One key issue is China's proliferation of technologies and materials for missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Earlier this year, the CIA reported on China's continuing missile-related aid to Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and Libya, as well as nuclear cooperation with Iran and contributions to Iran's chemical weapons program. These relationships are not in China's interest and directly threaten U.S. interests. When I raised this issue, Vice Premier Qian Qichen acknowledged that China provided missile assistance to Pakistan in the past but insisted it had not done so in recent years. Premier Zhu Rongji dismissed my concerns and demanded evidence of China's proliferation activities. Of course, China has not accepted the key Annex to the Missile Technology Control Regime. I hope China will acknowledge its past mistakes and fully commit itself to international non-proliferation efforts. U.S. officials have made progress in addressing Chinese proliferation over the years. For example, they secured China's commitment not to help Iran develop new nuclear projects. But we must do more. The United States and China have a common interest in ending the destabilizing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. We have to improve cooperation toward that critical goal. A second national security issue concerns Taiwan. Wang Daohan, the Chinese official who conducts the Cross-Straits Dialogue for the Mainland and influences China's policy toward Taiwan, stressed to us that Beijing is willing to give Taiwan considerable autonomy if Taipei accepts the ``One China'' policy and supports reunification. I am not convinced that making Taipei's acceptance of the ``One China'' policy a pre-condition for talks is a constructive approach. I hope that China will withdraw its missiles that are only directed at Taiwan, because these threaten an arms race over Taiwan. As I told Mr. Wang, if you're extending a hand of peace it cannot be clenched into an iron fist. We also need to consider protection for human rights and the rule of law in China. Fortunately, the House addressed these issues constructively in the bill before us by providing for an annual review of human rights in China. The bill before us also rightly authorizes U.S. assistance for rule of law programs in China. I know that the Ford Foundation and other private groups are supporting rule of law efforts in China. We should be prepared to put some of our resources toward achieving this worthy, if long-term, goal. On the whole, we have to acknowledge that China has made some progress on human rights, though it still has a long way to go. The limited ability of the Chinese people to have freedom of religion is a very real concern. The Chinese people, many of whom recognize the vacuousness of Marxist and Maoist rhetoric, are unsatisfied with their daily lives and seek a higher moral purpose, a spiritual side to life. We saw some Chinese practicing recognized religions in permitted places, but others are not so fortunate. Buddhists pray and burn incense at a temple near the Great Buddha in Leshan. Catholics attend Mass at patriotic Catholic Churches or in private homes used by the underground Catholic Church. Muslims pray at the mosque in Xian. But Muslims in Northwest China, who are not ethnically Chinese, cannot worship freely. Judaism is not a recognized religion, so it is illegal. Practitioners of Falun Gong are arrested virtually every day when they do their exercises on Tiananmen Square or in other public places. And no member of any religion is allowed to proselytize freely, even though spreading the word is a key element of many faiths. While Senator Harkin and I did not have the opportunity to visit Tibet, I remain concerned about efforts to suppress Tibetan culture and religion. I hope the Chinese government will enter into dialogue with the Dalai Lama--without preconditions--with the aim of allowing him to return to Tibet as a spiritual leader. So is there freedom of religion in China? I think a typical Chinese answer might be ``Yes, within limits.'' Freedom of speech is similarly limited. Pre-publication censorship through approved publishing houses ensures that the Chinese government can review and approve the content of any published work. Some books have been banned, recalled and destroyed after publication because a senior party member or official found them offensive. During my visit to Beijing, I was pleased to hear Premier Zhu Rongji commit to continued progress on human rights. However, much work still needs to be done. One of China's most egregious laws, under which people could be jailed as ``counter-revolutionary,'' was repealed in 1997. But hundreds or perhaps thousands of people sentenced under that statute remain locked up. Perhaps the worst element of China's totalitarian state and arbitrary rule is the system of ``re-education through labor.'' Under this system, people can be deprived of their freedom for up to three years by the decision of a local police board--without ever being charged with a crime, much less having a fair trial. While indications suggest a change in the ``re-education'' system may be in the works, I hope China will eliminate it entirely. Further, I was disturbed by the Chinese government's efforts to suppress dissenting voices. Our Chinese hosts refused to pursue our request to meet with Bao Tong, a former government official imprisoned for warning Tiananmen Square demonstrators of the impending crackdown, saying it was ``too sensitive.'' We will not forget the crackdown on democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square, nor will we sweep current human rights problems under the rug. That is not the mission. I am hopeful that a renewed United States- China relationship will yield better respect for human rights in China. China's environmental policies are another serious concern. During the discussions in Kyoto about the world's climate, China insisted that only the U.S. and other developed countries should have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But China is the fourth largest and the most populous country in the world, so addressing global climate change will demand China's participation. I raised these concerns with China's senior leaders and later with China's Environment Minister, Xie Zhenhua, at the State Environmental Protection Administration. The reaction I got was decidedly mixed. Minister Xie described China's concerted efforts to address environmental problems. For example, China has reduced annual soft coal production, and thus consumption, from 1.3 to 1.2 billion tons, with a goal of a further reduction to 1 billion tons, to reduce sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions and improve air quality. China is also increasing use of natural gas and has taken steps to remove the worst- polluting vehicles from the country's roads. However, Minister Xie then launched into a diatribe, saying that the U.S. bears principal responsibility for the degradation of the Earth's environment and that China has a right to pollute so it can develop economically. I certainly hope recognition of the importance of environmental protection in China and global climate change will overcome the stale rhetoric of the old North-South economic discussions, so the U.S., China and other countries can join together to address common concerns. And I am hopeful that increased trade will foster more cooperation on that issue, including sales of environmentally sound American technology. Many Americans are also rightly concerned about the working conditions and the rights of Chinese workers, particularly since American firms that follow American labor laws have to compete with Chinese producers. Certainly, migrant workers in southeastern China--including underage workers--are exploited. And workers in China cannot meaningfully organize to protect their interests. China has strong labor laws, but enforcement is clearly lacking. I visited a state-owned factory in Leshan, in Sichuan province, which produces equipment for power generation. Workers using large machine tools and working with large metal components had no protection for their eyes or ears, no hard hats and no steel-toed boots, as would be required in the U.S. Their work was clearly hard and dangerous, the hours long and the pay meager. I also visited a garment factory in Shenzhen, the Special Economic Zone established 20 years ago near the border with Hong Kong. The factory manager told me workers are usually on the job for 40 hours a week, occasionally putting in overtime when the factory is busy. Workers themselves meekly said they probably work about 12 hours a day. But my staff looked through the rack of time cards near the door and discovered that virtually all of these textile workers arrive before 8 a.m., take a short lunch break and clock out after 10 p.m.--working nearly 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. And that earns them wages of 80 or 90 U.S. dollars per month, a bunk in a dormitory and meals. The presence of American and other foreign investors and buyers can make a huge difference. Senator Harkin and I visited a factory near Shanghai that produces clothing for Liz Claiborne. The company appeared to be making a real effort to enforce fair labor association standards. We could see the results in working conditions. For example, the factory was well-lit and well-ventilated, even air-conditioned. Liz Claiborne's interventions led to the construction of a fire escape, and the workers' rights were clearly posted near the entrance. A Liz Claiborne representative on site not only ensures the quality of the product but also monitors compliance with China's labor laws limiting overtime hours. Unfortunately, not all American and other foreign firms are as responsible. When I was in Hong Kong, the South China Morning Post had a front-page story about child labor in a factory in Guandong Province producing toys for McDonald's Happy Meals. Indeed, the toy industry is probably the most notorious for looking the other way as its Chinese suppliers exploit their workers. The bottom line is that trade with the United States and U.S. investment does not automatically lead to better working conditions and fairer treatment for Chinese workers. American and other foreign companies need to make fair labor standards a real condition of their business relationships. So these are some of the problems I observed and concerns I raised in China. I come to the key question: Can we as a nation best make progress on these issues by granting PNTR or by denying it? Our annual reviews of Most Favored Nation treatment of China have provided important leverage with Beijing. Congress reviewed issues of importance to us, and members of the House and Senate and Administration officials raised these concerns with Chinese officials. Many times, China took significant steps to show progress, and arguably future-oriented leaders used the opportunity to promote reforms. Under H.R. 4444, a commission will still look at China's human rights record and other concerns each year, but without the implicit leverage of a vote on MFN. Some have suggested we vote down PNTR to maintain our annual vote and the associated leverage. After all, China will still be interested in selling goods in the U.S. market, though we would not have access to WTO rules and dispute settlement mechanisms. However, voting down PNTR would not simply maintain the status quo. Chinese leaders--and many Chinese citizens--see this debate on PNTR legislation as a referendum on the U.S.-China relationship. Rejecting PNTR means rejecting any hope of a cooperative relationship with China in the near-term. And cooperation, too, has yielded important progress. On the national security front, the U.S. and China have cooperated to promote peace and reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula. And the WTO contains a national security exception that will allow us to maintain technological controls and other national security restrictions on trade. On the human rights front, China has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, though the National People's Congress has yet to ratify it. The presence of American firms willing to forego some of their profits to treat workers decently has helped raise standards of working conditions. China is going to have access to the U.S. market regardless of how we vote. If we grant PNTR to China, however, we will gain the benefit of WTO dispute settlement mechanisms to better ensure China's commitment to free trade. By granting PNTR, we do give up the right to review China's trade status annually, but we can advance our agenda on non-economic issues through increased dialogue, by bringing China into multilateral agreements and institutions, and through stronger bilateral cooperation. Economically, I believe the world and the American and Chinese people have a lot to gain by granting PNTR. As I discussed earlier, China's economic growth over the past two decades has been staggering, as a result of its opening to the world some 20 years ago. China has risen to become the world's ninth largest exporter and the eleventh largest importer. In November 1999, we completed a landmark Bilateral Trade Agreement with China, which is contingent on our approving PNTR. In that agreement, China pledged to reduce tariffs on a number of imports. For example, all tariffs on information technology products such as semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, computers and computer equipment are to be eliminated by 2005. Tariffs on industrial products would decline from a simple average of 24.6 percent to 9.4 percent. The agreement also opens China's markets in a wide range of services, including banking, insurance, telecommunications, distribution, professional services and other business services. China is expected to join the WTO's Basic Telecommunications Agreement and end geographic restrictions on wireless services and its ban on foreign investment in telecommunication. Such changes are good not only for China but for America. But establishing Permanent Normal Trade Relations is something we can do only once. Some economists have raised serious questions about whether we have gained enough access to China's markets for goods and services. Did USTR's negotiators get a good deal? I think that's a difficult question to answer now. Our annual trade deficit with China stands at a shocking $56.9 billion. One key factor which will determine how good a deal we got is compliance. How well will China fulfill its obligations? Through China's WTO accession and the establishment of PNTR, we will be able to hold China accountable for its trade commitments through the WTO's transparent, rules-based dispute settlement mechanisms. If China arbitrarily increases a tariff on an American product or engages in retaliatory actions against the U.S., we could seek redress under WTO regulations. How effectively will we monitor compliance and use these mechanisms and our trade laws to bring China's laws and practices into line? This is a very serious question. China is a large country--nearly the size of the United States--and the application of national laws is grossly inconsistent across the country. Moreover, U.S. firms doing business there seem to understand their immense reliance on the goodwill of China's government and Communist Party. Will these firms be willing to risk a deal in Guangzhou by asking USTR to pursue action against arbitrary and discriminatory treatment in Inner Mongolia? Or will American firms continue to emphasize cooperation with Chinese authorities? This bill rightly stresses the need for the U.S. government to monitor China's compliance with its trade obligations and use the WTO's dispute settlement mechanisms. But if we fail to grant PNTR for China, WTO dispute mechanisms will not be available to us. Mr. President, China is already America's fourth largest trading partner. According to administration statistics, American exports to China and Hong Kong support an estimated 400,000 well-paying U.S. jobs. China's WTO accession and the 1999 bilateral agreement will further open China's markets to American goods and services and protects American intellectual property rights. I believe will prove to be a good deal for America's working families. New Jersey undoubtedly stands to benefit from China's accession to the WTO and improved market access. At the end of 1998, China ranked as New Jersey's ninth largest export destination, with merchandise exports worth $668 million. Important New Jersey firms, such as Lucent Technologies and Chubb Insurance, are already active in China and will have more opportunities as a result of China's market opening under the 1999 bilateral trade deal. Mr. President, there are some potential risks in granting permanent normal trade relations to China now. While I have concerns about China's record in the areas I have outlined, I believe that China is undergoing momentous change. The best way to promote continued progress on issues of concern and help our economy is to grant China permanent normal trade relations status.