[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S731-S740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 186. A bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with 
respect to purchases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by entities 
in the insular areas of the United States, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   the emergency petroleum supply act

 Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Emergency 
Petroleum Supply Act, a bill to ensure that Hawaii has access to the 
strategic petroleum reserve during an oil supply disruption. The 
Emergency Petroleum Supply Act would guarantee Hawaii oil--at a fair 
price--and give tankers bound for Hawaii priority loading during an 
emergency.

[[Page S732]]

  This legislation passed the Senate in each of the previous two 
Congresses. During the 104th Congress, I will aggressively work to see 
this legislation enacted into law.
  The objective of my bill can be summed up in one word: access. 
Because of its tremendous distance from the gulf coast, Hawaii needs 
guaranteed access to the strategic petroleum reserve [SPR], as well as 
priority access to the SPR loading docks.
  My bill addresses both these concerns. First, it provides a mechanism 
to guarantee an award of SPR oil. Hawaii's energy companies would be 
able to submit binding offers for a fixed quantity of oil at a price 
equal to the average of all successful bids. This concept is modeled 
after the Federal Government's method of selling Treasury bills. It 
would give Hawaii ready access to emergency oil supplies at a price 
that is fair to the Government. Without this bill, Hawaii's energy 
companies, and the population they serve, face the risk that their bid 
for SPR oil would be rejected and that oil inventories would run dry.

  The second component of my bill addresses the problem of delay. The 
Emergency Petroleum Supply Act grants ships delivering petroleum to 
Hawaii expedited access to SPR loading docks. It would be a terrible 
misfortune if deliveries to Hawaii were delayed because the tanker 
scheduled to carry emergency supplies was moored in the Gulf of Mexico, 
waiting in line for access to the SPR loading docks.
  As any grade-school geography student can tell you, Hawaii is a long 
way from the Gulf of Mexico, especially when you have to transit the 
Panama Canal. The distance between the SPR loading docks and Honolulu, 
by way of the canal, is 7,000 miles--more than one-quarter of the 
distance around the globe.
  But distance alone is not the issue. When you add together the time 
between the decision to draw down the reserve and the time for oil from 
the reserve to actually reach our shores, the seriousness of the 
problem emerges. It takes time to solicit and accept bids for SPR oil, 
time to locate and position tankers, time for tankers to wait in line 
to gain access to SPR loading docks, and more time to transit the canal 
to Hawaii. Obviously, Hawaii is at the end of a very, very long supply 
line. People overlook the fact that insular areas have a limited supply 
of petroleum products on hand at any one time. While Hawaii waited for 
emergency supplies to arrive, oil inventories could run dry and our 
economy could grind to a halt.
  Last year, the Department of Energy asked Hawaii's East-West Center 
to study this problem. The East-West Center report concluded that my 
SPR access measure ``is an excellent proposal which would greatly 
reassure the islands that their basic needs would be maintained.'' I 
ask that a summary of the report be placed in the Record following my 
remarks. I will also place a copy of Energy Secretary O'Leary's letter 
in support of the Emergency Petroleum Supply Act in the record 
following my remarks.
  The East-West Center report provides strong justification for 
granting Hawaii special access to SPR oil during an energy emergency. 
The report found that a major oil supply disruption would have a much 
more severe impact on the Pacific islands than on the rest of the 
United States. Although all of Asia would experience inflation and 
recession, the small economies of the insular areas would be virtually 
unprotected from volatile economic forces. While the rest of the United 
States does not have to rely on ocean transport from other nations for 
essential goods and services, the economies of Hawaii and the Pacific 
islands are heavily dependent on ocean-borne trade and foreign 
visitors.
  The need for this provision is further justified by a December 1993 
Department of Energy/State of Hawaii analysis of Hawaii's energy 
security which found the following:

       Hawaii depends on imported oil for over 92% of its energy. 
     This makes Hawaii the most vulnerable state in the Nation to 
     the disruption of its economy and way of life in the event of 
     a disruption of the world oil market or rapid oil price 
     increases.
       Currently, 40% of Hawaii's oil comes from Alaska and the 
     remainder from the Asia-Pacific region. The export 
     capabilities of these domestic and foreign sources of supply 
     are projected to decline by approximately 50 percent by the 
     year 2000. This will likely increase Hawaii's dependence on 
     oil the reserves of the politically unstable Middle East.
       Hawaii is also vulnerable to possible supply disruptions in 
     the event of a crisis. The long distance from the U.S. 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Louisiana and Texas, combined 
     with a declining number of U.S.-flag tankers capable of 
     transiting the Panama Canal, make timely emergency deliveries 
     problematic.

  Other studies have consistently verified Hawaii's energy 
vulnerability and its need for special access to the SPR. An analysis 
by Mr. Bruce Wilson, an accomplished oil economist, determined that the 
delivery of SPR oil to Hawaii from the Gulf of Mexico would take as 
long as 53 days. That exceeds the state's average commercial working 
inventory by 23 days. As Mr. Wilson's research demonstrates, an oil 
supply disruption is Hawaii's greatest nightmare.
  Opponents of the Emergency Petroleum Supply Act insist that market 
forces will ensure that Hawaii and the territories receive the oil they 
need during an energy emergency. Unfortunately, these are the same 
market forces that cause Hawaii's consumers to pay 50 percent more for 
a gallon of gasoline than consumers pay on the mainland. And when a 
crisis hits, our energy prices could easily double or triple.
  Hawaii may be the 50th State, but we deserve the same degree of 
energy security that the rest of the Nation enjoys. It's simply a 
matter of equity. Hawaii's tax dollars help fill and maintain the 
reserve; Hawaii should enjoy the energy security the SPR is designed to 
provide.
  My bill will safeguard Hawaii from the harsh economic consequences of 
an oil emergency. The Emergency Petroleum Supply Act is not only good 
energy policy, it's good economic policy for Hawaii.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 186

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Petroleum Supply 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURCHASES FROM THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE BY 
                   ENTITIES IN THE INSULAR AREAS OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       (a) General Provisions.--Section 161 of the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j)(1) With respect to each offering of a quantity of 
     petroleum product during a drawdown of the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve:
       ``(A) the State of Hawaii, in addition to having the 
     opportunity to submit a competitive bid, may--
       ``(i) submit a binding offer, and shall on submission of 
     the offer, be entitled to purchase a category of petroleum 
     product specified in a notice of sale at a price equal to the 
     volumetrically weighted average of the successful bids made 
     for the remaining quantity of petroleum product within the 
     category that is the subject of the offering; and
       ``(ii) submit one or more alternative offers, for other 
     categories of petroleum product, that will be binding in the 
     event that no price competitive contract is awarded for the 
     category of petroleum product on which a binding offer is 
     submitted under clause (i); and
       ``(B) at the request of the Governor of the State of 
     Hawaii, petroleum product purchased by the State of Hawaii at 
     a competitive sale or through a binding offer shall have 
     first preference in scheduling for lifting.
       ``(2)(A) In administering this subsection, and with respect 
     to each offering, the Secretary may impose the limitation 
     described in subparagraph (B) or (C) that results in the 
     purchase of the lesser quantity of petroleum product.
       ``(B) The Secretary may limit the quantity of petroleum 
     product that the State of Hawaii may purchase through binding 
     offer at any one offering to one-twelfth of the total 
     quantity of imports of petroleum product brought into the 
     State during the previous year (or other period determined by 
     the Secretary to be representative).

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``(3) Notwithstanding any limitation imposed under 
     paragraph (2), in administering this subsection, and with 
     respect to each offering, the Secretary shall, at the request 
     of the Governor of the State of Hawaii, or an eligible entity 
     certified under paragraph (6), adjust the quantity to be sold 
     to the State of Hawaii as follows:

[[Page S733]]

       ``(A) The Secretary shall adjust upward to the next whole 
     number increment of a full tanker load if the quantity to be 
     sold is--
       ``(i) less than one full tanker load; or
       ``(ii) greater than or equal to 50 percent of a full tanker 
     load more than a whole number increment of a full tanker 
     load.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall adjust downward to the next whole 
     number increment of a full tanker load if the quantity to be 
     sold is less than 50 percent of a full tanker load more than 
     a whole number increment of a full tanker load.
       ``(4) The State of Hawaii may enter into an exchange or a 
     processing agreement that requires delivery to other 
     locations, so long as petroleum product of similar value or 
     quantity is delivered to the State of Hawaii.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``(6)(A) Notwithstanding the foregoing, and subject to 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), if the Governor of the State of 
     Hawaii certifies the Secretary that the State has entered 
     into an agreement with an eligible entity to effectuate the 
     purposes of this Act, such eligible entity may act on behalf 
     of the State of Hawaii for purposes of this subsection.
       ``(B) The Governor of the State of Hawaii shall not certify 
     more than one eligible entity under this paragraph for each 
     notice of sale.
       ``(C) If the secretary has notified the Governor of the 
     State of Hawaii that a company has been barred from bidding 
     (either prior to, or at the time that a notice of sale is 
     issued), the Governor shall not certify such company under 
     the paragraph.
       ``(7) As used in this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `binding offer' means a bid submitted by the 
     State of Hawaii for an assured award of a specific quantity 
     of petroleum product, with a price to be calculated pursuant 
     to this Act, that obligates the offeror to take title to the 
     petroleum product;
       ``(B) the term `category of petroleum product' means a 
     master line item within a notice of sale;
       ``(C) the term `eligible entity' means an entity that owns 
     or controls a refinery that is located within the State of 
     Hawaii;
       ``(D) the term `full tanker load' means a tanker of 
     approximately 700,000 barrels of capacity, or such lesser 
     tanker capacity as may be designated by the State of Hawaii;
       ``(E) the term `offering' means a solicitation for bids for 
     a quantity or quantities of petroleum product from the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve as specified in the notice of 
     sale; and
       ``(F) the term `notice of sale' means the document that 
     announces--
       ``(i) the sale of Strategic Petroleum Reserve products;
       ``(ii) the quantity, characteristics, and location of the 
     petroleum product being sold;
       ``(iii) the delivery period for the sale; and
       ``(iv) the procedures for submitting offers.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by that final 
     regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 3, whichever 
     is sooner.

     SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out the amendment made 
     by section 2.
       (b) Administrative Procedure.--Regulations issued to carry 
     out this section, and the amendment made by section 2, shall 
     not be subject to--
       (1) section 523 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6393); or
       (2) section 501 of the Department of Energy Organization 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7191).
                                  ____



                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This is to provide you with Department 
     of Energy views on S.     , the ``Emergency Petroleum Supply 
     Act,'' introduced by Senator Akaka.
       S.     , would amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     to give certain preferences to the State of Hawaii and 
     several other insular territories and possessions of the 
     United States in the event of a drawdown and sale from the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
       The Department has worked closely with Senator Akaka's 
     staff to understand the concerns of the State and the intent 
     of the legislation, and to help make the bill technically 
     sound. Based upon these discussions, a number of changes to 
     the bill have been made. As redrafted, the legislation would 
     apply solely to Hawaii. It would allow the State, or a 
     company with a refinery on Hawaii with which Hawaii has a 
     contract, to submit a bid for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     petroleum product that is assured of receiving an award at 
     the average price paid for the same product by other 
     successful bidders. The bill also would provide that Hawaii 
     be given first priority for scheduling deliveries of oil that 
     is purchased from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
       The State of Hawaii always has believed that it is more 
     vulnerable to oil supply disruptions than the mainland due to 
     its high level of dependence on oil in general and its 
     distance from sources of supply and from the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve. The provisions of this bill that would 
     assure Hawaii of supply and allow for timely delivery will 
     satisfy the State that it is receiving protection for Hawaii 
     commensurate with that offered to the U.S. mainland by the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve. At the same time, the Department 
     is satisfied that it will receive full market value for the 
     oil that it sells to Hawaii, that the quantity directed to 
     Hawaii will not materially reduce the volume available to 
     other locations, and that the process of making the award and 
     delivering the oil will not be an unreasonable administrative 
     burden.
       For these reasons, the Department of Energy supports the 
     amendment offered by Senator Akaka during the Committee's 
     consideration of S. 2251, to amend and extend the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to the submission of this report for the 
     consideration of the Committee.
           Sincerely,
     Hazel R. O'Leary.
                                  ____


Energy Vulnerability Assessment for the U.S. Pacific Islands, the East/
                        West Center, April 1994


        oil supply disruption scenarios for the pacific islands

       The following sections describe the potential oil supply 
     disruptions scenarios provided by the USDOE for this report, 
     the likely impacts of these supply disruptions on the island 
     economies, and selected response issues. The discussions 
     parallel those in chapters 4 to 7, which also discuss 
     vulnerability response options for the individual island 
     entities. The response issues which are discussed below 
     reflect the larger economies of scale which can be gained by 
     linking Guam, the CNMI, Palau, and American Samoa. Hawaii and 
     the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands should also be included in any regional 
     groupings because they are also part of the same oil supply 
     system. Unfortunately, the terms of reference for this report 
     did not allow for assessment of these island entities.
       Three oil supply disruption scenarios for the Pacific 
     islands are discussed below and evaluated with respect to 
     their potential impacts. Figures 2.16, 2.17, and 2.18 provide 
     the basis for the assessment. The three scenarios are all 
     estimated to last six months and include:
       Scenario I: Major disruption caused by major political 
     turmoil affecting Middle Eastern and Asian producers with a 
     net loss of 4.5 MMBD (9.0 MMBD production loss minus 4.5 MMBD 
     drawdown of global strategic petroleum reserve).
       Scenario II: Medium-scale disruption caused by simultaneous 
     upheaval in West African and Latin American producers with a 
     net loss 4.5 MMBD (production loss of 6.0 MMBD minus SPR 
     drawdown of 1.5 MMBD).
       Scenario III: Minor disruption based on limited upheaval in 
     the Middle East with a loss of 2.0 MMBD (production loss of 
     4.3 MMBD minus production increase by other countries of 2.3 
     MMBD).
       Before discussing the specific scenarios, several 
     historical reference points should be noted. First, the Asian 
     market is a net importer of oil sourced largely from the 
     Middle East. Second, during previous oil crises, Asian 
     producers such as Indonesia and Malaysia have not diverted 
     supplies. Instead, Asian producers have generally given 
     preference to traditional markets, including Singapore, for 
     their products. Third, most Asian refineries such as those in 
     Singapore are configured to process Middle Eastern crudes and 
     are not as well adapted to refining the lighter, sweeter West 
     African crudes and the heavier, more sour Latin American 
     crudes. In other words, Asia's refining capacity is geared 
     towards supplies from the Middle East, and substitutes are 
     not readily available or easily incorporated. The scenarios 
     are discussed below beginning in reverse order.

                     Scenario III: Minor Disruption

       Under Scenario III, there would be no redirection of Asian 
     oil supplies. Impact on U.S. West Coast supplies would be 
     negligible. However, there would be a drop of 10 percent in 
     supplies for Singapore (approximately 100 to 150 MBD), and a 
     similar reduction in Australia and New Zealand crude imports. 
     The result is an anticipated shortfall of approximately 10 
     percent for the Pacific islands region.
       The effects of this 10 percent shortfall are considered 
     minimal. Oil price rises would be very modest and there 
     should be no appreciable negative secondary effects for the 
     islands region such as a major decline in tourism.
       No official response measures would need to be instituted. 
     However, it is recommended that monitoring of supplies and 
     prices should be carried out. It is also recommended that 
     utilities, the oil industry, and governments promote energy 
     conservation programs, including voluntary measures by the 
     population to reduce consumption of electricity and gasoline.

                     Scenario II: Medium Disruption

       Although the volume of oil lost to the market is 
     considerable (4.5 MMBD), because the West African and Latin 
     American producers are linked to other markets, the Asia-
     Pacific region would be only slightly affected. There would 
     be some redirection of Middle Eastern supplies, but it is 
     anticipated that the net effect would lead to only a 10 
     percent decrease in supplies for Singapore, Australia and New 
     Zealand. Similarly, the effect on the U.S. West Coast would 
     be minimal.
       The results and response measures for Scenario II are 
     identical to those described above for Scenario III.

[[Page S734]]



                      Scenario I: Major Disruption

       A global net loss of 4.5 MMBD based on major political 
     upheaval in the Middle East and Asia and includes a total 
     loss of 2.5 MMBD from Asia oil producers would affect various 
     Pacific Rim markets very differently. The direct impact on 
     U.S. West Coast supplies would be fairly limited (e.g., 5 
     percent or less) because imports have only a small role in 
     that market. The direct and indirect effects on supplies to 
     Australia and New Zealand should be relatively modest, 
     approximating a 10 percent decline. The Singapore refiners, 
     however, would be severely affected.
       In this scenario, Singapore would experience a 30 percent 
     loss in Asian supplies. The cutback in Middle Eastern 
     production would result in additional 20 percent decrease. 
     The combined loss of 50 percent would greatly affect the 
     islands region both directly and indirectly.
       Directly, the islands region would lose at least 50 percent 
     of its supplies from Singapore. Australia would be able to 
     provide some additional supplies, but it would also have to 
     compensate for its own loss of supplies. The net loss to the 
     islands region could well be in the range of 25 to 50 
     percent.
       A secondary impact would be significant price hikes. Under 
     Scenario I, spot prices on the Singapore market would soar. 
     Price doubling and even tripling would be likely outcomes. In 
     the 1979/80 period, the crisis centered on Iran led to an 
     additional 20 percent increase in prices. The short-term 
     consequences of the 1979 oil price rise lead to inflation 
     rates of 7.5 percent in Japan, 11 percent in Australia, 15 
     percent in Fiji and nearly 30 percent in Tonga and Vanuatu. 
     In other words, inflation rates in some of the islands nearly 
     doubled. If the 1979 experience is applied, it would be 
     reasonable to anticipate a near doubling of inflation rates 
     for Guam, the CNMI and Palau.
       Compounding the direct supply and price effects of Scenario 
     I, the political complications of the oil supply disruption 
     have to be considered. Following the onset of the recent 
     Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi President threatened to attack 
     U.S. territory and economic interests throughout the world, 
     and there had been several reports of terrorist activity by 
     Iraqis in Asia which heightened concern. As a result, Guam, 
     the CNMI, and Hawaii experienced a downturn in tourism 
     immediately following the outbreak of the 1991 Gulf War 
     because tourists were frightened to fly to U.S. territory. 
     Whether fact or only perception, people reduce their 
     international travel even to relatively ``safe'' destinations 
     during crisis periods: if there is political upheaval in a 
     major Middle Eastern or Asian nation, international business 
     and tourist travel will be restricted in order to reduce the 
     vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
       Interestingly, the number of tourists to Guam and the CNMI 
     began to revive soon after the Gulf War and by early 1992 
     tourist arrivals were at record levels. However, in September 
     1992, Typhoon Omar struck Guam and the CNMI and was followed 
     by several other typhoons. The result was a drop of nearly 45 
     percent in the level of Guam's tourist arrivals, a loss of 
     1,500 jobs, and a substantial decline in tax revenues, all of 
     which have been greatly compounded by the continuing slump in 
     the Japanese economy.
       These effects would probably be similar to the effects of 
     an oil supply disruption under Scenario I. Although difficult 
     to predict with any level of certainty, tourist arrivals 
     could fall sharply (by as much as 50 percent) if a political 
     upheaval in Asia elevated fears of international terrorist 
     activity and/or resulted in higher travel costs. The near-
     term effects would be a loss of jobs by roughly 5 percent and 
     a fall in tax revenues by a similar level. However, if a 
     recession were to follow, and this would be a likely outcome, 
     then the downturn would be much more severe and could easily 
     double the effects of the crisis.
       With Scenario I, it is very likely that in addition to oil 
     supply shortfalls, oil price increases, inflation, and 
     reduced levels of international tourism resulting from the 
     political upheaval causing the oil supply disruption, a 
     recessionary period in the major economies would ensue. The 
     effects of a major recession would again greatly affect the 
     island economies through reduced levels of tourism and 
     reduced demand for their exports, mainly fresh and canned 
     seafoods. As an example, the 1973/74 oil price rise led to 
     global recession, including a severe downturn in Australia 
     which greatly reduced the levels of Australian tourists to 
     Fiji. In other words, a severe oil supply disruption creates 
     downstream effects which are not felt for several months yet 
     may continue for several years.
       Two key questions emerge under Scenario I. The first is 
     whether the islands would experience more severe impacts than 
     the rest of the United States. Although all of Asia would 
     experience inflation and recession, the islands' small open 
     economies would be virtually unprotected from the global 
     market: nearly all food and all medicine are imported. The 
     economies are nearly totally dependent on off-island trade 
     and international tourism; with the exception of Hawaii, the 
     rest of the United States does not have to rely on ocean 
     transport and other nations for essential goods and services. 
     In sum, there would be no territory of the United States more 
     severely affected by a major Asian oil supply disruption than 
     the Pacific islands.
       The second question is how to respond with short-term 
     measures to meet basic demands for petroleum. Oil price and 
     supply monitoring and voluntary conservation programs would 
     be insufficient responses to a disruption of this magnitude. 
     With respect to the oil supply, the U.S. West Coast could 
     divert some of its supplies to the islands. The Australian 
     arrangement for the South Pacific islands may provide a 
     useful guide. In the event of an oil supply disruption which 
     results in a net market loss of crude oil or petroleum 
     products of 7 percent of the total International Energy 
     Agency (IEA) market, the IEA member may elect to activate the 
     Emergency Oil Sharing System, the objective of which is to 
     ensure fair sharing of available supplies among the IEA group 
     of countries (the OECD minus France). As a member of the IEA, 
     Australia is committed to take certain demand restraint 
     measures should the IEA Emergency Oil Sharing Scheme go into 
     effect. The demand restraint is measured as a percentage 
     decrease in total consumption, including traditional exports. 
     This means that if a 10 percent demand restraint measure is 
     instituted, then Australia has to cut its combined own 
     consumption and traditional exports by 10 percent.
       The Australian arrangement covers the independent island 
     nations sourced from Australia. It does not cover American 
     Samoa or any of the North Pacific nations and territories 
     sourced via Guam, including the Federated States of 
     Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. These 
     nations and territories either have to secure emergency 
     supplies via Singapore or from a nontraditional supplier, the 
     United States.
       The United States via its military infrastructure has 
     considerable levels of stocks in the Asia-Pacific region as 
     well as the shipping capacity to deliver supplies. However, 
     as Figure 3.2 shows, the military is cutting back on its 
     commercially leased storage capacity and is also shutting 
     down some of its own storage facilities in certain locations.
       Another potential source of crude petroleum is Papua New 
     Guinea whose oil production is now at 135,000 b/d. Currently 
     refined throughout the Asia Pacific region, this crude 
     resource could provide a substantial margin of safety for the 
     Pacific islands. A 30,000 b/d refinery has been approved by 
     the government and could be operating in 1996.
       Through the supply capacities of the oil companies 
     operating in the region, other regional suppliers, and the 
     U.S. government (Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the 
     military), the Pacific islands should be able to receive 
     emergency supplies. It is possible that some type of formal 
     assurance to the island governments is required. Currently 
     being considered for legislation in the U.S. Congress is a 
     proposal which would guarantee the U.S. Pacific islands 
     including Hawaii a percentage drawdown of the national SPR if 
     emergency measures were placed in effect. This guarantee 
     would ensure access to oil supplies for the islands. Market 
     prices would have to be paid, but basic services could be 
     maintained. Not guaranteed is transport for the oil supplies. 
     However, preliminary indications are that tankers could be 
     acquired, albeit at market rates which would be high during 
     crisis periods. This is an excellent proposal which would 
     greatly reassure the islands that their basic needs would be 
     maintained.


             the economic effects of oil supply disruptions

       In addition to the issue of continued access to oil 
     supplies, the economic impacts of a major oil market 
     disruption can be devastating. The most harmful economic 
     repercussions of Scenario I are: inflation, recessions in 
     major markets, and a simple reluctance of potential tourists 
     to travel because of a perceived vulnerability to terrorist 
     acts stemming from the political upheaval which caused the 
     oil supply disruption. The initial loss of jobs and economic 
     activity could be further worsened by the likely occurrence 
     of a subsequent regional or global recession. The longer the 
     recession, the greater the negative impacts, including 
     increased loss of jobs and tax revenues. Small open economies 
     such as the U.S. Pacific islands are especially vulnerable. 
     Would the United States provide any type of assistance to the 
     Pacific islands to compensate for the downstream effects of 
     an oil supply disruption? Are they eligible for emergency 
     aid? This is a complicated issue and cannot be resolved in 
     this discussion. Suffice it to say that it would probably be 
     more useful and more important for the island economies to 
     have a buffer against recessions than an SPR established on 
     Guam or in American Samoa.
       Discussed below are some of the likely identifiable impacts 
     of an oil supply disruption on the island economies. Data 
     have been drawn from a range of sources. Published data from 
     government and private sector sources have been referenced, 
     and estimates generated as part of the energy vulnerability 
     assessment are appropriately noted. Assessing impacts on the 
     islands in the year 2000 based on current economic growth 
     projections is an order of magnitude exercise. However, the 
     best available data have been utilized and the estimates can 
     and should be revised when more data become available. The 
     section discusses the effects of an oil supply disruption on 
     the value of petroleum imports, GDP, inflation, employment, 
     and government revenues.

             Oil Shocks and the Value of Petroleum Imports

       Table 3.10 shows the impact of petroleum price increases 
     and growth in the volume of petroleum imports. The first 
     column shows projected rates of price increases for petroleum 
     products under low price, base price and high price 
     scenarios. The second column

[[Page S735]]

     shows the most recent value figure for imported petroleum 
     products. The value figure shown in the second column 
     corresponds to a volume figure which is then multiplied by 
     the demand growth scenarios in the third column (e.g., low, 
     medium and high growth in demand for petroleum products) and 
     the three price scenarios to indicate the estimated value of 
     petroleum imports in the years 1995 and 2000. High, medium 
     and low demand growth scenarios were available only for Guam 
     and the CNMI. In addition, among the different scenarios for 
     both 1995 and 2000, there is a scenario which doubles prices 
     for the medium demand growth case. This doubling of prices is 
     a result of a petroleum price increase associated with Oil 
     Supply Disruption Scenario I, a loss of 4.5 MMBD caused by 
     political turmoil in the Middle East and Asia. The price 
     doubling is an estimated price increase which reflects short-
     term market responses, similar to those following the Iraqi 
     invasion of Kuwait and the 1979/80 oil price increase.
       The demand growth (1.2 percent per year) and a base case 
     petroleum price increase (3.9 percent per year) result in a 
     doubling in the value of petroleum imports for American Samoa 
     between 1990 and 2000. The values of Guam's, the CNMI's, and 
     Palau's petroleum imports more than double by the year 2000. 
     The effect of a high oil price and high demand growth is a 
     seven-fold increase in the value of the CNMI's petroleum 
     imports. Although this may seem unlikely, demand increased by 
     21 percent between 1991 and 1992, and the planned expansion 
     to the power sector indicates that growth will remain high.
       Table 3.10 only assumes the indicated growth rates, which 
     is to say that other variables such as the impact of demand-
     side management programs and other efficiency and 
     conservation activities have not been factored into the 
     analysis because data are not available. The estimates also 
     do not reflect the impact of higher petroleum prices on 
     consumption. For example, when gasoline prices rise, theory 
     suggests that people will drive less. However, the experience 
     during the recent Persian Gulf War indicates that island 
     consumers did not curtail their driving or use of electricity 
     when prices increased. Thus, it has been assumed that 
     consumption rates will not be significantly affected by price 
     increases, a very tenuous assumption.
       The result of an oil price shock following political 
     upheaval in the Middle East and Asia is a doubling of the 
     values for petroleum imports. For comparative purposes, in 
     1990, American Samoa imported goods valued at $360 million 
     and exported items worth $306 million. Under a high oil price 
     scenario generated by an oil shock in the year 2000, the 
     value of petroleum imports increases to $175 million. Guam, 
     which had imports valued at $385 million in 1988 and exports 
     valued at $85 million in 1991, would have petroleum imports 
     valued at $742 million under a high oil price and high demand 
     growth scenario. Similarly, the CNMI, with imports at $392 
     million and exports at $255 million in 1991, would have 
     petroleum imports valued at $503 million under the high oil 
     price/high demand growth scenario. Palau, with imports valued 
     at $25 million and exports at $600 thousand in 1989, would 
     have petroleum imports valued at $37 million under a high oil 
     price and demand growth scenario in the year 2000.
       Given the above projected effects of an oil price shock, it 
     is doubtful that any of the economies would be able to 
     sustain the projected rates of growth. The cost of petroleum 
     imports would require the use of public and private sector 
     surpluses simply to maintain existing standards of living. 
     Even if the oil price shock were short-lived, it is likely 
     that the effects would have substantial repercussions on 
     economic activity for an extended period of time. These will 
     be discussed in subsequent sections.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 187. A bill to provide for the safety of journeymen boxers, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                   the professional boxer safety act

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the 
Professional Boxing Safety Act, a bill to make the professional boxing 
industry safer for boxers across America. This bill is identical to the 
version of this bill that was favorably reported out of the Senate's 
Commerce Committee as S. 1991 on September 23, 1994. I am also very 
pleased that Senator Richard Bryan is the prime cosponsor of this 
legislation, as he was last year. The professional boxing industry is 
obviously of tremendous importance to the residents of Nevada, and he 
has been a strong force behind this bills success.
  I have been an avid boxing fan for over 40 years. Boxing can be one 
of the most exciting and impressive tests of coverage and athletic 
skill that exist in the world of sport. To this very day, boxing is 
viewed by many disadvantaged, yet determined young men as their best 
and only chance to rise above bleak circumstances that most of their 
fellow citizens could not even comprehend.
  It is these men--some still teenagers, others who are in their 
forties and are at the end of a long career marked by much punishment 
and little reward--who are the object of this proposal. As a Senator, 
my legislative objective regarding professional boxing revolves around 
my desire to see that the exploitation of this group of brave but 
highly vulnerable athletes in our society is brought to an end. The 
Professional Boxing Safety Act will help accomplish this goal.
  The physical and economic exploitation I speak of is very familiar to 
people involved in the professional boxing industry, though it does not 
often come to mind of the general public. Many Americans may think of 
boxing only if a local hometown hero emerges, or perhaps when they read 
about the huge, multimillion dollar purses that are being battled for 
by today's greatest champions.
  Big pay days and widespread public acclaim, however, are never 
attained by the overwhelming majority of boxers. A large segment of 
professional boxers in America never make more than a $100 a night. 
Unfortunately, in State after State in our country, in gyms and arenas 
both large and small, there are many boxers who are being led into the 
ring to absorb more punishment shortly after they have been knocked 
out, battered, or when they are in need of medical attention. These 
unknown boxers often continue to fight long after their skills have 
eroded to the point where they cannot safely compete. The symptoms of 
the debilitating illnesses they are at risk for may not surface for 
years, so these men answer the bell, endure another defeat, and trudge 
on to the next town. As one journeyman boxer said, they exist in the 
sport solely as ``A body for better men to beat on.''

  The problems in professional boxing that the Professional Boxing 
Safety Act will address are as follows: First, we need to immediately 
shut down the dangerous and disturbing boxing shows that occur in the 
States that have no regulatory authority to oversee them These bootleg 
shows feature boxers who have no business being in the ring due to 
injury, advancing age, or lack of skills. Journeymen boxers routinely 
find themselves overmatched against a promising young prospect in need 
of an easy victory to boost his ranking, and their health and welfare 
is of small concern to unscrupulous promoters. This bill would require 
that all professional boxing shoes in the United States be held under 
the oversight of State boxing officials.
  Second, we need to ensure that no boxer fights in one State while 
they are under suspension in another. Unfortunately, it is commonplace 
for boxers in the United States to travel to another State when they 
are supposed to be serving a mandatory injury recuperation period, or 
to avoid a requirement for medical treatment. Some resort to using 
aliases or distorting their career records when presenting themselves 
to State officials. To put an end to these practices, the Professional 
Boxing Safety Act would require all State boxing commissions to issue 
an identification card to professional boxers in their State, and to 
honor all medically related suspensions of other State commissions.
  Finally, this legislation will strengthen the system by which State 
boxing officials share information on professional boxers and other 
industry personnel in order to prevent fraudulent and unsafe bouts, and 
to ensure that illegal and unethical practices in the sport are 
properly punished. The Professional Boxing Safety Act would require 
that State boxing officials promptly report the results of all shows 
held in their jurisdiction to the boxing registries that serve the 
industry. This will provide accurate and reliable information on boxers 
from around the world to State boxing officials, and make it easier for 
them to evaluate the career records and conduct of the boxers, 
managers, and promoters who come to their State.
  I would also like to emphasize what this legislation does not do. The 
Professional Boxing Safety Act creates no new Federal boxing authority 
to regulate the sport; it mandates no burdensome regulations upon our 
already under budgeted State commissions; it fosters no unnecessary 
Federal intrusion into legitimate business practices, and it requires 
no Federal funds and imposes no new tax on boxing events across the 
country.

[[Page S736]]

  The Professional Boxing Safety would be an effective and practical 
step for the Congress to take in addressing legitimate health and 
safety issues in the sport, and virtually everyone in the industry that 
I've discussed this proposal with seems to agree. I'm very pleased that 
last year the Association of Boxing Commissions, the national boxing 
organization which represents 35 State commissions across America, 
endorsed this bill, as did over 20 individual State boxing commissions 
and several major sanctioning bodies who wrote to me in support of it.
  This bill was developed with the advice and counsel of the most 
experienced and knowledgeable people in the industry, and I'm confident 
Senator Bryan and I have put forward an innovative and realistic 
measure to make professional boxing a safer, better, and more honorable 
sport. I look forward to its prompt passage by the Senate's Commerce 
Committee, and to its consideration by the full Senate sometime this 
year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Bradley):
  S. 188. A bill to establish the Great Falls Historic District in the 
State of New Jersey, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


           the Great Falls preservation and redevelopment act

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the 
Great Falls Preservation and Redevelopment Act, legislation that 
recognizes the historic significance of the Great Falls area of 
Paterson, NJ. I am delighted that, once again, my senior colleague from 
New Jersey, Senator Bradley, joins me as a cosponsor.
  Mr. President, this bill was broadly supported in the last Congress. 
The House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 280 to 130. 
After years of opposition, the administration lent its support. The 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the bill in 
September, but time ran out before the Senate could act. Today I 
reintroduce the draft that achieved this support, and I ask my 
colleagues to join once again in supporting the bill.
  I'm proud to say I was born in Paterson. My father worked in the 
mills, and I experienced firsthand the historic importance of industry 
in the city.
  Paterson is known as America's first industrialized city. Alexander 
Hamilton played a role here when, in 1791 he chose the area around the 
Great Falls for his laboratory and to establish the Society for the 
Establishment of Useful Manufactures. Textiles held special 
significance; Paterson was once called Silk City as the center of the 
textile industry.
  While rich in history, the area is also blessed by great natural 
beauty and splendor. It is an oasis of beauty in an urban environment. 
Its resources offer not just educational and cultural opportunities, 
but economic and recreational ones as well.
  The Federal Government acknowledged all this by designating the area 
a national historic landmark, a formal recognition by the National Park 
Service.
  Mr. President, the roots and contributions of this area run deep. New 
industries were responsible for thriving businesses, tight knit 
families and for many of the residents, the first homes of immigrants, 
who arrived in the United States through nearby Ellis Island.
  Many of the industries from Great Falls have moved elsewhere. But we 
are left with an area whose significance is great for people like me.
  I find a source of inspiration in remembering my father in those 
thriving mills of Paterson, so I look at Paterson, and the Great Falls 
area, as a reminder of who I am. We must value our personal and 
collective histories, because they connect us to our families and to 
each other.
  Paterson is not alone in this story. New Jersey is rich in 
industrial, urban history. New Jersey played a major role in the 
industrial revolution.
  I sought to highlight this role when I secured funds in the fiscal 
year 1992 Interior appropriations bill to establish the urban history 
initiative in three cities in New Jersey. Paterson is one of those 
cities.
  Paterson's urban history program is in its early stages. The 
cooperative agreement was recently signed and things are moving. This 
infusion of funds has succeeded in initiating Paterson's historic 
revitalization.
  But this bill formalizes the current partnership among the city, its 
residents and the Federal Government. It establishes the Great Falls 
Historic District and provides a long-term Federal presence in the 
area. The resources of Great Falls are just beginning to be tapped; we 
need this bill to give the resources the focus they deserve. Such 
historical recognition provides important educational, economic, and 
cultural benefits. Its value is immeasurable.
  The Secretary of the Interior will enter into cooperative agreements 
with nonprofits, property owners, State and local governments to assist 
in interpreting and preserving the historical significance and 
contributions of the Great Falls to the city, to industry, and to our 
heritage.
  Mr. President, this bill does not impose Federal Government's heavy 
hand on the residents and businesses. The city doesn't want that, and 
neither does the Park Service.
  Instead, the bill initiates and facilitates cooperative agreements 
among interested parties. The Secretary will determine properties of 
historical or cultural significance, and provide technical assistance, 
interpret, restore, or improve these properties. This historic and 
cultural recognition leads to economic revitalization in the area.
  Mr. President, this bill is the culmination of years of effort to 
determine the correct Federal role in highlighting this important area. 
The bill does not designate a new unit of the National Park Service--it 
already is designated a unit--and it will not require additional Park 
Service personnel. The bill reflects the current budgetary climate by 
limiting Federal investment in capital projects, planning, and 
technical assistance. It also requires non-Federal matching funds and 
the authority to spend funds expires after 5 years.
  This bill, when enacted, will play an important part in advancing the 
historic revival of Paterson and of the Great Falls. In turn, it will 
boost the economic vitality of the region while restoring the 
importance of our industrial heritage for our children. I look forward 
to watching this bill become reality.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be included in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 188

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Great Falls Preservation and 
     Redevelopment Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Great Falls Historic District in the State of New 
     Jersey is an area of historical significance as an early site 
     of planned industrial development, and has remained largely 
     intact, including architecturally significant structures;
       (2) the Great Falls Historic District is listed on the 
     National Register of Historic Places and has been designated 
     a National Historic Landmark;
       (3) the Great Falls Historic District is situated within a 
     one-half hour's drive from New York City and a 2 hour's drive 
     from Philadelphia, Hartford, New Haven, and Wilmington;
       (4) the District was developed by the Society of Useful 
     Manufactures, an organization whose leaders included a number 
     of historically renowned individuals, including Alexander 
     Hamilton; and
       (5) the Great Falls Historic District has been the subject 
     of a number of studies that have shown that the District 
     possesses a combination of historic significance and natural 
     beauty worthy of and uniquely situated for preservation and 
     redevelopment.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to preserve and interpret, for the educational and 
     inspirational benefit of the public, the contribution to our 
     national heritage of certain historic and cultural lands and 
     edifices of the Great Falls Historic District, with emphasis 
     on harnessing this unique urban environment for its 
     educational and recreational value; and
       (2) to enhance economic and cultural redevelopment within 
     the District.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) District.--The term ``District'' means the Great Falls 
     Historic District established by section 5.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

[[Page S737]]



     SEC. 5. GREAT FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Great Falls 
     Historic District in the city of Paterson, in Passaic County, 
     New Jersey.
       (b) Boundaries.--The boundaries of the District shall be 
     the boundaries specified for the Great Falls Historic 
     District listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

     SEC. 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

       (a) Grants and Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may 
     make grants and enter into cooperative agreements with the 
     State of New Jersey, local governments, and private nonprofit 
     entities under which the Secretary agrees to pay not more 
     than 50 percent of the costs of--
       (1) preparation of a plan for the development of historic, 
     architectural, natural, cultural, and interpretive resources 
     within the District; and
       (2) implementation of projects approved by the Secretary 
     under the development plan.
       (b) Contents of Plan.--The development plan shall include--
       (1) an evaluation of--
       (A) the physical condition of historic and architectural 
     resources; and
       (B) the environmental and flood hazard conditions within 
     the District; and
       (2) recommendations for--
       (A) rehabilitating, reconstructing, and adaptively reusing 
     the historic and architectural resources;
       (B) preserving viewsheds, focal points, and streetscapes;
       (C) establishing gateways to the District;
       (D) establishing and maintaining parks and public spaces;
       (E) developing public parking areas;
       (F) improving pedestrian and vehicular circulation within 
     the District;
       (G) improving security within the District, with an 
     emphasis on preserving historically significant structures 
     from arson; and
       (H) establishing a visitors' center.

     SEC. 7. RESTORATION, PRESERVATION, AND INTERPRETATION OF 
                   PROPERTIES.

       (a) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into 
     cooperative agreements with the owners of properties within 
     the District that the Secretary determines to be of 
     historical or cultural significance, under which the 
     Secretary may--
       (1) pay not more than 50 percent of the cost of restoring 
     and improving the properties;
       (2) provide technical assistance with respect to the 
     preservation and interpretation of the properties; and
       (3) mark and provide interpretation of the properties.
       (b) Provisions.--A cooperative agreement under subsection 
     (a) shall provide that--
       (1) the Secretary shall have the right of access at 
     reasonable times to public portions of the property for 
     interpretive and other purposes;
       (2) no change or alteration may be made in the property 
     except with the agreement of the property owner, the 
     Secretary, and any Federal agency that may have regulatory 
     jurisdiction over the property; and
       (3) if at any time the property is converted, used, or 
     disposed of in a manner that is contrary to the purposes of 
     this Act, as determined by the Secretary, the property owner 
     shall be liable to the Secretary for the greater of--
       (A) the amount of assistance provided by the Secretary for 
     the property; or
       (B) the portion of the increased value of the property that 
     is attributable to that assistance, determined as of the date 
     of the conversion, use, or disposal.
       (c) Applications.--
       (1) In general.--A property owner that desires to enter 
     into a cooperative agreement under subsection (a) shall 
     submit to the Secretary an application describing how the 
     project proposed to be funded will further the purposes of 
     the District.
       (2) Consideration.--In making such funds available under 
     this section, the Secretary shall give consideration to 
     projects that provide a greater leverage of Federal funds.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to 
     carry out this Act--
       (1) $250,000 for grants and cooperative agreements for the 
     development plan under section 6; and
       (2) $50,000 for the provision of technical assistance and 
     $3,000,000 for the provision of other assistance under 
     cooperative agreements under section 7.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. EXON:
  S. 189. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
provide that any concurrent resolution on the budget that contains 
reconciliation directives shall include a directive with respect to the 
statutory limit on the public debt, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions 
that if one committee reports, the other committee have 30 days to 
report or be discharged.


                      THE DEBT CEILING REFORM ACT

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the final two 
pieces of legislation that I believe are the building blocks for a 
sound and responsible Federal budget.
  For too long, Congress has been building castles in the sky. We owe 
our children and grandchildren a secure financial future. But that 
future is flimsily constructed on deficit spending and deficit in the 
form of mounting debt.
  It's High Noon on fiscal responsibility and the American people have 
asked us to rise to the occasion. And these are the weapons we will 
take to the showdown.
  The first piece of legislation I offer today is a Balanced Budget 
Amendment to the Constitution.
  When I was Governor of Nebraska, I had the benefit of such 
a mechanism. It forced budgetary discipline and kept my State fiscally 
sound.

  We should be able to deal with the deficit without a balanced budget 
amendment. But all evidence runs to the contrary.
  The statutory remedies have failed. They are riddled with back doors 
and loopholes. We have also proven ourselves incapable of controlling 
wasteful spending. The deficit numbers speak for themselves.
  We need this amendment to force responsibility upon the Federal 
Government. We need a bold approach--a new approach--to end the 
dangerous habit of deficit spending. This amendment is our best chance, 
perhaps our only chance, to turn back the tide of red ink that 
threatens to engulf us.
  A balanced budget amendment does not spare us from the difficult, 
hard choices. And that is why I cosponsored last week S. 14, the 
Legislative Line-Item Veto Act.
  Pork has become Congress' scarlet letter. Once again, Congress should 
demonstrate the type of self-restraint and sacrifice that would put 
this wasteful practice to an end. But I am a realist. While some 
Members would voluntarily refrain from pork barrel spending, others 
would continue with business as usual. Business as usual does not pass 
muster with the American people.
  Ideally, I would have offered a bill granting The President a 
constitutional line-item veto. As Governor of Nebraska, I also had a 
similar line-item veto and it was an invaluable tool to curb spending 
by my State legislature. However, those of us who have championed the 
line-item veto have always come away empty-handed.

  The obvious solution--the bipartisan solution--is to grant the 
President the authority to force Congress to vote on specific funding 
included in the appropriations bills.
  Congressional Members are less likely to pile on the pork if they 
know that they might have to defend each item on its own merits.
  Some might ask: ``what's the urgency? And that brings me to the 
second bill I am introducing today.
  Our Federal debt now tops a whopping $4.7 trillion and we are on 
schedule to reach the current debt ceiling of $4.9 trillion in 
September or October of this year. Too many Americans still confuse the 
annual deficit with our national debt. Even if we accomplish our goal 
of a balanced budget by 2002, we will still have a $5.5 trillion 
albatross hanging around our necks.
  Obviously, we are living beyond our means. When we raise our debt 
ceiling for more than we need in the coming year, we perpetuate that 
practice and risk plunging our Nation into financial ruin.
  My bill attempts to bring some sanity and control to this practice. 
it requires our budget resolution to state how much we intend to raise 
the debt ceiling each year. And any bill that would raise the debt 
ceiling to exceed the amount stated in the budget resolution would be 
subject to a budget point of order and a rollcall vote to waive that 
point of order.

  I have long believed that our Federal Government should balance its 
budget each year. The facts are, however, that we have not done so 
since 1969. During the 1980's and now the 1990's, we have become so 
accustomed to operating in the red that we look upon a $200 billion 
deficit as great progress. I, for one, take cold comfort in a $200 
billion deficit.
  Our Federal debt now tops $4.7 trillion and we are on schedule to 
reach the current debt ceiling of about $4.9 trillion in September or 
October of this year.
  We have now reached a point where we barely lift a finger to balance 
our budget. The much heralded Kerrey-Danforth Commission on Entitlement 
Reform attempted to forge an agreement upon lowering the deficit to a

[[Page S738]]

proportion of our total economy. It failed to even reach even that 
modest goal.
  What is even more discouraging and disenchanting is that Congress 
often fails to limit its deficit spending to the levels that are 
projected in our annual budgets. We no longer decide upon how much we 
are going to borrow and to limit ourselves to that amount over the 
coming year.
  Mr. President, if Congress cannot balance its budget, we should at 
least not give ourselves a blank check to borrow beyond our means. Yet 
that is exactly what we do when we raise our debt ceiling more than we 
need to for the coming year.
  My bill attempts to bring some sanity and controls to this practice. 
It requires our budget resolution to state how much we intend to raise 
the debt ceiling each year. To enforce that goal, any bill that would 
cause the debt ceiling to exceed the amount stated in the budget 
resolution would be subject to a budget point of order and a rollcall 
vote to waive that point of order.
  In previous years, I have proposed that the point of order be waived 
with 60 votes in the U.S. Senate. This bill will require only a 
majority vote. Yet, I believe it will do the job of highlighting this 
issue and alerting the American people to Congress' failure to live 
within its budget.
  I can well understand the reluctance of my colleagues to make raising 
the debt ceiling any more difficult than it is now. I am convinced, 
however, that we simply must change our process to insure some honesty 
and credibility in our Federal budget process.
  Doing so will be of paramount importance over the coming year as 
leaders from both political parties are promising tax break after tax 
break. This is an all too familiar scenario, an all too deplorable 
scenario. Tax breaks and spending cuts are promised yet only the tax 
breaks are delivered. The result was that our deficits climbed out of 
sight and had no resemblance to what we said they were going to be.
  Keeping some limits on our debt ceiling will go a long way in keeping 
everyone on both sides of the aisle honest. Let us force ourselves to 
do what we say we are going to do, and not, with a wink and a nod, 
simply hide our failure to do so.
  I have always believed that fiscal responsibility is a partnership 
between the Federal Governmental and the States. However, we are not 
living up to our side of the bargain.
  Washington passes mandates and regulations, and then drops them like 
a foundling on the doorstep of the States, forcing them to dig deep 
into their own pockets to pay for compliance. This cost shifting is 
killing the States.
  This game of budget tag has to end. And under the bipartisan 
legislation I cosponsored last week, it will. This fourth bill--the 
last building block--requires the Federal Government to provide direct 
spending for these mandates. If it cannot, the mandate requirements are 
scaled back to the amount of money appropriated.
  Others have proposed a more radical approach; names, ``no money, no 
mandates backstop.'' But I would caution my friends not to be 
headstrong. Their treatment would not only swell the ranks of the 
Federal bureaucracy, it could ignite a firestorm of law suits that 
would rage throughout the Nation.
  Ours is the right approach. Ours is the fair and reasonable approach 
that will get the job done.
  The $4.7 trillion debt was not built up overnight, and it will not be 
resolved overnight. However, we can no longer afford to sit back. As 
Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower said when ordering the D-day invasion, 
``OK, let's go!''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself and Mrs. Kassebaum):
  S. 190. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
exempt employees who perform certain court reporting duties from the 
compensatory time requirements applicable to certain public agencies, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                  court reporter fair labor amendments

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Court 
Reporter Fair Labor Amendments of 1995. I originally introduced this 
bill last November, during the special GATT session. As I said then, 
the American people sent a strong, clear signal on November 8: they 
want less Government and they want it now. My bill would keep the 
Federal Government from intruding into an area it has no business being 
in, and where its protections are unwanted by everyone concerned.
  Specifically, my bill would exempt State and local courts reporters 
from the compensatory time requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
[FLSA] when they perform private transcription work outside of normal 
working hours or regular working days. A recent interpretation of the 
U.S. Labor Department threatens to radically change the way court 
reporters have been paid for many years. This bill would keep 
undisturbed current pay arrangements between State and local reporters 
and their court employers.
  I am pleased my friend from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, the new 
chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, is cosponsoring 
this legislation. She has always been a strong proponent of limited 
government. We both realize the public demand for less government has 
never been greater.
  Mr. President, let me explain the situation which brought about the 
need for this legislation. For years, official State and local court 
reporters have enjoyed a unique status among government workers. In 
most States, they are treated as both government employees and 
independent contractors, depending on the nature of the work. While 
performing their primary duties of recording and reading back court 
proceedings, reporters are considered employees of the court. As such, 
they are typically compensated with an annual salary and benefits.
  However, in addition to these in-court duties, most jurisdictions 
also require official court reporters to prepare and certify 
transcripts of their stenographic records for private attorneys, 
litigants, and others. The reporter and his or her assistants prepare 
and deliver transcripts using their own equipment, without any 
supervision by the court. The reporter then bills the attorney or other 
client directly and collects a per page fee set by law or court rule. 
The transcription fees earned are usually twice the amount, or more, 
than those earned during an hour of salaried work for the court. 
Indeed, it is possible for a court reporter to earn more from private 
transcription work than from his or her annual court salary.
  When preparing transcripts for a private fee, the court reporter is 
clearly acting as an independent operator, as has been specifically 
determined by the Internal Revenue Service. For taxation purposes, 
transcription fee income is treated as separate and apart from 
reporters' annual court salaries. In fact, in my home State of South 
Dakota, court reporters are required to collect and pay sales tax on 
this income. They also file self-employment income forms with the 
Internal Revenue Service.
  The transcription services provided by court reporters are invaluable 
to private parties. Attorneys are able to obtain a highly accurate 
recording of court proceedings quickly and reliably. Court reporters 
are small businessmen and businesswomen performing a cost effective and 
timely service. There may be many flaws in our system of justice, but 
our system of court reporting is not among them.
  As I stated earlier, everyone is happy with the current situation. It 
has developed over many years. All interested parties--court reporters, 
judges, and private attorneys--are very satisfied with the present 
arrangement.
  Everyone was happy, that is, until the U.S. Department of Labor 
inserted itself into this situation. Last fall, the Wage and Hour 
Division of the Labor Division took the position that official court 
reporters in Oregon are still acting as employees of the court, for 
purposes of FLSA, when they prepare transcripts for attorneys, 
litigants, and other parties. Similar letters have been received 
regarding official court reporters in Indiana and North Carolina. 
Official court reporters in the vast majority of States operate in 
circumstances similar to these three States.
  The DOL's interpretation would require State and local courts to pay 
court reporters one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for 
all transcription work performed during overtime hours in a given week. 
The Labor

[[Page S739]]

Department's position also exposes State and local courts to 
potentially enormous liability costs from court reporters suing for 
overtime back-pay. If a suit is successful, the court would owe the 
reporter at least 2 years worth of overtime back-pay. The amount would 
be doubled if the court could not demonstrate that it was acting in 
good faith and could go back 3 years if the violation were deemed 
willful.
  If allowed to stand, the impact of the Labor Department's position of 
the court reporting system would be dramatic. State and local courts 
would face increased salary budgets and liability exposure. Court 
reporters facing budgetary cutbacks could lose a significant part of 
their income and, in some cases, their jobs. Private parties would lose 
the productivity and efficiency of the current method of transcription. 
The decision would have adversely affected all interested parties. As 
you might imagine, no one involved in the court reporting system is 
happy with DOL`s position.

  Faced with exposure to millions of dollars of liability nationwide, 
some courts have already implemented changes. Beginning this month, the 
South Dakota Court System imposed a new system of pay for transcription 
on their court reporters. Court salary budgets have also been 
tightened. State court judges must avoid using their reporters too 
much, to keep overtime down. Court administrators have been burdened 
with additional administrative duties and headaches. Private attorneys 
are concerned they can no longer rely on speedy transcriptions at a 
reasonable price. No one is happy with the changes.
  So why are these changes being considered? Because the U.S. 
Department of Labor says so. After all these years, the Department has 
suddenly decided that the Fair Labor Standards Act applies in a 
situation never contemplated by Congress. What fantastic benefits will 
result from this governmental meddling? None.
  I have a solution, however: Don't fix what is not broken. Keep the 
Federal Government out of the situation.
  The bill I am introducing today would allow official court reporters 
an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act while they are 
performing transcription duties for a private party, provided there is 
an understanding between the court reporters and their State or local 
court employer. The bill also would bar lawsuits by court reporters for 
overtime back pay.
  Note that only State and local court reporters would be affected. 
That is because Federal court reporters already enjoy a complete 
exemption from FLSA. State and local court reporters deserve similar 
treatment. Passage of my bill would allow all official court 
reporters--Federal State, and local court reporters--to perform their 
work in the same way.
  The Fair Labor Standard Act is designed to protect workers from 
abusive employers. In this situation, however, the very workers who 
would receive the so-called protections of the Federal Government, 
don't want them. Official court reporters would be greatly harmed if 
the helping hand of the Federal Government takes them under its wing. 
They don't want, or need, to be taken care of, especially by 
Washington. That is why the National Court Reporter Association 
strongly supports this bill.
  Mr. President, here is a rare instance where labor and management are 
in agreement on the best solution regarding a labor issue. Everyone 
agrees that the current system serves everyone's best interests. When 
performing transcription services for a private party, court reporters 
are acting as independent contractors. That is what the IRS considers 
them. Federal court reporters are treated that way. I can't think of a 
reason in the world why State and local reporters should be treated any 
differently. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 190

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``The Court Reporter Fair 
     Labor Amendments of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON COMPENSATORY TIME FOR COURT REPORTERS.

       Section 7(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 207(o)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       (6) A public agency may not be considered to be in 
     violation of subsection (a) with respect to an employee who 
     performs court reporting transcript preparation duties if 
     such public agency and such employee have an understanding 
     that the time spent performing such duties outside of normal 
     working hours or regular working days is not considered as 
     hours or regular working days is not considered as hours 
     worked for the purposes of subsection (a).''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENTS.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect as if 
     included in the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938 to which such amendments relate, except that such 
     amendments shall not apply to an action--
       (1) that was brought in a court involving the application 
     of section 7(a) of such Act to an employee who performed 
     court reporting transcript preparation duties; and
       (2) in which a final judgment has been entered on or before 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. EXON:
  S.J. Res. 14. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution relating to Federal Budget Procedures; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


       BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT JOINT RESOLUTION

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
proposing a constitutional amendment requiring the President to submit, 
and the Congress to enact, a balanced Federal budget.
  This is not the first time I have introduced such legislation. For 
years, I have taken a leadership role promoting passage of a balanced 
budget amendment.
  I can think of no greater priority than dealing responsibly with the 
Federal deficit. A balanced budget amendment underscores my bedrock 
beliefs in a lean and agile government and living within one's means.
  Thirty-seven States have balanced budget provisions. When I was 
Governor of Nebraska, I had no choice but to balance our State's budget 
for 8 straight years. I'm not complaining. It forced budgetary 
discipline and kept my State fiscally sound. It was the right thing to 
do.
  During last year's debate on the balanced budget amendment, I 
listened with great care and interest to the arguments that we didn't 
need it.
  The critics claimed that self-restraint and legislation could solve 
the spiralling deficits that have bedeviled us--deficits that trifle 
with the future and standard of living of our children and 
grandchildren--deficits that shackle them to a mountain of debt.
  The opponents further contended that a balanced budget amendment is 
no substitute for tough, honest, and effective leadership.
  Mr. President, one does not preclude the other. And I might point out 
that the type of leadership and courage so often extolled on the Senate 
floor is often in very short supply. There is a lot of breast beating 
about the deficit, but little will to make the difficult and hard 
decisions to bring it under control.
  Yes, we should be able to deal with deficit without a balanced budget 
amendment, but the evidence runs to the contrary. All of the statutory 
remedies have failed. They are riddled with loopholes and back doors 
which have been exploited to the fullest.
  Mr. President, we have also proven ourselves incapable of controlling 
wasteful spending. The deficit figures speak for themselves. There is 
still too much business-as-usual around here, and business-as-usual no 
longer works and will put future generations of Americans in terrible 
straits.
  True, we have made some remarkable headway in reducing the deficit. 
We turned an important corner by passing the 1993 deficit reduction 
package and it is performing beyond expectations.
  However, the deficits projections for the out-years are not 
reassuring. Right now, we are enjoying a brief respite from the storm, 
but is promises to whip back on us in 5 or 6 years. We cannot afford to 
hide our heads in the sand and hope the problem will go way. It won't.
  Let there be no mistake, a balanced budget amendment is no panacea 
and we will still have to make a lot of hard

[[Page S740]]

choices. But I see no alternative to this amendment. We are out of 
options. We need the balanced budget amendment to force responsibility 
upon the Federal Government. We need a bold approach--a new approach--
to end the dangerous habit of deficit spending.
  This amendment presents our best chance, perhaps our only chance, to 
turn back the sea of red ink that threatens to engulf us. It's the 
first step to the establishment of a sound fiscal policy and 
accountability in the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. President, it's time we stopped all the hand wringing over the 
Federal deficit. It's time we stopped dodging the issue. It's time we 
showed the courage and leadership demanded of us by the American 
people. It's time we passed a balanced budget amendment and sent it to 
the States for ratification. This is the legacy I want to leave our 
children.

                          ____________________