Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as a parliamentary inquiry, my understanding is that unanimous consent has been reached that this Senator controls 1 hour of debate, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, 1 hour of debate, and the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, controls 1 hour of debate.

Mr. LUGAR. I appreciate the remarks by my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig. I agree that the Senate Agriculture Committee should review how these growers can recover their economic losses resulting from illegal actions by federal employees. The Department of Agriculture has oversight responsibility for the actions that may have resulted in millions of dollars of losses to these growers. This matter should be fully explored and resolved. As part of committee review, I will continue to receive reports from the office of the Inspector General. It is important that this industry regain confidence in the inspection system that they use. Mr. President, two provisions of the conference agreement warrant some clarification as to how they should be carried out. Section 243(g) allows a third State to expand coverage of the Child and Adult Care Food Program to additional for-profit child care centers serving lower- income children. It should be clear to the Secretary in implementing this amendment that the additional State must meet the criteria for approval at the time of enactment and is one that exempts all of its lower-income families from child care cost-sharing requirements, while allowing fees to be charged on a sliding scale to higher-income families. Section 243(b)(2) requires that a minimum number of site visits to day care centers, homes, and sponsors be conducted. The amendment recognizes that the Secretary can strengthen this measure by requiring more than the minimum numbers called for in the amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, our colleagues have suggested that if Senators are amenable to yielding back time, at least in this instance, we might proceed to a vote, with the understanding that provision might be made for additional time for comments by Senators on this legislation. There would appear, at least to the ranking member and myself, to be no visible opposition.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to table that. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from Georgia and Kansas. It is a privilege to follow on some of the thoughts of the distinguished Senator from Kansas, as he has discussed multilateral organizations and focused especially on NATO which, in the judgment of many of us, is the most important and successful of these organizations in which the United States is a member. It is axiomatic, at least for many in foreign policy, that Europe counts for the United States. By that I mean simply this: that although throughout our history many have argued that we could get along by ourselves on this continent and that entanglement in the affairs of Europe was often described as nefarious skullduggery statesmanship without scruple, that eventually we come back to the fact that in the small world in which we live now, what happens on that continent matters a great deal to our security and to our prosperity. It is for this reason that the United States stayed in Europe after World War II. To state it very simply, as German Foreign Minister Fischer stated when he visited with our Foreign Relations Committee this week: The United States presence, the decision to stay, made all the difference in the last half century. It made a difference in terms of peace on the Europe continent, which had not had such an era of peace in a whole millennium. It made a very great difference for us, the United States, leaving aside NATO and the security it provided, because of the collective defense of NATO members against the perceived menace of the former Soviet Union and its allies. The fact is that through the Marshall Plan, and through many other economic associations, the European countries grew substantially and so did our markets and so did our prosperity. We tend to take this all for granted, but only in the last 50 years has this been a fact. We came to a point after the breakup of the former Soviet Union in which many argued, and I was not the one who originated the term, but I adopted it in a tour I took of Europe in 1993, that either NATO would go ``out of area or out of business.'' By that I meant simply that the idea of collective defense against the former Soviet Union, which had broken up, made much less sense than it had made before. Some would have said the Soviet Union might revive suddenly and attack hapless European nations, but this became less and less likely. In fact, we found in the Desert Storm war, that our problem was that NATO was not equipped to deal with conflicts out of area. It was a pickup game in which we enlisted various nations. This out of area action had been contemplated at the time of the United Nations Charter in Article 4, which Senator Roberts has cited. John Foster Dulles spoke openly and eloquently on that point. It was anticipated that NATO members from time to time would act out of area in their collective efforts and for collective security. So we did that in Desert Storm and the idea was always, from the time of the United Nations Charter and the NATO Charter onward, that nations could freely decide to join in such actions. In the case of Desert Storm they did so. Now that a whole new set of facts began to come forward, in which there were countries--Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and others-- but mainly the first three--in which the point was made: We are a democracy. We are searching for freedom. We are searching for relevance and association with others who want freedom as we do. Some argued the evolution of Europe might have come entirely through the European Union, through the economic union of the members. But most of us noted that was going very slowly. It still goes slowly. Poland is not a member of the European Union as we speak, and it is not contemplated that it will be for several years. This is now a very large country with a functioning economy and a democracy. The point was that collective security meant making certain that the gains, the victories of the cold war, were ensured and were solidified. That was the debate that we had a short time ago with regard to expansion of NATO. Some argued: Why expand if there is no particular threat? Why not wait and see how the threat shapes up? You can always take on new members in the event things are troubled. But many argued, and I was one, that the integration of forces, the building of institutions, takes time. Even in the successful war we fought in the desert, the weapons systems that were employed took 25 years to evolve. It is very probable that the strengths we are now building with new members in Europe, in NATO, will make a difference in terms of their collective security, and I believe in ours. With the crisis over, many persons in the United States and maybe in this body, tend to ask: Why are we involved in Europe? In fact, why can't Europeans run their own affairs? They say it is a troublesome situation to have our forces involved there, meddling and in harm's way. We went through this in a very practical way with regard to the war in Bosnia. As you may recall, in the latter stages of the Bush administration, there was anxiety on the part of President Bush as to what was happening in the former Yugoslavia. He was strongly advised by European leaders that they knew better what was happening there, that our involvement was really not particularly welcomed. President Bush may have welcomed that advice, for all I know. But in any event, his determination was to leave that problem alone, so the conflict continued to progress badly in terms of the loss of life and displacement of persons and refugees and so forth. President Clinton attacked former President Bush in the 1992 campaign for failing to have a plan for Bosnia. But when President Clinton came into office in 1993 he found out how difficult that situation was. I know from my own experience, traveling with Senator Nunn in 1993, talking on the phone with President Clinton over long distance as he asked what we were finding out and how things were going? He was attempting to evolve a policy. He sent Secretary Christopher to Europe about that time, a trip which was very unsuccessful. The Secretary talked with the British and then the French and gave our views and asked their views. They had all sorts of views, all of them contradictory, and none of them helpful with regard to anything we had in mind. As a result, things drifted. Some may say that was simply too bad. Here are people with intractable views, demagogs. Whatever was happening in Yugoslavia was miserable and unfortunate for those people, and especially for their neighbors, our European allies. But that was their problem--and perhaps it was. But late in the game, Europeans came to us and said: We cannot solve it. It is insoluble without the United States. We might have said, ``Tough luck. You are on your own. This is what you wanted. You made your bed, now sleep in it.'' We could have said that. We could have watched the unraveling of various parts of Europe as refugees and economic difficulties and aggression proceeded. But we took a different view--I think the correct view--namely, we are the leaders in NATO. NATO was relevant to that situation. That was a big step but not all Senators agreed. The point being made in the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the distinguished Senator from Virginia is that we have not gone to war very often. We have declared war even less. It is time to stop these informal arrangements in which we get involved in operations without having an up-or-down vote or authorization to spend money or send the troops. That is a good point. I can remember arguing before the Desert Storm war that we ought to do that, and there was great anxiety in the White House about any such vote for fear it might come out badly that Saddam Hussein, therefore, would have a free ride. Ultimately, the vote was very close. I understand the constitutional point very well. It could very well be that historians will argue we misplayed our hand at Rambouillet, that our diplomacy was not as swift as it should have been, that we made threats when we did not understand the military power that would be necessary to make those threats good, and that even having made the threats, we did not have a very good plan once we were tested. I make no apologies for any of what proceeded, but the point is, we finally come back to the fact we are in Europe because it is our security--our security--that is at stake. It could be argued, too, that for the moment the Europeans are not sharing the burden, although they would argue, by this time, that they are shouldering their burden--but that is another debate all by itself. Or they might argue we should not be involved without having up-or-down votes in the Congress on these things in any event, or that many Americans believe we are in Kosovo or in Bosnia purely for humanitarian purposes, not for gut strategic purposes of the United States, but because of ethnic cleansing or refugees or displaced persons. The case will be made that this is not a real war, this is a policing action; it is a structural problem, like that faced by a mayor of a city or police or other situations analogous that can be handled by police, and European policemen rather than American policemen. We keep coming back to this haunting question that President George Bush had to face and then President Bill Clinton when the Europeans said: We cannot make it by ourselves. Ultimately, Europeans might say: We can; we are different now; we have new institutions--whether they be security or economic--and you Americans can go home; we can get along without you; it's been nice to have you around. That is not what they are saying. As a matter of fact, every European statesman who comes to Washington--and the Chair presides over these coffees in our Foreign Relations Committee--we hear every single foreign minister and defense minister vowing how important it is the United States is there, stays there, stays there big, how we must take the lead and help organize the situation. We may say in our impatience: Will they never be able to pull it together? Perhaps not in our lifetime. What are the consequences if we leave? The consequence is the same one the German foreign minister told us this week. We left after the First World War. As a matter of fact, throughout the 1930s, we were not only isolationists, we were glad we were not close to the action, and we suffered for that. We lost a lot of lives. We had a war around the world that was touch and go for some time because we were not prepared to do the difficult work, the tedious work, the actual intervention day by day, the grimy, grubby work of diplomacy country by country, case by case. That is the problem. Duty in Kosovo, duty in Bosnia is not a popular assignment for anybody and never will be. I can think of various other places in Europe in which it is not going to be very pleasant. Yet to keep the peace for over 50 years, to have prosperity for them and for us, to make a difference in terms of stability of the world, that counts for something. On the cheap, we can say, by and large, we did not vote for it, we are tired of paying too much for it. Europeans understand that a little bit, and I give credit to the distinguished Senator from Virginia for trying to urge them to step up to the plate, and they have now demonstrated they are paying more than 85 percent--the lion's share-- whether it is the policing side or the economic side, and that we are paying 15 percent, and that is about what we agreed to do. They said, in essence: You fought most of the war, we will pick up five-sixths of the cost. That may or may not be a good agreement, but that is roughly where we have come to in Kosovo. We could say we are tired of paying the 15 percent and, as a matter of fact, our 5,000 or 6,000 troops are tired of being there and, as a Senate, we are tired of debating the issue. We would just like to get a vote on this and get rid of it cleanly. Tell the President, whoever he is, where to go in this situation. It makes no difference whether we have a Secretary of State negotiating over there or not, we know better because we represent the people and we have the power of the purse and we can jerk this thing out immediately. Some will argue whether or not to do that as a matter of fact. The vote would not come for a year. General Clark has testified to this in the letter the distinguished Senator from Michigan just read, that other countries will make their own calculations. We, frankly, do not know what the foreign policy of President Putin of Russia will be. We suspect, as a matter of fact, as we have heard from the Russian Ambassador and from others that the Russians want a zone in Kosovo, maybe ours. Let's say we withdraw and the Russians say: It would be fine, as a matter of fact, if we were there because we could help integrate the Serbs as they want to come back to their homes, or help with a little bridge there; that would be a good thing in terms of integration of Europe as we see it; and we are here as Russians; the Americans have gone home; they were tired of this, tired of the policing action and all the burdens, all the difficulties. That is one possibility. President Milosevic might say: Let's be at ease for a year, wait it out. Kosovo was sort of a contretemps, a bad nightmare. A good many bombs were dropped around the country, there was some difficulties with the power stations and difficulties in terms of deprivation, but, by and large, that is in the past, and in a year's time, we can be home free. We can begin to operate business as usual. The Albanians noting the situation likewise say: We have a year to prepare for the war to take on the Serbs who are back with perhaps the help of Russian friends and others who come in to fill this vacuum. European allies will be accused frequently of withdrawing people from the country. They will say, by and large, the Americans are a strange leader; they are gone. This is the only war NATO ever fought and some may feel the only one it ever will fight because there was not very much leadership here, not much standing to talk to us about whether we have an independent force, whether it is with NATO or anybody else. We have a very fateful vote coming up, and it comes right to the point we are discussing today: multinational organizations and particularly NATO, the most important security alliance, because Europe counts. I suggest we do reaffirm NATO. As a matter of fact, as the distinguished Senator from Kansas pointed out, I suggested last year at the NATO celebration that we consider carefully new members. There were nine applicants. I say it is imperative that we keep hope alive for all nine. That is the incentive for their reform and for the courage to continue on. As a matter of fact, I hope we will move to adopt new members. I hope we will offer leadership to fill out much more substantially those who have fought for freedom, those who have a lot at stake in the kind of Europe we think would be more secure for them and for us. I think we ought to be devoting more resources to NATO rather than less. It seems to me we have a golden opportunity. Historically, we have been established there for a long time. To abandon or weaken NATO at this point, or to give hints we are going to abandon it, or to give hints that it can be taken for granted, would be an unfortunate policy. By the same token, this debate gives us an opportunity to finally establish, once and for all the question: Does Europe count? Do we care? Can Europe make it without us? I believe it counts. I do not think they can make it without us. I think we have to be there. And if we are going to be there, we ought to lead, and we ought to have the resources that make it count. We ought to expand the operation, as a matter of fact. We ought to be assertive and bold as opposed to timidly pulling back into our tent. I believe that is what the debate ought to be about. It ought to be about the strength of the very best multinational organization we have, about the reasons our allies are important to us, and what we intend to do about it. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to give this address. I thank the distinguished Senators from Georgia and Kansas, again, for inviting me to be a part of the colloquy.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, last week, in a EUCOM change of command ceremony, General Wesley Clark relinquished his position as Supreme Allied Commander Europe, concluding one of his generation's most illustrious and eventful military careers. As he testifies before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today, I want to highlight the contributions of General Clark to the national security of the United States and to its friends and allies in Europe and around the globe, and thank him for his service to NATO as Supreme Allied Commander Europe. As NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson put it: Wes Clark has been the right man, in the right place, at the right time. He has been instrumental in bringing a degree of stability to Bosnia-Herzegovina, so that efforts at reconstruction and reconciliation could proceed. General Clark welcomed three new members to the Alliance and has worked tirelessly to integrate them fully--militarily and politically--into the activities and decision-making processes of the Alliance. The General has worked to turn the Partnerships for Peace into stepping stones rather than alternatives to Alliance membership, and he has kept the door open to new entrants, while setting forth high military standards for full integration. But nowhere have General Clark's political and leadership qualities been more evident than during NATO's Kosovo campaign. Having been a key participant in diplomatic efforts seeking a solution to Yugoslavia's ethnic turmoil and disintegration, General Clark changed hats without missing a beat and assumed command of the Alliance strategy to complement diplomacy with military power. General Clark's steadfast pursuit of military victory coupled with the maintenance of political cohesion in Alliance planning cells at NATO Headquarters brought the Western coalition to one of its finest hours in its 50-year history. Equally important, General Clark recognized that military success could not produce peace, prosperity and stability on the ground without an effective civil implementation program that allowed the peoples of the Balkans the tools to address their historical grievances toward one another. He knew that the political unity he helped to forge as a prerequisite to military success must now be sustained and strengthened if the civilianization process is to succeed. Secretary of Defense Cohen put it well at the EUCOM Change of Command ceremony last week in Europe. He said: In General Wes Clark, America found a scholar, a soldier and a statesman: a scholar of unquestioned courage, a bronze and silver star hero who, despite grievous wounds, inspired his unit to survive in the jungles of Vietnam; a soldier of insight who returned to train those who prevailed in Desert Storm. He is a statesman whose influence has been felt from the Americas where he helped to guide the fight against drug barons to Dayton where his counsel helped end the bloodletting in Bosnia. Those sentiments are shared by those of us in the Senate who have benefitted from General Clark's wise counsel over the years. He was never too busy for one more briefing at NATO Headquarters or in the field. When the relevant committees held their hearings, General Clark was on the plane so that he might address Congressional concerns across the table, not across the ocean. Members of both branches of government are now in the process of assimilating the ``lessons learned'' from the Kosovo campaign. General Clark has recently completed his own ``after action'' report. But for the United States, there is one incontrovertible lesson to be learned: If the history of the last year or so in the Balkans were to repeat itself, the United States and the Alliance would be well served by having Wes Clark again at the helm of a coalition of nations intent on defending their common interests.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization bill. My amendment would increase the authorization for the Comprehensive School Reform Program from $200 million to $500 million. I believe that there are few areas of this bill that can have a more positive impact on education in American than the Comprehensive School Reform Program. Educators in this country are trying hard to improve the success of their schools. Teachers, administrators, and parents routinely organize and staff tutorial programs, remedial classes, after-school programs, and innumerable other initiatives designed to bolster school performance. But in most cases, achieving breakthrough results requires research-based reform that embraces innovation and instills discipline in both the children and the methods of the schools. School-wide reform programs effectively implemented through the hard work of administrators, teachers, and parents have transformed many struggling schools. Unfortunately, some schools--especially poorer Title I schools--lack the means to pay for these programs. The Comprehensive School Reform Program, CSRP, was established three years ago to help public elementary or secondary schools pay for the initial costs of implementing comprehensive strategies for educational reform. Under CSRP, grants to individual schools are to be at least $50,000 per year (renewable up to three years), in addition to all other federal aid for which they may be eligible. Schools that adopt comprehensive reform plans generally have searched the education landscape for effective methods. They have studied intensively the reform programs that have been developed by educators around the country. And they have chosen the program that they believe will produce the best results in their school. Most schools that adopt a comprehensive reform plan do so based on two premises: first, that significantly improving the performance of their school demands a complete reorientation of its resources, methods, and culture; and second, that the reform plan should be based on a body of sound research and should have a proven record of success. Many reform plans focus on reading, because it is the critical foundation for success in other subjects and in later grades. In most cases, the problems of a student who fails begin early. So must the solutions. We should start by ensuring that all students are able to read by the end of the third grade. Educators widely proclaim that this is a crucial goal. If students have not achieved this standard, they have a very hard time catching up in later grades. The inability to read well handicaps the rest of their studies, and their employment prospects later in life are greatly diminished. In Indiana, as many as a third of all students fall behind by the end of the third grade. Indiana's performance is not unusual--the entire country is failing to meet the challenge of educating all our children. Mr. President, my first elective office was as a member of the Indianapolis Board of School Commissioners in the mid-1960s. At that time, our school board struggled with basic questions of improvements in educational standards, desegregation of schools, and getting children proper nutrition and immunizations. Since that time, as a mayor and as a Senator, I have followed closely the development of education in America. In some areas we have done well. In other areas, our progress has been disappointing. But during that time, few developments have encouraged me as much as the advances in comprehensive school reform. There are many reform programs achieving positive results. But to illustrate the concept, I would like to describe one in particular. This is ``Success for All,'' which was developed by Dr. Robert Slavin at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Success for All is a great idea that has proven its value in many schools across the country, including 13 in Indiana. Reading is serious business at a Success for All school. For 90 minutes each day, students are grouped by their reading ability rather than their grade level. This allows students who excel at reading to progress at their own rate, while ensuring that students who fall behind will receive intensive attention to stimulate their progress. To set the tone and importance of the reading period, students proceed silently and purposefully through the hall to their reading group classroom. Once the period begins, there is a rapid-fire of sequential lessons. Each segment is short enough to maintain the interest and attention of even the most distracted student. The lessons are fun but rigorously structured. Teachers read a story. Then students are involved in reading the words to the story in unison, discussing the story with a partner, then answering questions to test comprehension. At the completion of a successful lesson segment, students choose one of many group cheers. This positive reinforcement both encourages children, and fosters group cooperation. During the reading period, every staff person in the school is involved in reading. The art teacher or gym teacher may be tutors, for example. Parents also agree to have their children read to them for 20 minutes each night. If this doesn't happen, adults are available to work with the students during the morning school breakfast period. Because Success for All depends on the commitment of the entire faculty and because it requires such a fundamental change in the way a school operates, Dr. Slavin requires that at least 80 percent of the faculty must approve Success for All by secret ballot. The discipline and accountability of the program greatly reduce the possibility that students will fail. If a student falls behind, tutoring sessions are set up to get the student caught up. By teaching children to read in the early grades, our schools can avoid holding students back, promoting them with insufficient ability or transferring them out of the normal curriculum to special education courses. Referrals to special education in Success for All schools have been shown to decrease by approximately 50 percent. In schools where Success for All is taught, students learn to read by the third grade. By the fifth grade, students in these schools are testing a full grade level ahead of students in other schools. I would strongly encourage each of my colleagues to visit a Success for All school, if they have not already done so. I have had the pleasure of visiting Maplewood Elementary School in Wayne Township, Marion County, Washington Elementary in Gary, and Fairfield Elementary in Fort Wayne, which has had Success for All since 1995. In my judgment, anyone who sees Success for All in action will become a believer. I have contacted every school district in my state to suggest that they take a look at Success for All or another comprehensive school reform program based on rigorous research. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today would allow more struggling schools to adopt comprehensive school reform programs. These programs are a comparative bargain for our schools and our children when one considers their success at preventing the enormous costs of retention, special education and illiteracy. But many schools need help paying for the start-up costs and the reading materials associated with comprehensive reform programs. Most of the more than 1,500 schools nationwide that use Success for All fund it with the Federal Title I program. Others have tapped private sources. But increasing funding for the Comprehensive School Reform Program is the most direct way to give more local schools the chance to embrace school-wide reform and transform the lives of their students. The program deserves more support because its positive impact on literacy and the ultimate success of students is so demonstrable. Each child must learn to read. The quality of life for that child depends upon that single achievement, as does the economic future of our country. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle in introducing the Renewable Fuels Act of 2000. In July 1999, an independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline called for major reductions in the use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline. They did so because of growing evidence and public concerns regarding pollution of drinking water supplies by MTBE. These trends are particularly acute in areas of the country using Reformulated Gasoline. The Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) has proven to be a success in reducing smog and has exceeded expectations in reducing dangerous and carcinogenic air toxics in gasoline. The second stage of the Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) will commence this summer and will have an even greater effect in reducing ozone pollution and air toxics. Because of concerns regarding water pollution, it is clear that the existing situation regarding MTBE is not tenable. The Governor of California has called for a three year phase out of MTBE in California and the California Air Resources Board has adopted regulations to that effect. Environmental officials from eight Northeastern States have proposed a phase down and a capping of the use of MTBE in gasoline in their states. MTBE is being found in wells in the Midwest even in areas that do not use reformulated gasoline. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will lead to about five billion gallons of ethanol being produced in 2010 compared to one billion, six hundred million gallons today. Under the Act, one gallon of cellulosic ethanol will count for one and one-half gallons of regular ethanol in determining whether a refiner has met the Renewable Fuels Standard in a particular year. We are going to have spikes in oil that will disrupt our economy. It may or may not be able to be controlled. It will happen before 2010. It may happen again next week. Our problem in terms of national security and the security of our whole economy revolves around our dependence on petroleum-based fuels. We must be able to address this challenge. Finding an environmentally sensitive way to resolve the MTBE crisis is an important part of this challenge. It is clear that MTBE is on its way out. The question is what kind of legislation is needed to facilitate its departure and whether that legislation will be based on consideration of all of the environmental and energy and national security issues involved. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will establish a nationwide Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) that would increase the current use of renewable fuels from 1.3% in 2000 to 3.3% by 2010. Refiners who produced renewable fuels beyond the standard could sell credits to other refiners who chose to under comply with the RFS. This bill would give the EPA Administrator authority to limit or eliminate the use of MTBE in order to protect the public health and the environment. It also gives states the ability to further regulate or eliminate MTBE use if the EPA does not choose to eliminate it. It would also establish strict ``anti backsliding provisions'' to capture all of the air quality benefits of MTBE and ethanol as MTBE is phased down or phased out. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will be good for our economy and our environment. Most important of all, it will facilitate the development of renewable fuels, a development critical to ensuring U.S. national and economic security and stabilizing gas prices. I hope that my colleagues will examine this bill as well as other legislative approaches that would spur the development of renewable fuels such as ethanol, whether derived from corn or other agricultural or plant materials.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle in introducing the Renewable Fuels Act of 2000. In July 1999, an independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline called for major reductions in the use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline. They did so because of growing evidence and public concerns regarding pollution of drinking water supplies by MTBE. These trends are particularly acute in areas of the country using Reformulated Gasoline. The Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) has proven to be a success in reducing smog and has exceeded expectations in reducing dangerous and carcinogenic air toxics in gasoline. The second stage of the Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) will commence this summer and will have an even greater effect in reducing ozone pollution and air toxics. Because of concerns regarding water pollution, it is clear that the existing situation regarding MTBE is not tenable. The Governor of California has called for a three year phase out of MTBE in California and the California Air Resources Board has adopted regulations to that effect. Environmental officials from eight Northeastern States have proposed a phase down and a capping of the use of MTBE in gasoline in their states. MTBE is being found in wells in the Midwest even in areas that do not use reformulated gasoline. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will lead to about five billion gallons of ethanol being produced in 2010 compared to one billion, six hundred million gallons today. Under the Act, one gallon of cellulosic ethanol will count for one and one-half gallons of regular ethanol in determining whether a refiner has met the Renewable Fuels Standard in a particular year. We are going to have spikes in oil that will disrupt our economy. It may or may not be able to be controlled. It will happen before 2010. It may happen again next week. Our problem in terms of national security and the security of our whole economy revolves around our dependence on petroleum-based fuels. We must be able to address this challenge. Finding an environmentally sensitive way to resolve the MTBE crisis is an important part of this challenge. It is clear that MTBE is on its way out. The question is what kind of legislation is needed to facilitate its departure and whether that legislation will be based on consideration of all of the environmental and energy and national security issues involved. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will establish a nationwide Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) that would increase the current use of renewable fuels from 1.3% in 2000 to 3.3% by 2010. Refiners who produced renewable fuels beyond the standard could sell credits to other refiners who chose to under comply with the RFS. This bill would give the EPA Administrator authority to limit or eliminate the use of MTBE in order to protect the public health and the environment. It also gives states the ability to further regulate or eliminate MTBE use if the EPA does not choose to eliminate it. It would also establish strict ``anti backsliding provisions'' to capture all of the air quality benefits of MTBE and ethanol as MTBE is phased down or phased out. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2000 will be good for our economy and our environment. Most important of all, it will facilitate the development of renewable fuels, a development critical to ensuring U.S. national and economic security and stabilizing gas prices. I hope that my colleagues will examine this bill as well as other legislative approaches that would spur the development of renewable fuels such as ethanol, whether derived from corn or other agricultural or plant materials.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on May 4, 2000 in SR- 328A at 2 p.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss carbon cycle research and agriculture's role in reducing climate change.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on April 27, 2000, in SD-106 at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be consider the nomination of Michael V. Dunn to be a member of the Farm Credit Administration Board, Farm Credit Administration, and to examine pending legislation on agriculture concentration of ownership and competitiveness. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on April 6, 2000 in SR-328A at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss interstate shipment of state inspected meat.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Health Care Infrastructure Investment Act. Formerly arcane statistics of interest only to economists, productivity and innovation are now veritable buzz-words in today's much-heralded new economy. Recently released productivity figures drew front page coverage from both the Washington Post and New York Times. Most economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, attribute the surge in productivity to technological improvements. A host of new and improved technologies, including faster computers and rapid expansion of the Internet, have led to improved efficiencies. The result: workers are more productive, companies continue to grow and wealth is created. Today nearly every industrial sector is involved in a race to apply new technology and management techniques to gain greater efficiencies. Yet one sector that accounts for 13 percent of America's gross domestic product--health care--still uses a patchwork-quilt of outdated technology for the most basic of its transactions. While individual components within the health industry are adopting advanced communication, manufacturing and other technologies but the inner core of health care--a series of transactions between doctor, patient and insurance provider--remains largely untouched by technological advances that would decrease the administrative load accompanying every transaction. At a time when America's growing population is seeking a higher quality of care; when the greying of America means that Medicare enrollment will double by 2040; when new medical procedures are being developed that hold great promise for the treatment and cure of diseases like cancer and AIDS; when prescription drugs are becoming available that extend and improve the quality of life--we have every motivation for adopting into health care some of the same technologies and ideas responsible for transforming other sectors of the American economy. A robust and modern infrastructure for American health care will enable resources to be shifted to where they are most needed and allow for the dramatic increases in productivity necessary to treat increasing numbers of people at a higher level of care. In this sense, efficiency is not double-speak for additional restrictions placed on the doctor-patient relationship or further regulations on insurance coverage. Instead, greater efficiency means that doctors are free to spend more time treating patients, insurance companies reduce the cost of claims processing and consumers are empowered with a better understanding of treatment and costs. America's interstate highway system is a prime example of a wise infrastructure investment. As a result of a sustained Federal commitment, Americans enjoy an unprecedented degree of mobility while the economy benefits from the low cost and ease of transportation. A similar approach should be applied to health care whose roads for processing information resemble the rutted cobblestone paths of medieval times. The Health Care Infrastructure Investment Act is designed to spur Federal and private sector investment so that a nationwide network of systems is built for health care. A network of systems is a descriptive term that refers to the conglomeration of hardware, software and secure information networks designed to speed the flow of information and capital between doctors, patients and insurance providers. The primary goal of the Health Care Infrastructure Investment Act is to build an advanced infrastructure to efficiently process and handle the vast number of straightforward transactions that now clog the pipeline and drain scarce health care resources. Among the targeted transactions are immediate, point-of-service verification of insurance coverage, point-of-service checking for incomplete or erroneous claim submission and point-of-service resolution of clean claims for doctor office visits including the delivery of an explanation of benefits and payment. When designing a complex system, a first step is to define performance standards that the system must meet. As configured, the legislation mandates broadly defined performance standards for the federally administered Medicare program that will be phased-in over a ten year period. To ensure that improvements in the infrastructure supporting federally-financed health care are matched in the managed care sector, insurers participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program will also be required to meet these same performance standards. Also critical will be harnessing the expertise of selection of the Federal agency responsible for the design and implementation of an advanced health care infrastructure. Some of my colleagues have suggested that the Department of Defense or even NASA, two agencies with decades of experience with complex, distributed networks, be assigned a leadership role. Accordingly, the legislation forms a Health Care Infrastructure Commission, chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and composed of senior officials from NASA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Officials named to the Health Care Infrastructure Commission are required to be expert in advanced information technology. The legislation also strives to create a strong partnership with the private sector, as many of the advances in communication technology are driven by companies, both large and small. Many pieces of a truly advanced health care infrastructure already exist. But like a modern-day Tower of Babel, communication is hindered by differences in language and function. Sorely needed is a combination of vision and commitment: vision to design a system that is secure, efficient and flexible and the commitment to dedicate necessary intellectual and financial resources for its design and implementation. America has put a man on the moon, designed advanced stealth fighters and is now enjoying a sustained period of economic expansion stimulated by electronic devices, telephone and Internet. We must now develop and build a health care infrastructure that checks insurance status with the swipe of a card, provides speedy payment to doctors for their expertise in healing and allows a patient to leave the doctor's office with a single statement of treatment and cost. I am confident that we will succeed. I urge my colleagues to support the Health Care Infrastructure Investment Act.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Health Care Infrastructure Investment Act. Formerly arcane statistics of interest only to economists, productivity and innovation are now veritable buzz-words in today's much-heralded new economy. Recently released productivity figures drew front page coverage from both the Washington Post and New York Times. Most economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, attribute the surge in productivity to technological improvements. A host of new and improved technologies, including faster computers and rapid expansion of the Internet, have led to improved efficiencies. The result: workers are more productive, companies continue to grow and wealth is created. Today nearly every industrial sector is involved in a race to apply new technology and management techniques to gain greater efficiencies. Yet one sector that accounts for 13 percent of America's gross domestic product--health care--still uses a patchwork-quilt of outdated technology for the most basic of its transactions. While individual components within the health industry are adopting advanced communication, manufacturing and other technologies but the inner core of health care--a series of transactions between doctor, patient and insurance provider--remains largely untouched by technological advances that would decrease the administrative load accompanying every transaction. At a time when America's growing population is seeking a higher quality of care; when the greying of America means that Medicare enrollment will double by 2040; when new medical procedures are being developed that hold great promise for the treatment and cure of diseases like cancer and AIDS; when prescription drugs are becoming available that extend and improve the quality of life--we have every motivation for adopting into health care some of the same technologies and ideas responsible for transforming other sectors of the American economy. A robust and modern infrastructure for American health care will enable resources to be shifted to where they are most needed and allow for the dramatic increases in productivity necessary to treat increasing numbers of people at a higher level of care. In this sense, efficiency is not double-speak for additional restrictions placed on the doctor-patient relationship or further regulations on insurance coverage. Instead, greater efficiency means that doctors are free to spend more time treating patients, insurance companies reduce the cost of claims processing and consumers are empowered with a better understanding of treatment and costs. America's interstate highway system is a prime example of a wise infrastructure investment. As a result of a sustained Federal commitment, Americans enjoy an unprecedented degree of mobility while the economy benefits from the low cost and ease of transportation. A similar approach should be applied to health care whose roads for processing information resemble the rutted cobblestone paths of medieval times. The Health Care Infrastructure Investment Act is designed to spur Federal and private sector investment so that a nationwide network of systems is built for health care. A network of systems is a descriptive term that refers to the conglomeration of hardware, software and secure information networks designed to speed the flow of information and capital between doctors, patients and insurance providers. The primary goal of the Health Care Infrastructure Investment Act is to build an advanced infrastructure to efficiently process and handle the vast number of straightforward transactions that now clog the pipeline and drain scarce health care resources. Among the targeted transactions are immediate, point-of-service verification of insurance coverage, point-of-service checking for incomplete or erroneous claim submission and point-of-service resolution of clean claims for doctor office visits including the delivery of an explanation of benefits and payment. When designing a complex system, a first step is to define performance standards that the system must meet. As configured, the legislation mandates broadly defined performance standards for the federally administered Medicare program that will be phased-in over a ten year period. To ensure that improvements in the infrastructure supporting federally-financed health care are matched in the managed care sector, insurers participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program will also be required to meet these same performance standards. Also critical will be harnessing the expertise of selection of the Federal agency responsible for the design and implementation of an advanced health care infrastructure. Some of my colleagues have suggested that the Department of Defense or even NASA, two agencies with decades of experience with complex, distributed networks, be assigned a leadership role. Accordingly, the legislation forms a Health Care Infrastructure Commission, chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and composed of senior officials from NASA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Officials named to the Health Care Infrastructure Commission are required to be expert in advanced information technology. The legislation also strives to create a strong partnership with the private sector, as many of the advances in communication technology are driven by companies, both large and small. Many pieces of a truly advanced health care infrastructure already exist. But like a modern-day Tower of Babel, communication is hindered by differences in language and function. Sorely needed is a combination of vision and commitment: vision to design a system that is secure, efficient and flexible and the commitment to dedicate necessary intellectual and financial resources for its design and implementation. America has put a man on the moon, designed advanced stealth fighters and is now enjoying a sustained period of economic expansion stimulated by electronic devices, telephone and Internet. We must now develop and build a health care infrastructure that checks insurance status with the swipe of a card, provides speedy payment to doctors for their expertise in healing and allows a patient to leave the doctor's office with a single statement of treatment and cost. I am confident that we will succeed. I urge my colleagues to support the Health Care Infrastructure Investment Act.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 2000, at 2:00 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 2000, 10:00 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the impact to the regulated community of EPA's proposed rules regarding changes in the total maximum daily load and NPDES permit programs pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct an oversight hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on the status of monuments and memorials in and around Washington, D.C.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Public Health, be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Safety Net Providers'' during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Seapower Subcommittee, of the Committee on Armed Services, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 23, 2000, at 2:30 p.m. to receive testimony on Navy and Marine Corps Seapower operational capability requirements.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Thursday, March 23, 2000, at 3:00 p.m., in SD226.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has been authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 2000, at 10:30 a.m. on the Surface Transportation Board 15 month merger moratorium and rulemaking proceeding.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for his amendment. On our side of the aisle, we are hopeful that Members will vote for the amendment. I simply add, we do hear loudly and clearly the voices of those who participated in the rally for rural America. This very day, the Senate will take action, we believe, to at least answer a part of the problem of a strong safety net for the income of farmers in our country. Indeed, $6 billion of taxpayer resources will be devoted, given Budget Committee action, to the safety net for our producers in the event we take timely action. I stress the timely aspect of that. As all Senators note, we have tried very hard, working with the distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, with the cooperation of Senator Wellstone, concerning those who have pioneered this effort-- Senator Roberts, Senator Kerrey, and others--to bring about something I hope will be almost unanimous.

Mr. LUGAR. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.