Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 12 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 12 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S613-S634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2051. A bill to revise the boundaries of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

the golden gate national recreation area boundary adjustment act of
2000

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this
legislation to permit the National Park Service to expand the
boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) by
acquiring critical natural landscapes and scenic vistas. This includes
land in San Mateo County, as well as land in San Francisco and Marin
County.
A key component of this legislation is that about half of the total
cost of purchasing these lands will be donated by the local community.
This legislation specifically provides that all land transactions
involve a willing seller and willing buyer.
In introducing this bill, I am joined by my esteemed colleague from
California, Senator Barbara Boxer. This bill also has the bipartisan
support of the entire Bay Area Congressional Delegation including
original co-sponsors in the House, Representatives Tom Lantos, Nancy
Pelosi, and Lynn Woolsey.
Furthermore, this bill also has the strong support of local
environmental and advocacy and preservation groups, the Point Reyes
National Seashore Advisory Commission, and the National Park Service. I
know of no opposition to this bill.
The three Marin County properties lie in the Marin headlands.
Preservation of these lands will protect habitat, ridge-top trails and
scenic views of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
The San Francisco land along the pacific coastline, the city of San
Francisco would like to donate to the federal government and has
authorized $100,000 for the restoration of this site.
The legislation also proposes to include land near Labos Creek,
adjacent to the Presido-West Gate, which was damaged during a severe
storm in 1997. The American Land Conservancy intends to acquire this
land and donate it to the National Park Service. Lobos Creek is the key
source of the Presidio's water supply and a unique ecological resource.
Together, these parcels offer beautiful vistas, sweeping coastal
views and spectacular headland scenery and the preservation of unique
bayland ecosystems with added public access. Much of this land also
protects the

[[Page S614]]

habitat of several species of rare or endangered plants and animals.
Several of the vegetation communities is home to at least 18 endangered
or threatened species including the winter-run chinook salmon, American
peregrine falcon, the mission blue butterfly and the southwestern pond
turtle.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 2052. A bill to establish a demonstration project to authorize the
integration and coordination of Federal funding dedicated to community,
business, and the economic development of Native American communities;
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

indian tribal development consolidated funding act of 2000

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, though there are glimmers of hope in
Native communities, most Native Americans remain racked by
unemployment, mired in poverty, and rank at or near the bottom of
nearly every social and economic indicator in the nation.
For years the Committee on Indian Affairs, which I chair, has made
strengthening Indian economies a top priority. Healthy tribal economies
and lower unemployment rates are imperative if tribes are to achieve
the goals of self-sufficiency and true self-determination.
Although federal economic development assistance has been available
for years, poverty, ill health, and unemployment remain rampant.
One of the reasons for the lack of success despite spending billions
of dollars, is the lack of a consistent or consolidated federal policy
to target development resources. Indian business, economic and
community development programs span the entire federal government and
for any given project undertaken by a tribe, there may be 6 to 8 or
more agencies involved. This fragmentation and lack of coordination is
not producing the kind of progress Indian country so badly needs.
To begin to remedy this problem, today I am pleased to introduce
legislation that builds on the most successful federal Indian policy to
date: Indian self-determination.
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which was
enacted in 1975, authorizes Indian tribes and tribal consortia to
``step into the shoes'' of the federal government to administer
programs and services historically provided by the United States.
This Act has worked as it was intended and has resulted in improved
efficiency of program delivery and service quality; better managed
tribal institutions; stronger tribal economies; and a general shift
away from federal control over Indian lives to more local, tribal
authority.
What began as a Demonstration Project in 1975 has blossomed as more
and more tribal governments realize the benefits of self governance.
As of 1999, nearly 48% of all Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and 50%
of all Indian Health Service (IHS) programs and services have been
assumed by tribes under the Indian Self-Determination Act.
The legislation I introduce today will begin the second phase of the
Self-Determination experiment by assistant Indian tribes in their use
and maximization of existing federal resources for purposes of economic
development.
By authorizing tribes and tribal consortia to consolidate and target
existing federal funds for development purposes, this bill will promote
a more efficient use of federal resources. Perhaps more importantly,
the legislation will lay the foundation for a development strategy that
looks to employment creation, investment and improved standards of
living in Indian country as the real measure of a successful
development policy.
One of the key goals of this bill is to eliminate inconsistencies and
duplication in federal policies that continue to be a barrier to Indian
development through the issuance of uniform regulations and policies
governing the use of funds across federal agencies.
By authorizing federal-tribal arrangements to combine and coordinate
federal resources, this bill will make the best use of existing federal
programs to assist tribes in attracting private investment and capital
onto Indian reservations.
Already in this session we have addressed other building blocks to
Indian development such as financing housing construction and physical
infrastructure, the need for good governance practices at the federal
and tribal levels, ensuring adequate capital for entrepreneurs, and
encouraging private sector investment into Native communities.
I am hopeful that the legislation I introduce today will signal a new
day for how the federal government assists Native communities in
creating jobs and building a better future for their members.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2052

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

SECTION 1. TITLE.

The Act may be cited as the ``Indian Tribal Development
Consolidated Funding Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) A unique legal and political relationship exists
between the United States and Indian tribes that is reflected
in article I, clause 3 of the Constitution of the United
States, various treaties, Federal statutes, Supreme Court
decisions, executive agreements, and course of dealing.
(2) Despite the infusion of substantial Federal dollars
into Native American communities over several decades, the
majority of Native Americans remain mired in poverty,
unemployment, and despair.
(3) The efforts of the United States to foster community,
economic, and business development in Native American
communities have been hampered by fragmentation of authority,
responsibility and performance and by lack of timeliness and
coordination in resources and decision-making.
(4) The effectiveness of Federal and tribal efforts to
generate employment opportunities and bring value-added
activities and economic growth to Native American communities
depends on cooperative arrangements among the various Federal
agencies and Indian tribes.
(b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) enable Indian tribes and tribal organizations to use
available Federal assistance more effectively and
efficiently;
(2) adapt and target such assistance more readily to
particular needs through wider use of projects that are
supported by more than 1 executive agency, assistance
program, or appropriation of the Federal Government;
(3) encourage Federal-tribal arrangements under which
Indian tribes and tribal organizations may more effectively
and efficiently combine Federal and tribal resources to
support economic development projects;
(4) promote the coordination of Native American economic
programs to maximize the benefits of these programs to
encourage a more consolidated, national policy for economic
development; and
(5) establish a demonstration project to aid Indian tribes
in obtaining Federal resources and in more efficiently
administering these resources for the furtherance of tribal
self-governance and self-determination.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Applicant.--The term ``applicant'' means an Indian
tribe or tribal organization applying for assistance for a
community, economic, or business development project,
including facilities to improve the environment, housing,
roads, community facilities, business and industrial
facilities, transportation, roads and highway, and community
facilities.
(2) Assistance.--The term ``assistance'' means the transfer
of anything of value for a public purpose or support or
stimulation that is--
(A) authorized by a law of the United States; and
(B) provided by the Federal Government through grant or
contractual arrangements, including technical assistance
programs providing assistance by loan, loan guarantee, or
insurance.
(3) Assistance program.--The term ``assistance program''
means any program of the Federal Government that provides
assistance for which Indian tribes or tribal organizations
are eligible.
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given such term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)).
(5) Project.--The term ``project'' means an undertaking
that includes components that contribute materially to
carrying out 1 purpose or closely-related purposes that are
proposed or approved for assistance under more than 1 Federal
Government program.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(7) Tribal organization.--The term ``tribal organization''
has the meaning given such term in section 4(l) of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(l)).

[[Page S615]]

SEC. 4. LEAD AGENCY.

The lead agency for purposes of carrying out this Act shall
be the Department of the Interior.

SEC. 5. SELECTION OF PARTICIPATING TRIBES.

(a) Participants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may select not to exceed 24
Indian tribes in each fiscal year from the applicant pool
described in subsection (b) to participate in the projects
carried out under this Act.
(2) Consortia.--Two or more Indian tribes that are
otherwise eligible to participate in a program or activity to
which this Act applies may form a consortium to participate
as a single Indian tribe under paragraph (1).
(b) Applicant Pool.--The applicant pool described in this
subsection shall consist of each Indian tribe that--
(1) successfully completes the planning phase described in
subsection (c);
(2) has requested participation in a project under this Act
through a resolution or other official action of the tribal
governing body; and
(3) has demonstrated, for the 3 fiscal years immediately
preceding the fiscal year for which the requested
participation is being made, financial stability and
financial management capability as demonstrated by the Indian
tribe having no material audit exceptions in the required
annual audit of the self-determination contracts of the
tribe.
(c) Planning Phase.--Each Indian tribe seeking to
participate in a project under this Act shall complete a
planning phase that shall include legal and budgetary
research and internal tribal government and organizational
preparation. The tribe shall be eligible for a grant under
this section to plan and negotiate participation in a project
under this Act.

SEC. 6. AUTHORITY OF HEADS OF EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.

(a) In General.--The President, acting through the heads of
the appropriate executive agencies, shall promulgate
regulations necessary to carry out this Act and to ensure
that this Act is applied and implemented by all executive
agencies.
(b) Scope of Coverage.--The executive agencies that are
included within the scope of this Act shall include--
(1) the Department of Agriculture;
(2) the Department of Commerce;
(3) the Department of Defense;
(4) the Department of Education;
(5) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(6) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(7) the Department of the Interior;
(8) the Department of Labor; and
(9) the Environmental Protection Agency.
(c) Activities.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the head of each executive agency, acting alone or
jointly through an agreement with another executive agency,
may--
(1) identify related Federal programs that are likely to be
particularly suitable in providing for the joint financing of
specific kinds of projects;
(2) assist in planning and developing projects to be
financed through different Federal programs;
(3) with respect to Federal programs or projects that are
identified or developed under paragraphs (1) or (2), develop
and prescribe--
(A) guidelines;
(B) model or illustrative projects;
(C) joint or common application forms; and
(D) other materials or guidance;
(4) review administrative program requirements to identify
those requirements that may impede the joint financing of
projects and modify such requirement when appropriate;
(5) establish common technical and administrative
regulations for related Federal programs to assist in
providing joint financing to support a specific project or
class of projects; and
(6) establish joint or common application processing and
project supervision procedures, including procedures for
designating--
(A) a lead agency responsible for processing applications;
and
(B) a managing agency responsible for project supervision.
(d) Requirements.--In carrying out this Act, the head of
each executive agency shall--
(1) take all appropriate actions to carry out this Act when
administering a Federal assistance program; and
(2) consult and cooperate with the heads of other executive
agencies to carry out this Act in assisting in the
administration of Federal assistance programs of other
executive agencies that may be used to jointly finance
projects undertaken by Indian tribes or tribal organizations.

SEC. 7. PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING REQUESTS FOR JOINT
FINANCING.

In processing an application or request for assistance for
a project to be financed in accordance with this Act by at
least 2 assistance programs, the head of an executive agency
shall take all appropriate actions to ensure that--
(1) required reviews and approvals are handled
expeditiously;
(2) complete account is taken of special considerations of
timing that are made known to the head of the agency involved
by the applicant that would affect the feasibility of a
jointly financed project;
(3) an applicant is required to deal with a minimum number
of representatives of the Federal Government;
(4) an applicant is promptly informed of a decision or
special problem that could affect the feasibility of
providing joint assistance under the application; and
(5) an applicant is not required to get information or
assurances from 1 executive agency for a requesting executive
agency when the requesting agency makes the information or
assurances directly.

SEC. 8. UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.

(a) In General.--To make participation in a project simpler
than would otherwise be possible because of the application
of varying or conflicting technical or administrative
regulations or procedures that are not specifically required
by the statute that authorizes the Federal program under
which such project is funded, the head of an executive agency
may promulgate uniform regulations concerning inconsistent or
conflicting requirements with respect to--
(1) the financial administration of the project including
accounting, reporting and auditing, and maintaining a
separate bank account, to the extent consistent with this
Act;
(2) the timing of payments by the Federal Government for
the project when 1 payment schedule or a combined payment
schedule is to be established for the project;
(3) the provision of assistance by grant rather than
procurement contract; and
(4) the accountability for, or the disposition of, records,
property, or structures acquired or constructed with
assistance from the Federal Government under the project.
(b) Review.--In making the processing of applications for
assistance under a project simpler under this Act, the head
of an executive agency may provide for review of proposals
for a project by a single panel, board, or committee where
reviews by separate panels, boards, or committees are not
specifically required by the statute that authorizes the
Federal program under which such project is funded.

SEC. 9. DELEGATION OF SUPERVISION OF ASSISTANCE.

Pursuant to regulations established to implement this Act,
the head of an executive agency may delegate or otherwise
enter into an arrangement to have another executive agency
carry out or supervise a project or class or projects jointly
financed in accordance with this Act. Such a delegation--
(1) shall be made under conditions ensuring that the duties
and powers delegated are exercised consistent with Federal
law; and
(2) may not be made in a manner that relieves the head of
an executive agency of responsibility for the proper and
efficient management of a project for which the agency
provides assistance.

SEC. 10. JOINT ASSISTANCE FUNDS AND PROJECT FACILITATION.

(a) Joint Assistance Fund.--In providing support for a
project in accordance with this Act, the head of an executive
agency may provide for the establishment by the applicant of
a joint assistance fund to ensure that amounts received from
more than 1 Federal assistance program or appropriation are
more effectively administered.
(b) Agreement.--A joint assistance fund may only be
established under subsection (a) in accordance with an
agreement by the executive agencies involved concerning the
responsibilities of each such agency. Such an agreement
shall--
(1) ensure the availability of necessary information to the
executive agencies and Congress;
(2) provide that the agency administering the fund is
responsible and accountable by program and appropriation for
the amounts provided for the purposes of each account in the
fund; and
(3) include procedures for returning an excess amount in
the fund to participating executive agencies under the
applicable appropriation (an excess amount of an expired
appropriation lapses from the fund).

SEC. 11. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, ACCOUNTABILITY AND AUDITS.

(a) Single Audit Act.--Recipients of funding provided in
accordance with this Act shall be subject to the provisions
of chapter 75 of title 31, United States Code.
(b) Records.--With respect to each project financed through
an account in a joint management fund established under
section 10, the recipient of amounts from the fund shall
maintain records as required by the head of the executive
agencies responsible for administering the fund. Such records
shall include--
(1) the amount and disposition by the recipient of
assistance received under each Federal assistance program and
appropriation;
(2) the total cost of the project for which such assistance
was given or used;
(3) that part of the cost of the project provided from
other sources; and
(4) other records that will make it easier to conduct an
audit of the project.
(c) Availability.--Records of a recipient related to an
amount received from a joint management fund under this Act
shall be made available to the head of the executive agency
responsible for administering the fund and the Comptroller
General for inspection and audit.

SEC. 12. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND PERSONNEL TRAINING.

Amounts available for technical assistance and personnel
training under any Federal assistance program shall be
available for technical assistance and training under a
project

[[Page S616]]

approved for joint financing under this Act where a portion
of such financing involves such Federal assistance program
and another assistance program.

SEC. 13. JOINT FINANCING FOR FEDERAL-TRIBAL ASSISTED
PROJECTS.

Under regulations promulgated under this Act, the head of
an executive agency may enter into an agreement with a State
to extend the benefits of this Act to a project that involves
assistance from at least 1 executive agency and at least 1
tribal agency or instrumentality. The agreement may include
arrangements to process requests or administer assistance on
a joint basis.

SEC. 14. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the President shall prepare and submit to Congress a
report concerning the actions taken under this Act together
with recommendations for the continuation of this Act or
proposed amendments thereto. Such report shall include a
detailed evaluation of the operation of this Act, including
information on the benefits and costs of jointly financed
projects that accrue to participating Indian tribes and
tribal organizations.
______

By Mr. JEFFORDS:
S. 2053. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
marriage tax penalty relief for earned income credit; to the Committee
on Finance.

MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to reduce
the marriage penalty built into the Earned Income Tax Credit--the EITC.
It appears that Congress may well act to address the marriage penalty
this year. Eliminating the marriage penalty is a worthwhile goal. A
marriage license shouldn't come with a higher tax bill from Uncle Sam.
As we consider this issue, however, I want to make sure that low-income
taxpayers are not left out of the debate. In terms of dollars, the EITC
marriage penalty may be relatively small, but for workers trying to
raise children on low wages it represents a significant loss of income,
and it may well deter couples from marrying.
Though our nation's economy continues to thrive, many Americans still
struggle to make ends meet. Working families across the nation hover
above the poverty level, striving to stay off welfare and yearning to
provide a decent life for their children. We can and must do more to
help these families. And we can do it through the tax code in a manner
that is proven and fair, using the earned income tax credit. The EITC
is a refundable tax credit specifically targeted to help low-income
workers and their families. In my state of Vermont, with soaring
housing costs and spiking fuel costs, the EITC has proven effective in
supplementing the income of working families.
By some estimates, the EITC has moved more than two million children
out of poverty. One recent report calls it the most effective safety
net program for children in working poor families. In 1999, the EITC
provided low-income working families with two children a subsidy of
roughly 40 cents for every dollar of income. But after income reaches a
certain point, the EITC is gradually phased out.
Unfortunately, a marriage penalty is built into the EITC. This
marriage penalty exists because a married couple's combined earnings
put them at a higher point in the EITC phase-out range than where one
or both of them would have been if they had remained single. If, for
example, one minimum wage earner marries another minimum wage earner
with two children, the couple's EITC would be over $1,300 less than the
combined EITC they would have received if they hadn't gotten married.
For working families that subsist on the minimum wage, this is a
significant loss--more than half of their combined wages for a month.
To reduce the EITC marriage penalty, the bill I'm introducing will
extend the point at which the EITC begins to phase out. This is the
approach I advocated, and which was subsequently adopted in last year's
tax bill. It is also the approach adopted in the bill passed by the
Ways and Means Committee. The difference between my bill and these
other bills is the amount by which the beginning point of the phase-out
range would be extended. The other bills proposed to extend it by
$2,000. I propose to extend it by $3,500; this would provide
significantly more marriage penalty relief. My back-of-the-envelope
calculations indicate that my bill would eliminate about half of the
marriage penalties built into the EITC.
I do not have a cost estimate for this bill. For the Ways and Means
marriage penalty bill, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that a
$2,000 extension of the beginning point of the EITC phase-out would
cost $11 billion over 10 years. This is a relatively small part of a
bill whose overall 10-year cost is $182 billion.
Last year, the conferees on the tax bill initially chose not to
include help for EITC taxpayers in the marriage penalty provisions. I
threatened to vote against the bill, probably depriving it of a
majority in the Senate. The conference was reopened, and relief of the
EITC marriage penalty was included in the final bill. I think that
shows how strongly I feel about this issue. I'm glad that the House has
looked out for low-income taxpayers in its marriage penalty bill.
Still, I think we can do better.
______

By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 2055. A bill to establish the Katie Poirier Abduction Emergency
Fund, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

KATIE'S LAW

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a piece of
legislation that I hope will be called Katie's Law. This past year,
colleagues, in Carlton County, we lost a young, beautiful woman who
worked at a convenience store. She was abducted. Everybody in the
community helped the family. Tragically, later her body was recovered.
A suspect has been arrested for her murder.
I have, along with Sheila, stayed in close touch with Katie's family.
We have talked quite often with her mother Pam, her dad Steve, and her
brother Patrick.
When I went to the service, I couldn't even stand it, just to see the
pain. This never should have happened.
I thought about what I could do as a Senator to make a difference. I,
therefore, started talking to a lot of our rural law enforcement
people. They told me that whatever we could do in Congress, the key
would be to enhance their ability to respond quickly and aggressively
to such crimes, that that would make a difference.
So there are two pieces to this piece of legislation. I hope I will
get tremendous bipartisan support.
The first is an abduction emergency fund called the Katie Poirier
Abduction Emergency Fund. Basically, what I am saying, colleagues, is
that for rural law enforcement, especially in the critical first 72
hours, they should never have to worry about whether they will have the
resources and what the cost will be. This will be an emergency fund
they can draw upon from the Attorney General, to State agencies, down
to the local level. For our rural law enforcement community, this is
critically important.
Then the second piece is to provide local law enforcement officers
with resources to use the latest identification systems to solve and
prevent crime. In our metropolitan areas we have the technology, but in
our rural communities quite often our local law enforcement communities
do not have the capacity to link up with systems such as the FBI's very
sophisticated fingerprint identification system. This can be the
difference between 2 hours and 2 months. There will be money that will
go to local law enforcement, rural law enforcement so they can be able
to take advantage of this technology.
Altogether, with the abduction emergency fund, we are talking about
$10 million over 3 years, for $30 million; and on the technology
upgrade for rural law enforcement, we are talking about $20 million
over 3 years, for $60 million--total cost for 3 years, $90 million.
This is incredibly important to rural America. It is an investment we
should make. While I know no piece of legislation can ever provide 100
percent safety for our children, I do know this piece of legislation
will make a difference for rural law enforcement and will provide some
protection for our children and will provide some protection for our
rural citizens.
I have never been more determined to pass any piece of legislation
than this small step. It is something I think I should do as a Senator.
I think as Senators talk to their rural communities from around the
country, they will find this does meet a very critical need.

[[Page S617]]

______

By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Craig):
S. 2056. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act to ensure an adequate level of commodity purchases under the school
lunch program; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.

EMERGENCY COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION ACT

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator
Johnson in introducing the Emergency Commodity Distribution Act of
2000.
Children are our future. I strongly believe each child deserves at
least one warm, nutritious meal every day. I stand before you today
with a new bill that will restore $500 million to the School Lunch
Program. The positive impacts of this program are endless. Children
should not have to pay the price of not having enough money for food.
Originally enacted in 1946, the school lunch program set goals to
improve children's nutrition, increase low-income children's access to
nutritious meals, and to help support the agricultural industry. A
family of four has to have an income at or below 130 percent of the
federal poverty level to qualify for a free lunch. The income for these
families is tragically low. Congress has a role in providing these
children with assistance their families cannot provide.
Last year, Congress enacted the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act. This legislation amended the School Lunch Act to
require the United States Department of Agriculture to count the value
of bonus commodities when it determines the total amount of commodity
assistance provided to schools. This change will result in a $500
million budget cut for the school lunch program over a nine-year
period.
In FY1998, the school lunch program comprised over 90 percent of
schools, with some 90,000 schools enrolling 46.5 million children.
Children receiving free lunches averaged 13 million a day, and those
receiving reduced price lunches averaged 2.2 million a day. Each state
and millions of children are affected. This program provides a basic
requirement of food for needy children.
No child should be without food. The Emergency Commodity Distribution
Act of 2000 would ensure that schools receive the full value of
entitlement commodity assistance, and allow the School Lunch Program to
continue to meet its dual purpose of supporting American agriculture
while providing nutritious food to schools across the country. I urge
members to support this bill, support children, and support our future.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 2057. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit
the use of electronic measurement units (EMUs); to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

the motorists privacy act of 2000

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Motorists
Privacy Act of 2000. This legislation has become necessary because
technological advancements threaten to allow government and private
enterprise to develop a vast database of information about the comings
and goings of ordinary Americans.
Recently, I learned of a device known as an electronic measurement
unit (EMU). EMUs are placed on billboards along highways and at the
entrances to stadiums and concert locations in Atlanta, Indianapolis,
Los Angeles, Phoenix, Boston, and a variety of other cities throughout
the nation. These shoe-box size devices instantly determine what radio
station a car radio is tuned to by detecting electronic signals emitted
from the oscillators in every car radio.
These devices are capable of measuring tens of thousands of radios in
passing cars every day. And they provide nearly instantaneous
information on the number of people listening to a radio station at any
given time. This valuable data can then be sold to radio owners, who
can then adjust their advertising rates based on listenership.
Mr. President, there is nothing wrong with surveying radio usage so
long as a citizen voluntarily chooses to participate in such a survey.
However, when private enterprise or the government begin to monitor
radio or television usage, without the knowledge of the citizen, then a
line is crossed that can only lead down the path to Big Brother. And as
far as this Senator is concerned, that is not going to happen so long
as I am a Member of the Senate.
When a citizen is sitting inside of his or her car, there is a 100
percent expectation of privacy that what is said and listened to is
private. Motorists, rightfully, should have no suspicion that they are
being monitored by the government or by private enterprise. However, in
the case of EMUs, few motorists are aware that these devices even exist
and in most cases, no attempt is made to inform motorists when they
enter an area in which EMUs are utilized.
Mr. President, what right does a company or government have to snoop
on what people are listening to in their automobiles? It is not a very
great leap to imagine a world where EMUs track not only what you listen
to in the car, but combined with remote television cameras, track your
driving patterns. And surely, such devices could be installed in
neighborhoods in order to monitor what families watch on television in
their homes. Surely such invasions of privacy cannot be tolerated.
Therefore, I am today introducing the Motorists Privacy Act which
outlaws the use of electronic measurement units to scan car radios.
Regardless of whether or not these scans are anonymous, motorists
deserve the same expectation of privacy within their cars as does a
homeowner. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2057

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 ``Motorists Privacy Act of
2000''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF ELECTRONIC MEASUREMENT UNITS.

Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``SEC. 338. PROHIBITION ON USE OF ELECTRONIC MEASUREMENT
UNITS.

``(a) Prohibition.--No person may install, post, operate,
or otherwise use an electronic measurement unit (EMU).
``(b) Electronic Measurement Unit Defined.--In subsection
(a), the term `electronic measurement unit (EMU)' means a
device that determines the frequency of the radio broadcast
being received by a radio receiver located within a vehicle
passing through the operating range of the device.''.
______

By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Mack, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin,
and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2058. A bill to extend filing deadlines for applications for
adjustment of status of certain Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Haitian
nationals; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

legislation to extend filing deadlines for applications for adjustment
of status of certain Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Haitian nationals

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor this afternoon
to introduce legislation which has as its objective to assure a greater
measure of fairness to a particularly vulnerable group of Central
American and Caribbean nationals who, in many cases, for many years
have resided in the United States.
I appreciate the support of my colleagues: Senators Mack, Kennedy,
Durbin, and Feinstein, who join in this effort as cosponsors.
For some background: In 1997, and again in 1998, Congress passed
legislation to protect, first, a group of Central American and Cuban
nationals and then a similar group of Haitian nationals who were
refugees and were threatened with deportation.
Action was needed in those 2 years because of passage of the 1996
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which
changed immigration rules and did so, in many instances, retroactively.
The history of this group of people started during the Presidency of
Ronald Reagan. The United States offered protection and legal status to
many Central American nationals who were fighting for democracy in
their home country or fleeing the war that had ensued. Similarly,
during the Presidency of George Bush, Haitian nationals were forced to
flee after the overthrow of the elected President, Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, in

[[Page S618]]

1994. They were offered protection and legal status in the United
States.
In 1996, these Central American and Haitian nationals had been living
in our country for years; in the cases of the Central Americans, often
longer than a decade. They established businesses. They formed and
raised families. They bought homes. They strengthened the communities
in which they lived. Then in 1996, with the passage of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, these Central
American and Haitian individuals and families were made retroactively
deportable. These deportations would have occurred years and years
after these nationals had established their lives in the United States.
Congress moved quickly to protect their legal status here by passing
the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act in November
of 1997, and then the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act in
October of 1998. These two bills made certain sections of the 1996
immigration law nonretroactive. We mandated in those two pieces of
legislation that to apply for relief from deportation under this
measure, applications had to be made by a date certain: March 31, 2000.

The sad fact is, in 3 years after one of these pieces of legislation
was passed and more than 2 years after another, we are still waiting
for the final regulations to be issued for both of these pieces of
legislation. The final rules that would help families apply for relief
have not yet been issued. Interim regulations were issued for both
bills in 1998 and 1999, but in neither case have the regulations become
final. There is the very real possibility that the application
deadline, March 31, 2000, could come and go before the final
regulations, which establish the rules and procedures by which
applications will be submitted and evaluated, have even been issued.
Both for reasons of fairness and to promote good Government, we
should extend the application deadline for relief. Under this
legislation, the new deadline for relief will be 1 year after the date
the regulations become final.
I point out to my colleagues that this legislation will not cover any
additional individuals who will have the right to apply for the right
to live in the United States. No additional persons will be granted
eligibility as a result of this legislation beyond those who were made
eligible in 1997 and again in 1998. What this legislation does is
create a more realistic and fair deadline for individuals Congress has
already passed legislation to protect.
This action should be taken because it is fair. First, it is fair to
the immigrants. We shouldn't expect them to go through the arduous and
very costly application process without the certainty that the
regulations which will govern their applications are final.
It is easy to put a human face on this issue. There are scores,
hundreds, thousands of examples. Let me just cite one which was brought
to my attention by a prominent immigration attorney in Florida. I will
call this young woman, in order to protect her privacy, Frances. She is
a real human being. Frances is 22 years old. Her parents fled Haiti in
the 1980s, when she was a child. Her family settled in Florida. She now
has three U.S. citizen brothers and sisters. Tragedy has struck her
family on several occasions. Her father died when she was just 7 years
old. Her mother died when she was still in her early teens. She
finished high school and is now raising her younger brothers and
sisters while working. She is an orphan. She would be in the class of
persons protected by the 1998 legislation. She is trying now to put
together the documents necessary to apply to stay in the United States
and not be separated from her U.S. citizen brothers and sisters, the
only family she has left.
The 1-year extension and the ability to apply for relief once
regulations are final will make a huge difference in the life of this
woman, will make a huge difference in her ability to comply with
procedures which are probably the most significant in her life.
Today, I am introducing this in an effort to secure as rapid a
resolution of these concerns as possible. I am not unmindful of the
magnitude of the task Congress has asked the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to perform. I don't want to imply that the INS
and other Federal agencies should rush through these technical pieces
of legislation. However, in situations such as this, where a longer
time than expected was needed to develop the regulations, it is only
fair to allow a longer time for those who are going to be affected by
the law.

I understand the INS has been very thorough and understanding. It has
met with individual groups on all sides of this issue. Many of them
have been my constituents in Florida. I commend the INS for its
willingness to hear all points of view and be thorough in their review
before issuing final regulations. However, having said that, I believe
nearly 3 years is a reasonable amount of time to have finalized these
regulations.
The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act took only
nine pages of text in Public Law 105-100 when it was passed. Similarly,
the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act took less than two pages
to print in the Congressional Record. These were concise, targeted
pieces of legislation. They were not lengthy, complex overhauls of
major components of the immigration law. It is plain unfair to give
someone a deadline and charge them a substantial fee to file and then
to be uncertain as to what the rules will be that will govern those
applications. With this legislation, I seek the flexibility to allow
more time to apply for relief in a situation where more time than
expected was necessary by the agency, the INS, to issue the
regulations.
I send to the desk a few of the letters I have received from
individuals and advocacy groups and religious leaders calling for this
deadline extension, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters from
the American Immigration Lawyers Association of South Florida, the
Haitian American Foundation, the Haiti Advocacy Agency, all be printed
in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send the legislation to the desk, which
has been cosponsored by Senators Mack, Kennedy, Durbin, and Feinstein.
I ask my colleagues for their understanding and their support for this
legislation--legislation that will ensure the most basic elements of
fairness in our democratic system, which will allow people who have
fled war and persecution to come to the freedom of the United States
and to be treated fairly by our laws.

Exhibit No. 1

American Immigration

Lawyers Association,

South Florida Chapter,

January 24, 2000.
Senator Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate,
Re: Letter of support for your effort to extend application
period for HRIFA & NACARA.
Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the South Florida Chapter
of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) I
write this letter of support to encourage you in your effort
to introduce legislation to extend the application period for
HRIFA & NACARA beneficiaries.
My organization has long-supported both bills and is
appreciative of your great efforts in support of these
efforts. Please let us know if there is anything we can do to
help.
Thank you, Senator Graham.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Ray,
President, AILA South Florida Chapter.
____

Haitian American Foundation, Inc.,

January 24, 2000.
Hon. Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate, Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC.
Dear Sir: Thank you for introducing legislation to extend
the filing period under which HRIFA and NACARA can be filed.
Haitians have had an extraordinarily short period of time
to apply--a mere nine months. Due to this narrow time period,
many eligible poor people have not been able to apply because
of the uncapped INS fee structure and the reluctance of the
few pro bono attorneys serving them to submit fee waiver
requests for fear that INS might deem the application
untimely. As you know, as of December 31, 1999 only 18,000
individuals had applied (of 50,000 INS estimates are
eligible).
This low number of applicants is due to the high costs
involved. Most families must pay between $1,000 to $2,000 in
INS fees alone. Supplement fees--such as the requisite
medical exams--are additional financial burdens for
applicants.
Extension of the HRIFA and NACARA filing deadline is
essential if Congress hopes to help Haitian refugees. Some
30,000 Haitians in South Florida are expected to benefit from
such extension.

[[Page S619]]

Your legislation is indispensable and crucial. I applaud
your leadership in introducing the legislation and thereby
serving as a champion to your constituents.
Sincerely,
Leonie M. Hermantin,
Executive Director.
____

Haiti Advocacy, Inc.,

1309 Independence Avenue SE

Washington, DC, January 31, 2000.
Office of the Hon. Bob Graham,
524 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Extension of HRIFA/NACARA Filing Deadlines.
Dear Senator Graham: We are greatly encouraged that you are
introducing legislation to extend the deadlines for
applications under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act (NACARA) and the Haitian Refugee
Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA).
As you know, more than 2 years has passed since the passage
of NACARA and more than one since the passage of HRIFA and
the INS has yet to issue final regulations implementing these
laws. The statutory deadline for applications under both
laws, April 1, 2000, is fast approaching.
Interim regulations contained unreasonably burdensome
documentary requirements, excessive fees and lack of
appropriate consideration for special groups such as
abandoned children and refugees who were compelled to use
false documents in order to flee. These and other
deficiencies have, to date, prevented all but a minority of
those eligible from filing applications.
Hundreds of comments were filed critiquing these and other
restrictions as inconsistent with the remedial intent of
Congress. We certainly hope that the INS will give full and
fair consideration to these comments and ameliorate the
shortcomings in the final version. Nevertheless, it is now
apparent that any such improvements will be largely, if not
completely, negated by the short time remaining before the
deadline.
Accordingly, it is fitting and proper to extend the
deadlines to one year following the promulgation of such
final regulations so that the intended beneficiaries of this
important legislation receive the full measure of justice
provided under law.
Thank you for your support and kind consideration of our
views.
Respectfully,
Merrill Smith, Director; And: Linda Wood Ballard; Maurice
Belanger, Senior Policy Associate; National Immigration
Forum; 220 I Street NE, Suite 220; Washington DC 20002;
Phillip J. Brutus, Esq.; 645 NE 127 Street; North Miami
FL 33161; Alison Laird Craig, Member Haitian Studies
Association; Ralston H. Deffenbaugh, Jr., President;
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; Geary
Farrell; 0-261 Luce SW; Grand Rapids, MI 49544; Michael
A. Foulkes, Attorney At-Law; 4770 Biscayne Boulevard,
Suite 570; Miami FL 33137; Muriel Heiberger, Executive
Director Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy;
Trevor Jackson, Senior Programmer Analyst; Connecticut
Community Colleges--Board of Trustees; Maureen T.
Kelleher, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center; Guy H.
Larreur, President, Konbit, L.L.C.; Haitian Immigration
Support & Advocate Center; P.O. Box 6736; St. Thomas,
VI 00804; John B. Percy; 35 Parsons Road; Enfield CT
06082; Edwige Romulus, Chair; Haitian-American Support
Group of Central Florida; William Sage, Interim
Director; Church World Service Immigration and Refugee
Program; Daniel M. Schweissing; The Center for Haitian
Ministries; William Shagan, Supervising Attorney;
Lutheran Family and Community Services, Inc.; Althea
Stahl, Assistant Professor; Earlham College, Languages
and Literatures; Rick Swartz, President, Swartz &
Associates; Michele Wucker, Author. Why the Cocks
Fight: Dominicans, Haitians, and the Struggle for
Hispaniola; 245 West 107th Street, Apt. 9D; New York
NYC 10025

______

By Mr. SARBANES:
S. 2059. A bill to modify land conveyance authority relating to the
former Naval Training Center, Bainbridge, Cecil County, Maryland, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

bainbridge naval training center land conveyance

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
would alleviate the $500,000 cost associated with the transfer of the
former Bainbridge Naval Training Center in Cecil County, Maryland. It
is my hope that this bill will help expedite the development of this
property by the Bainbridge Development Corporation and the State of
Maryland, and allow this site to realize its tremendous potential as
soon as possible. Moreover, the money that the BDC will save through
this waiver will be put towards salvaging several of the historic
buildings on the site, namely, the historic Tome School.
Next week, I will participate in the transfer ceremony for this base,
which now represents 1200 acres of pristine and strategically located
land. The transfer follows decades of negotiations and cleanup, and I,
along with the Navy, my constituents in Cecil County, and the other
members of the Maryland State congressional delegation hope to see
development of this site begin promptly.
In my view, the transfer of the Bainbridge site is a shining example
of what can be accomplished through partnerships between Federal,
State, and local governments. I introduce this bill to sustain our
momentum and move this property into productive use as expeditiously as
possible. Mr. President, I have spoken with the appropriate Navy
officials regarding this matter and they have raised no concerns about
this waiver. Indeed, this is truly a non-controversial measure with a
very modest cost and I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Baucus, and Mr. Helms):
S. 2060. A bill to authorize the President to award a gold medal on
behalf of the Congress to Charles M. Schulz in recognition of his
lasting artistic contributions to the Nation and the world, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.

legislation to award charles schultz the congressional gold medal

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on January 3rd, 2000, Charles Schulz
published his last daily ``Peanuts'' comic strip ending a remarkable
fifty year run. To commemorate Charles Schulz's extraordinary career, I
urge my colleagues to join me in awarding him a Congressional Medal of
Honor.
Charles Schulz's body of work in the ``Peanuts'' strip deserves
recognition as a national treasure. For half a century, his cartoon
illustrations have inspired millions of Americans with its wry humor
and endearing cast of characters. Who has not been touched by the
trials and tribulations of Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Linus, Lucy, and the
rest of the ``Peanuts'' family?
At its peak, Peanuts appeared in close to 3,000 newspapers in 75
countries and was published in over 20 different languages to more than
355 million daily readers. Charles Schulz's television special, ``A
Charlie Brown Christmas,'' has run for 34 consecutive years. In all,
more that 60 animated specials have been created based on ``Peanuts''
characters. Four feature films, 1,400 books, and a hit Broadway musical
about the ``Peanuts'' characters also have been produced.
Charles Schulz's achievements are all the more remarkable because,
throughout his career, he has worked without any artistic assistants,
unlike most syndicated cartoonists. Schulz has painstakingly drawn
every line and frame in his comic strip for 50 years, an unparalleled
commitment to his art and profession.
In 1994, while speaking before the National Cartoonists Society,
Charles Schulz said of his comic strip, ``There's still a market for
things that are clean and decent.'' Charles Schulz has given
generations of children a cast of colorful characters to grow up with
and to teach the small and large lessons of life.
Seventeen Americans from the arts and entertainment world have been
awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for their achievements in the
enrichment of American culture. I urge that Charles Schulz become the
eighteenth individual so honored. Please join me in recognizing the
lifetime contributions of Charles Schulz by awarding him the
Congressional Gold Medal.
______

By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 2061. A bill to establish a crime prevention and computer
education initiative; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

the kids 2000 act

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there has been incredible prosperity that
the vast majority of our country is benefiting from--and that
prosperity was built on a combination of communication and computers.
This technology has opened a whole new world for America. This new
technology has driven our economic growth. And, the future lies with
those who can master the tools of this new economic age.
It wasn't too long ago that it looked like our time in the sun was
behind us.

[[Page S620]]

Behind us was the idea of prosperity in our country. But times have
changed over the past few years. And we stand here today with the
prospect of a new era of prosperity.
With flexible financial markets, a historic wave of entrepreneurial
activity, and the convergence of new technologies from the personal
computer to the Internet, we are transforming ourselves into what is
now called the ``new economy.''
Look at the numbers: In recent years, Information Technology
industries contributed 35% to Gross Domestic Product growth. The
Information Technology sector is growing at twice the rate of the rest
of the economy. And by 2006, more than half of the U.S. workforce will
be employed by industries that are either major producers, or intensive
users, of Information Technology.
A lot of what we do--manufacturing, shipping, marketing, are
basically the same old functions. But we do virtually all of them in
new and better ways thanks to the explosion of information technology.
This has increased our productivity in ways that the best economists
still don't completely understand.
But, there is one thing that we do understand: those who can master
technology will be able to benefit from this great expansion--and that
is why we are here today. So no one is left behind.
That is why today I am proud to be introducing legislation, aptly
titled Kids 2000, that will be one step in our mission to provide all
children with access to technology.
It is my hope, that through a public/private partnership, led by
members of Congress and Steve and Jean Case, state-of-the-art computer
centers will be placed in Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. Located in
largely under-served communities, Club computer centers will reach
precisely the kids who need these resources the most. And none of these
kids will be left behind.
One goal of Kids 2000 is to help close the digital divide by
providing kids with computers, internet access, and fully comprehensive
technical training. As the wonders of computers become increasingly
evident and celebrated, certain segments of society still lack access
to these resources. Some segments are not participating in this
technological revolution that is sweeping across our country.
And the disparities are alarming. Look at the figures: Of households
making over $75,000, 80% own computers and 60% use the Internet. Yet,
for households making between $10,000-$15,000, only 16% own a computer
and only 7% use the Internet.
And it's not just income levels. There are disparities amongst races,
education levels and geography. In addition, at all income levels,
households with two parents are far more likely than one-parent
households to own computers and have Internet access.
The digital divide is also significant because the new digital
economy can't run on computers alone. Businesses need workers with
computer know-how and Internet literacy. Those who are not competent
with the tools of technology will be left behind. Some of them are our
kids. They are our responsibility and we cannot let this happen.
And we know what happens to our kids when they are left behind. Their
opportunities are vastly reduced, there is despair, and even criminal
behavior. But there is something that we can do. And we are here today
to begin a significant effort to do just that--to close the digital
divide.
Addressing the problems associated with the digital divide is not all
this initiative seeks to do. Another goal is to reduce juvenile crime
by providing kids with substantive after-school programs.
Everyone has heard me say this time and time again, but let me say
this one more time--prevention works.
While kids are learning in these computer centers, they will be off
the street and out of harm's way. They will be occupied with
constructive activities. School dropout rates will be reduced because
kids will realize that they have great potential. Kids 2000 is the
ultimate after-school program.
That is precisely why I have asked the Boys and Girls Clubs to host
my computer initiative. For decades, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America
have provided young people all across the United States with the
support and inspiration they need to make it in a world full of peer
pressure and crime.
Kids 2000 also makes sense economically. It is estimated that
allowing a single youth to drop out of high school and enter a life of
drug abuse and crime costs society between $1.7 and $2.3 million. In
comparison, Kids 2000 will cost the government a mere $40 per child.
Because I believe that there is a role for the private sector, I have
asked my good friends Jean and Steve Case and PowerUp to be an integral
part of this initiative. That means computers, America On-Line
accounts, educational curriculum, and fully comprehensive technical
training in Boys and Girls Clubs nationwide.
And PowerUp is not alone. 3-Com has committed to donating $1 million
in networking equipment, MCI Worldcom will be donating educational
software and training, American Airlines has agreed to donate free
airline travel to train teachers, Ripple Effects Software will donate
educational software, and Sabre Inc. will be donating computers.
I want to thank all the corporations that have stepped forward and I
hope that there will be many more in the coming months. We can't do
this project without the private sector's help.
I want to say thanks to Steve and Jean Case who have been in the
forefront of this issue since the beginning and who are participating
in this initiative in a very significant way. You know we could not do
this without you and I appreciate your generosity and commitment to the
cause.
This initiative has brought together so many integral sectors of
society. Business, government, the non-profit world. Together, we can
make this program a success. Together we can make a difference in the
lives of kids and provide our children with the tools they need to live
and learn in a world that has become so dependent on technology.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2061

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 ``Kids 2000 Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There is an increasing epidemic of juvenile crime
throughout the United States.
(2) It is well documented that the majority of juvenile
crimes take place during after-school hours.
(3) Knowledge of technology is becoming increasingly
necessary for children in school and out of school.
(4) The Boys and Girls Clubs of America have 2,300 clubs
throughout all 50 States, serving over 3,000,000 boys and
girls primarily from at-risk communities.
(5) The Boys and Girls Clubs of America have the physical
structures in place for immediate implementation of an after-
school technology program.
(6) Building technology centers and providing integrated
content and full-time staffing at those centers in the Boys
and Girls Clubs of America nationwide will help foster
education, job training, and an alternative to crime for at-
risk youth.
(7) Partnerships between the public sector and the private
sector are an effective way of providing after-school
technology programs in the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.
(8) PowerUp: Bridging the Digital Divide is an entity
comprised of more than a dozen nonprofit organizations, major
corporations, and Federal agencies that have joined together
to launch a major new initiative to help ensure that
America's underserved young people acquire the skills,
experiences, and resources they need to succeed in the
digital age.
(9) Bringing PowerUp into the Boys and Girls Clubs of
America will be an effective way to ensure that our youth
have a safe, crime-free environment in which to learn the
technological skills they need to close the divide between
young people who have access to computer-based information
and technology-related skills and those who do not.

SEC. 3. AFTER-SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY GRANTS TO THE BOYS AND GIRLS
CLUBS OF AMERICA.

(a) Purposes.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
the Boys and Girls Clubs of America for the purpose of
funding effective after-school technology programs, such as
PowerUp, in order to provide--
(1) constructive technology-focussed activities that are
part of a comprehensive program to provide access to
technology and technology training to youth during after-

[[Page S621]]

school hours, weekends, and school vacations;
(2) supervised activities in safe environments for youth;
and
(3) full-time staffing with teachers, tutors, and other
qualified personnel.
(b) Subawards.--The Boys and Girls Clubs of America shall
make subawards to local boys and girls clubs authorizing
expenditures associated with providing technology programs
such as PowerUp, including the hiring of teachers and other
personnel, procurement of goods and services, including
computer equipment, or such other purposes as are approved by
the Attorney General.

SEC. 4. APPLICATIONS.

(a) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible to receive a
grant under this Act, an applicant for a subaward (specified
in section 3(b)) shall submit an application to the Boys and
Girls Clubs of America, in such form and containing such
information as the Attorney General may reasonably require.
(b) Application Requirements.--Each application submitted
in accordance with subsection (a) shall include--
(1) a request for a subgrant to be used for the purposes of
this Act;
(2) a description of the communities to be served by the
grant, including the nature of juvenile crime, violence, and
drug use in the communities;
(3) written assurances that Federal funds received under
this Act will be used to supplement and not supplant, non-
Federal funds that would otherwise be available for
activities funded under this Act;
(4) written assurances that all activities funded under
this Act will be supervised by qualified adults;
(5) a plan for assuring that program activities will take
place in a secure environment that is free of crime and
drugs;
(6) a plan outlining the utilization of content-based
programs such as PowerUp, and the provision of trained adult
personnel to supervise the after-school technology training;
and
(7) any additional statistical or financial information
that the Boys and Girls Clubs of America may reasonably
require.

SEC. 5. GRANT AWARDS.

In awarding subgrants under this Act, the Boys and Girls
Clubs of America shall consider--
(1) the ability of the applicant to provide the intended
services;
(2) the history and establishment of the applicant in
providing youth activities; and
(3) the extent to which services will be provided in crime-
prone areas and technologically underserved populations, and
efforts to achieve an equitable geographic distribution of
the grant awards.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2006 to
carry out this Act.
(b) Source of Funds.--Funds to carry out this Act may be
derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
(c) Continued Availability.--Amounts made available under
this section shall remain available until expended.
______

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Cleland, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Sessions):
S. 2062. A bill to amend chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code,
to allow postal patrons to contribute to funding for organ and tissue
donation awareness through the voluntary purchase of certain specially
issued United States postage stamps; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION AWARENESS ``SEMI-POSTAL'' STAMP

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my
friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, to introduce
legislation that would authorize the issuance of the organ and tissue
donation awareness ``semi-postal'' stamp. With 67,000 people on the
organ donation waiting list, we have no time to lose in educating the
public about the importance of life-giving organ and tissue donations.
In August 1998, as a result of strong public and congressional
interest, the U.S. Postal Service issued a 32-cent organ and tissue
donation commemorative stamp. But, just five months later, the postal
rate increased to 33-cents. To use the stamp, that meant purchasers
would have to buy an additional one-cent stamp to make up the postage
difference. Yet, despite this hassle, more than 47 million of the 50
million stamps originally printed have been purchased, demonstrating
the strong demand for an organ and tissue donation awareness postage
stamp.
Since the U.S. Postal Service does not re-issue commemorative stamps,
we are seeking authorization for a ``semi-postal'' stamp. This stamp
would sell for up to 25 percent above the value of a first-class stamp,
regardless of the price of the first-class stamp, itself. The surplus
revenues would be directed to programs that increase organ and tissue
donation awareness. The decision to donate an organ or tissue is a
life-saving one. However, it is frequently one that family members and
loved ones fail to communicate to one another. Every effort we make to
remind people that this is a decision that should be communicated
before a tragedy strikes is an effort toward saving lives. Whether it
is an organ and tissue donation postage stamp or a box that drivers can
mark as they renew their drivers' licenses, they are steps that raise
awareness of the importance of communicating to family and friends the
decision to become an organ or tissue donor.
I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Durbin, for joining me in
introducing this legislation, and Senators Abraham, Baucus, Cleland,
Dodd, and Levin for their co-sponsorship. I have appreciated their
support for this bill and for their tremendous work on behalf of organ
and tissue donation awareness. I would also like to thank a number of
organ and tissue donation groups who support this legislation--the
Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program (MOTTEP); the
National Kidney Foundation (NKF); the United Network for Organ Sharing
(UNOS); Transplant Recipients International Organization, Inc. (TRIO);
the Coalition on Donation; Hadassah; the Eye Bank Association of
America; the American Society of Transplantation; the American Society
of Transplant Surgeons; LifeBanc; and the Association of Organ
Procurement Organizations.
I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important
legislation. Time is of the essence. The waiting list for organs
includes 67,000 people, with a new name added to that list every 16
minutes. Moreover, ten to twelve people die every day waiting for an
organ to become available. There is simply no time to lose. Every
effort we make to increase, and in this case help generate, funds for
organ and tissue donation awareness will help to save someone's life.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2062

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

SECTION 1. SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMPS TO BENEFIT ORGAN AND TISSUE
DONATION AWARENESS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 414 the following:

``Sec. 414a. Special postage stamps for organ and tissue
donation awareness

``(a) In order to afford the public a convenient way to
contribute to funding for organ and tissue donation
awareness, the Postal Service shall establish a special rate
of postage for first-class mail under this section.
``(b) The rate of postage established under this section--
``(1) shall be equal to the regular first-class rate of
postage, plus a differential of not to exceed 25 percent;
``(2) shall be set by the Governors in accordance with such
procedures as the Governors shall by regulation prescribe (in
lieu of the procedures under chapter 36); and
``(3) shall be offered as an alternative to the regular
first-class rate of postage.
``(c) The use of the special rate of postage established
under this section shall be voluntary on the part of postal
patrons.
``(d)(1) The Postal Service shall pay the amounts becoming
available for organ and tissue donation awareness under this
section to the Department of Health and Human Services for
organ and tissue donation awareness programs. Payments under
this paragraph to the Department of Health and Human Services
shall be made under such arrangements as the Postal Service
shall by mutual agreement with the Department establish in
order to carry out the purposes of this section, except that,
under those arrangements, payments to the Department shall be
made at least twice a year. In consultation with donor
organizations and other members of the transplant community,
the Department of Health and Human Services may make any
funds paid to the Department under this section available to
donor organizations and other members of the transplant
community for donor awareness programs.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the term `amounts
becoming available for organ and tissue donation awareness
under this section' means--
``(A) the total amounts received by the Postal Service that
it would not have received but for the enactment of this
section, reduced by
``(B) an amount sufficient to cover reasonable costs
incurred by the Postal Service in

[[Page S622]]

carrying out this section, including those attributable to
the printing, sale, and distribution of stamps under this
section,
as determined by the Postal Service under regulations that
the Postal Service shall prescribe.
``(e) It is the sense of Congress that nothing in this
section should--
``(1) directly or indirectly cause a net decrease in total
funds received by the Department of Health and Human Services
or any other agency of the Government (or any component or
program thereof) below the level that would otherwise have
been received but for the enactment of this section; or
``(2) affect regular first-class rates of postage or any
other regular rates of postage.
``(f) Special postage stamps under this section shall be
made available to the public beginning on such date as the
Postal Service shall by regulation prescribe, but in no event
later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this
section.
``(g) The Postmaster General shall include in each report
rendered under section 2402 with respect to any period during
any portion of which this section is in effect information
concerning the operation of this section, except that, at a
minimum, each shall include--
``(1) the total amount described in subsection (d)(2)(A)
which was received by the Postal Service during the period
covered by such report; and
``(2) of the amount under paragraph (1), how much (in the
aggregate and by category) was required for the purposes
described in subsection (d)(2)(B).
``(h) This section shall cease to be effective at the end
of the 2-year period beginning on the date on which special
postage stamps under this section are first made available to
the public.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 4
of title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking the
item relating to section 414 and inserting the following:

``414. Special postage stamps to benefit breast cancer research.
``414a. Special postage stamps to benefit organ and tissue donation
awareness.''.
(2) Section heading.--The heading for section 414 of title
39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 414. Special postage stamps to benefit breast cancer
research''.

______

By Mr. EDWARDS (for himself and Mr. Biden):
S. 2064. A bill to amend the Missing Children's Assistance Act, to
expand the purpose of the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children to cover individuals who are at least 18 but have not yet
attained the age of 22; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
______

abducted young adults act

By Mr. EDWARDS:
S. 2065. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to provide grants
for organizations to find missing adults; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

kristen's law

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today I introduce two bills that
are very important crime fighting measures. My legislation will help
provide law enforcement with additional assistance in locating missing
people. One bill, the ``Abducted Young Adults Act,'' will give the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children the legal authority
to assist law enforcement officers in locating abducted young adults
aged 18 through 21. The second bill, ``Kristen's Law,'' authorizes the
Attorney General to provide grants to public agencies and nonprofit
private organizations that help find missing adults.

Mr. President, let me tell you a story about a girl from my State of
North Carolina. Her name is Kristen Modafferi. Kristen was a bright,
hard-working student at North Carolina State University. After
finishing up her freshman year of college, she traveled to San
Francisco to spend the summer taking a photography class at Berkeley.
Once Kristen arrived in San Francisco, she started her class and got a
couple of jobs to help pay for her expenses. She was settling in and
making friends.
On Monday, June 23, 1997, Kristen left work to visit a local beach.
She has not been seen since. Kristen was three weeks over the age of 18
when she disappeared.
Law enforcement devoted a great deal of time to finding Kristen and
should be commended for their efforts. Despite a number of leads,
Kristen has never been found.
For 15 years, since the creation of the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children, our Nation has recognized the vulnerability of
young children to abductions and exploitation. We have provided the
funding and support vital to ensuring rapid and multi jurisdictional
responses to these cases. But in Kristen's case we could not--and all
because she was 3 weeks past her 18th birthday. The charter for the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children only allows the
Center to help law enforcement search for missing children aged 0 to
18.
When a person involuntarily disappears, time is of the essence.
Search efforts must begin quickly, and they must reach across
jurisdictions. Abducted youngsters are often taken across state lines.
In order to effectively coordinate a search, the groups conducting the
search must have an easy way to share information with each other, no
matter how far away from one another they may be. The greater the
number of agencies helping in the search, the more likely it is that
the person will be found. But there is no central, federally-
established organization that exists to aid law enforcement in their
efforts to locate missing 18-21 year-olds. Unfortunately, Kristen's
tragic story illustrates the need for such an organization. And what
better way to fill this need than to build upon a reputable, federally-
partnered organization--the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children--that already exists to search for missing individuals under
18?
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children serves as the
national clearinghouse for information on missing children and the
prevention of child victimization. The Center works in partnership with
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at the U.S.
Department of Justice, and its mission is codified in federal law.
Because the Center was established for the purpose of assisting with
cases that involve missing children under the age of 18, the Center
does not typically assist with cases involving involuntarily missing
college students and other people who happen to be 18 through 21 years
old. The sad fact is that had Kristen been just a few weeks younger
when she disappeared, the Center would have immediately mobilized to
start a search.
One of the measures I introduce today, The Abducted Young Adults Act,
would expand the Center's charter to allow it to use its expertise and
resources to help find involuntarily missing young adults in the 18
through 21 year-old age group.
Mr. President, some people might inquire why I chose to limit
expansion of the Center's mission by only covering individuals under
age 22. For example, my bill would not affect the Center's ability to
help police search for Kristen's sister Allison and other individuals
who are 22 and over. The second bill I am introducing today, Kristen's
Act, will help fill this gap. I will discuss that bill in a moment.
However, the reason for my decision to limit the expansion of the
Center's mission is twofold.
First, although a person is considered a legal adult when they attain
the age of 18, I think most people would agree that college-aged kids
are just that--kids. Members of this age group are particularly
vulnerable to criminals and are frequently victims of crime. They are
away from home for the first time in their lives, in an unfamiliar
area, without the presence of their parents. I believe that most people
would agree that this age group needs special protection.
Statistics demonstrate the need to address the issue of missing young
adults and to find a way to provide some additional resources for this
group. In fact, according to data from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Sheriff's office in my state of North Carolina, in 1999, they received
reports of 132 missing persons aged 18-21. That's the number for just
one city, in just one state in the country. If we were to amass similar
statistics for every jurisdiction across the country, I believe we
would be astounded at the high rate of disappearances for this age
group. For example, in February, 1999, the FBI reported 1,896 new cases
of missing 18 through 21-year-olds--1,896 new cases in just one month.
This is a frighteningly large number. And I believe that the Abducted
Young Adults Act is a necessary protective measure. It will provide
some comfort to the millions of parents who send their children to

[[Page S623]]

college every year and worry about their safety: If anything does
happen, a national effort will be mobilized to help.

The second reason that the legislation would apply to a limited age
group is that I believe the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children should stay focused on its central mission--to help search for
missing children.
Since its founding, the Center has helped recover nearly 48,000
children. Imagine the benefit to families and law enforcement if the
Center were to help search for abducted young adults. Surely the number
of active missing young adult cases would decline if the Center helped
with the search efforts. I believe my legislation is a logical
extension of the Center's current mission.
My bill would authorize appropriations of $2.5 million per year
through 2003 so that the Center does not have to divert any of the
funding it needs to effectively search for children. I have worked
closely with the Center's staff to ensure that my bill will enhance not
harm the Center's current mission. As a result, the Abducted Young
Adults Act is fully supported by the Center.
The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) also strongly supports my
legislation. Gilbert Gallegos, National President of the FOP, is a
member of the Board of Directors for the Center. As he so aptly states
in his letter of support for the bill, ``Just because you turn eighteen
is no guarantee that you will not be the victim of a crime.''
Mr. President, I believe that it is important to mention that it is
true that some individuals aged 18 through 21 may disappear because
they want to. Some of these individuals may live in abusive households.
Others may want to start a new life. And because they are considered
legal adults, they have the choice to remain missing. In these cases,
it may not make sense for law enforcement, the Center, or anyone else
to launch a search.
My legislation ensures that the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children will use its public resources to search for only
those missing young adults aged 18-21 that law enforcement has first
determined to be missing involuntarily.
Specifically, my bill says that in order for an individual to be
defined as an involuntarily missing young adult, the following criteria
must be met: (1) their whereabouts must be unknown to their parent or
guardian; (2) law enforcement must have entered a missing persons
report on the individual into the National Crime Information Center;
and (3) there must be a reasonable indication or suspicion that the
individual has been abducted or is missing under circumstances
suggesting foul play or a threat to life; or (4) the individual is
known to be suicidal or has a severe medical condition that poses a
threat to his or her life.
I believe that the Abducted Young Adults Act is a common-sense way to
help prevent further incidences like the one involving Kristen
Modafferi. For every child the Center assists in locating, there are a
handful of individuals that it cannot help find. If my bill enables the
Center to help find just one more missing youngster, then I believe the
bill will have succeeded in its goal.
I am pleased that the Abducted Young Adults Act is co-sponsored by
Senator Biden. Senator Biden was instrumental to the establishment of
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and I thank him
for his leadership and support.
Mr. President, the Abducted Young Adults Act is only one part of the
solution. The other part of the solution is to provide the
organizations that are devoted to searching for missing adults with the
resources they need to be more effective in their efforts to search for
all adults, regardless of age.
That is why I am also introducing Kristen's Law, named after Kristen
Modafferi. This bill has been introduced in the House of
Representatives by Representative Sue Myrick, and I thank her for her
involvement in this issue.
As I mentioned, Kristen's Law would allow the Attorney General to
make grants to public agencies or nonprofit private organizations to
assist law enforcement and families in locating missing adults. Grants
could also be used by these agencies and organizations for a number of
other reasons. For example, funds could be used to maintain a national,
interconnected database for the purpose of tracking missing adults who
are determined by law enforcement to be endangered due to age,
diminished mental capacity, or the circumstances of disappearance. And
the grants could be used to help establish a national clearinghouse for
missing adults and to assist with victim advocacy related to missing
adults.
Generally, the greater the number of people conducting a search, the
greater the chance is of locating missing individuals. The combination
of the Abducted Young Adults Act and Kristen's Law sends a message to
families that they deserve all of the help necessary to locate
endangered and involuntarily missing loved ones. Together, these bills
will help ensure that all endangered and involuntarily missing adults--
regardless of age--will receive not only the benefit of search efforts
by law enforcement, but also by experienced, specialized organizations.
I request that the text of the two bills be printed in the Record.
The material follows:

S. 2064

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 ``Abducted Young Adults Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS IN REGARD TO VULNERABLE INVOLUNTARILY
MISSING YOUNG ADULTS.

(a) Conforming Amendments.--Section 402 of the Missing
Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``these children''
the following: ``and involuntarily missing young adults'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting after ``these children''
the following: ``and involuntarily missing young adults'';
(3) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``many missing
children'' the following: ``and involuntarily missing young
adults'';
(4) in paragraph (6), by inserting after ``abducted
children'' the following: ``and involuntarily missing young
adults''; and
(5) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by inserting after ``leads in missing children'' the
following: ``and involuntarily missing young adults''; and
(B) by inserting after ``where the child'' the following:
``or involuntarily missing young adult''.
(b) Additional Findings.--Section 402 of the Missing
Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771) is amended by--
(1) redesignating paragraphs (2) through (21) as paragraphs
(3) through (22), respectively; and
(2) inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) each year many young adults are abducted or are
involuntarily missing under circumstances which immediately
place them in grave danger;''.

SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF PURPOSE OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING
AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN.

Section 403 of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5772) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(2) by adding after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) the term `involuntarily missing young adult' means
any individual who is at least 18 but has not attained the
age of 22 whose whereabouts are unknown to such individual's
parent or guardian if law enforcement determines--
``(A) there is a reasonable indication or suspicion that
the individual has been abducted or is missing under
circumstances suggesting foul play or a threat to life; or
``(B) the individual is known to be suicidal or has a
severe medical condition that poses a threat to his or her
life;
``(3) the term `young adult' means any individual who is at
least 18 but has not attained the age of 22;''.

SEC. 4. DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IN REGARD
TO INVOLUNTARILY MISSING YOUNG ADULTS.

Section 404 of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5773) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``missing
children'' the following: ``and involuntarily missing young
adults'';
(B) in paragraph (5)(A), by inserting after ``missing
children'' the following: ``and involuntarily missing young
adults'';
(C) in paragraph (5)(B), by inserting after ``missing
children'' the following: ``and involuntarily missing young
adults'';
(D) in paragraph (5)(C), by--
(i) inserting after ``missing children'' the following:
``or involuntarily missing young adults''; and
(ii) inserting after ``or to children'' the following: ``or
involuntarily missing young adults''; and
(E) in paragraph (5)(I)(iv), by inserting after ``missing
children'' the following: ``and involuntarily missing young
adults'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by--
(i) inserting after ``regarding the location of any'' the
following: ``involuntarily missing young adult or''; and
(ii) inserting after ``reunite such child with such child's
legal custodian'' the following:

[[Page S624]]

``, or request information pertaining to procedures necessary
to notify law enforcement about such involuntarily missing
young adult'';
(B) in subparagraph (C)(i), by inserting after ``children
and their families'' the following: ``and involuntarily
missing young adults and their families'';
(C) by redesignating subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) as
subparagraphs (F), (G), and (H), respectively;
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) to coordinate public and private programs which
locate or recover involuntarily missing young adults;'';
(E) in subparagraph (F), as redesignated, by inserting
after ``missing and exploited children'' the following: ``and
involuntarily missing young adults;'';
(F) in subparagraph (G), as redesignated by inserting after
``missing and exploited children'' the following: ``and
involuntarily missing young adults''; and
(G) in subparagraph (H), as redesignated, by inserting
after ``missing and exploited children'' the following: ``and
involuntarily missing young adults,''; and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) paragraph (1), by inserting after ``number of
children'' each place it appears (except after ``who are
victims of parental kidnapings'') the following: ``and
involuntarily missing young adults''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``missing
children'' the following: ``and involuntarily missing young
adults''.

SEC. 5. AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE GRANTS AND ENTER
IN CONTRACTS RELATING TO INVOLUNTARILY MISSING
YOUNG ADULTS.

Section 405 of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5775) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting after ``children,'' the first place it
appears the following: ``young adults,'';
(ii) by inserting after ``children'' the second place it
appears the following: ``or involuntarily missing young
adults'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``children'' the
following: ``or involuntarily missing young adults'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting after ``children'' the
following: ``or involuntarily missing young adults'';
(D) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by inserting
after ``children'' the following: ``or involuntarily missing
young adults'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ``child'' each
place it appears the following: ``or involuntarily missing
young adult''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``child'' the
following: ``or involuntarily missing young adult'';
(E) in paragraph (5), by inserting after ``missing
children's'' the following: ``or involuntarily missing young
adults' '';
(F) in paragraph (6), by inserting after ``children'' the
each place it appears the following: ``or involuntarily
missing young adults'';
(G) in paragraph (7), by inserting after ``children'' each
place it appears the following: ``or involuntarily missing
young adults''; and
(H) in paragraph (9), by inserting after ``children'' the
following: ``or involuntarily missing young adults''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ``children''
the first place it appears the following: ``or involuntarily
missing young adults'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``services to''
the following: ``involuntarily missing young adults,''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after ``children''
the following: ``or involuntarily missing young adults''.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 408(a) of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5777(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``In addition, there is authorized to be
appropriated $2,500,000 for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 to
carry out the provisions of the amendments made to this Act
by the Abducted Young Adults Act.''.

SEC. 7. SPECIAL STUDY AND REPORT.

(a) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall begin to
conduct a study to determine the obstacles that prevent or
impede law enforcement from recovering involuntarily missing
young adults.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall submit a
report to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives and the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate containing a
description, and a summary of the results, of the study
conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 8. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

Section 3701(a) of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
5779) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Each
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agency may report
each case of an involuntarily missing young adult reported to
such agency to the National Crime Information Center of the
Department of Justice.''.

SEC. 9. STATE REQUIREMENTS.

Section 3702 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
5780) is amended by--
(1) redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
(2) inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) provide that each involuntarily missing young adult
report and all necessary and available information with
respect to such report, shall include--
``(A) the name, date of birth, sex, race, height, weight,
and eye and hair color of the involuntarily missing young
adult;
``(B) the date and location of the last known contact with
the involuntarily missing young adult; and
``(C) once the State agency receiving the case has made a
determination to enter such report into the State law
enforcement system and the National Crime Information Center
computer networks, and make such report available to the
Missing and Exploited Children Information Clearinghouse
within the State or other agency designated within the State
to receive such reports, shall immediately enter such report
and all necessary and available information described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B);'';
(3) in paragraph (4), as redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (2)'' and inserting the following: ``paragraphs
(2) and (3)''; and
(4) in paragraph (4)(C), as redesignated, by inserting
after ``missing children'' the following: ``and involuntarily
missing young adults''.
____

S. 2065

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 ``Kristen's Law''.

SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR THE ASSISTANCE OF ORGANIZATIONS TO FIND
MISSING ADULTS.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General may make grants to
public agencies or nonprofit private organizations, or
combinations thereof, for programs--
(1) to assist law enforcement and families in locating
missing adults;
(2) to maintain a national, interconnected database for the
purpose of tracking missing adults who are determined by law
enforcement to be endangered due to age, diminished mental
capacity, or the circumstances of disappearance, when foul
play is suspected or circumstances are unknown;
(3) to maintain statistical information of adults reported
as missing;
(4) to provide informational resources and referrals to
families of missing adults;
(5) to assist in public notification and victim advocacy
related to missing adults; and
(6) to establish and maintain a national clearinghouse for
missing adults.
(b) Regulations.--The Attorney General may make such rules
and regulations as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $1,000,000 each year for fiscal years 2001 through
2004.
______

By Mr. CLELAND:
S. 2066. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
United States savings bond income from gross income if used to pay
long-term care expenses; to the Committee on Finance.

Tax-Exemption Savings Bond Legislation

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, to support Americans faced with
long-term care needs I am proposing a savings bond tax credit. Many
people are struggling to pay for the assistive care needs associated
with conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. An
estimated 5.8 million Americans aged 65 or older need long-term care.
Nursing home care is only one component of long-term care services that
includes assisted living, adult day and home care. Medicare and health
insurance do not cover long-term care. In 1995, federal and state
spending for nursing home care was approximately $34 billion and an
additional $21 billion was used for home care. It is projected that
half of all women and a third of men in this country who are now age 65
are likely to spend some time in their later years in a nursing home at
a cost from $40,000 to $90,000 per person. About 40% of all nursing
home expenses are paid for out-of-pocket by patients and/or family
members. Liquidating family assets is often the only way for many to
fund the high costs for care. These staggering statistics and the pleas
for help from Americans in such situations reinforce the critical need
for long-term care assistance.
To qualify for this proposed tax credit, the person receiving care
must have at least two limitations in activities of daily living or a
comparable cognitive impairment. Activities of daily living, like
eating, bathing, and toileting, are basic care needs that must be met.
Families that claim parents or parents-in law as dependents on their
tax returns can qualify for this tax credit if

[[Page S625]]

savings bonds are used to pay for long-term care services. ``Sandwich
generation'' families paying for both college education for their
children and long-term care services for their parents can use this tax
credit for either program or a combined credit up to the maximum.
Mr. President, I ask that this proposed measure to provide long-term
care cost relief be printed in the Record.
The bill follows:

S. 2066

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF UNITED STATES SAVINGS BOND INCOME
FROM GROSS INCOME IF USED TO PAY LONG-TERM CARE
EXPENSES.

(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 135 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income from United
States savings bonds used to pay higher education tuition and
fees) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Exclusion.--
``(1) General rule.--In the case of an individual who pays
qualified expenses during the taxable year, no amount shall
be includible in gross income by reason of the redemption
during such year of any qualified United States savings bond.
``(2) Qualified expenses.--For purposes of this section,
the term `qualified expenses' means--
``(A) qualified higher education expenses, and
``(B) eligible long-term care expenses.''.
(b) Limitation where redemption proceeds exceed qualified
expenses.--Section 135(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to limitation where redemption proceeds exceed
higher education expenses) is amended--
(1) by striking ``higher education'' in subparagraph
(A)(ii), and
(2) by striking ``higher education'' in the heading
thereof.
(c) Eligible Long-Term Care Expenses.--Section 135(c) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions)
is amended by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5)
and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Eligible long-term care expenses.--The term `eligible
long-term care expenses' means qualified long-term care
expenses (as defined in section 7702B(c)) and eligible long-
term care premiums (as defined in section 213(d)(10)) of--
``(A) the taxpayer,
``(B) the taxpayer's spouse, or
``(C) any dependent of the taxpayer with respect to whom
the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 151.''.
(d) Adjustments.--Section 135(d) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to special rules) is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (4) and
(5), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (2) the
following new paragraph:
``(3) Eligible long-term care expense adjustments.--The
amount of eligible long-term care expenses otherwise taken
into account under subsection (a) with respect to an
individual shall be reduced (before the application of
subsection (b)) by the sum of--
``(A) any amount paid for qualified long-term care services
(as defined in section 7702B(c)) provided to such individual
and described in section 213(d)(11), plus
``(B) any amount received by the taxpayer or the taxpayer's
spouse or dependents for the payment of eligible long-term
care expenses which is excludable from gross income.''.
(e) Coordination With Deductions.--
(1) Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to medical, dental, etc., expenses) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Coordination With Savings Bond Income Used for
Expenses.--Any expense taken into account in determining the
exclusion under section 135 shall not be treated as an
expense paid for medical care.''.
(2) Section 162(l) of such Code (relating to special rules
for health insurance costs of self-employed individuals) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Coordination with savings bond income used for
expenses.--Any expense taken into account in determining the
exclusion under section 135 shall not be treated as an
expense paid for medical care.''.
(f) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) The heading for section 135 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``AND LONG-TERM CARE
EXPENSEST1'' after ``FEES''.
(2) The item relating to section 135 in the table of
sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such
Code is amended by inserting ``and long-term care expenses''
after ``fees''.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1999.
______

By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Abraham):
S. 2067. A bill to provide education and training for the information
age; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

america's math and science excellence act

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce America's Math and
Science Excellence Act that will keep the United States on the cutting
edge of the Information Technology (IT) revolution. If we are to
prepare our children to meet the demands of our future workforce, we
must dedicate ourselves to strengthening math and science literacy.
America's Math and Science Excellence Act would authorize funding for
math and science education and training through a series of grants
awarded by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology. This bill would create a long-term
strategy to ensure that the IT industry is employing American students
who are prepared to enter the workforce with sufficient math and
science skills necessary to compete both domestically and
internationally.
The Third International Math and Science Study, the most
comprehensive and rigorous comparison of quantitative skills across
nations, reveals that the longer our students stay in the elementary
and public school system, the worse they perform on standardized tests.
Their average tests scores continue to drop from the fourth to the
twelfth grade. The rapidly changing technology revolution demands
skills and proficiency in mathematics, science, and technology. IT,
perhaps the fastest growing sector of our economy, relies on more than
basic high school literacy in mathematics and science.
This bipartisan legislation targets three specific goals:
establishing teacher training and development outreach, providing
internship opportunities for students in secondary and higher
education, and assisting graduate math, science, and engineering
students. America's Math and Science Excellence Act gives priority to
applicants who obtain private sector or state matching funds. We must
encourage private industry to not only get involved in the education of
the future workforce, but also to help direct and guide it.
According to a study by the CEO Forum on Education and Technology,
our schools spend an average of $88 per student on computers and only
$6 on teacher training. And while the nation's 87,000 schools have
approximately six million computers and about 80 percent of the schools
have Internet access, the report stated that few teachers are ready to
use the technology in their lessons. This is a national tragedy. During
the past ten years, we have seen a transformation in classrooms
throughout the country. Computers have replaced blackboards and
students now depend on the Internet for basic knowledge. Yet teachers
are not equipped to incorporate technological tools into their
curricula.
The ``IT Teacher Training Grants'' created by this legislation
support professional advancement in the related fields of IT for
teachers who instruct elementary, secondary, or charter school
students. These grants may be used for teacher salaries, fees for
attending special conferences, workshops, or training sessions. They
may also be used for the development of a compensation system that
rewards excellence in math and science related areas. In administering
these grants, the National Science Foundation shall give priority
consideration to schools that score in the 25th percentile or below for
academic performance according to their respective state standards, and
programs that provide matching funds from the private sector.

The ``Twenty-First Century Workforce Internship Grants'' will consist
of awards to students in secondary schools, as well as students from
institutions of higher learning to explore internships in IT. The goal
of this program is to transition students' math and science skills into
the new digital workforce. By providing them with opportunities to
explore the private sector, these grants will enable the next
generation of labor to experience the IT professional domain, while
maintaining their knowledge and proficiency in basic math, science, and
engineering skills.
The national demand for computer scientists, computer engineers, and
systems analysts by 2006 is projected to be more than double our
current capacity. In addition, the supply of new graduates qualified
for these positions is expected to fall significantly short of the
number needed. This deficiency of qualified workers in the United
States

[[Page S626]]

is due in part to a lack of students pursuing advanced degrees in
mathematics, science, and engineering technology. The number of degrees
in technical science and engineering fields awarded by American
institutions of higher learning has declined dramatically since 1990.
Foreign national students in the United States were awarded 47 percent
of Doctorate degrees in engineering, 38 percent of Master's degrees,
and 46 percent of Doctorate degrees in computer science in 1996. The
``IT State Scholarship Program,'' established in this legislation,
targets individual states to provide them with supplementary
scholarships for students who want to pursue graduate and doctoral
degrees in math, science, engineering, or related fields. Two-thirds of
these funds shall be awarded to students from low-income families.
Furthermore, the director of the National Science Foundation shall
award these grants to states who provide at least one half of the cost
of grant.
Finally, this act will reauthorize the National Institutes of
Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop a Twenty-First Century
Teacher Enhancement Program. This initiative was originally written
into statute as part of the ``Technology Administration Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1999.'' However, we have yet to see the
implementation of this program. So I will again request through
legislation that NIST establish summer program to provide professional
development for elementary and secondary math and science teachers. I
continue to believe that offering teachers opportunities to participate
in ``hands-on'' experiences at NIST laboratories would be invaluable to
their understanding of math and science. Not only would this program
develop and improve their teaching strategies and self-confidence in
instructing math and science, but it would also demonstrate their
impact on commerce.
We cannot continue to marvel at our robust economy without also
looking toward the next century and developing a plan to sustain it.
The reality is simple: we must prepare our students to enter the
workforce and to prosper in the new digital economy. It is not enough
to put computers in every classroom if our nation's teachers cannot
implement them effectively into their daily lesson plans. Educating our
children and the teachers who instruct them is essential to our
economic future.
Mr. President, I strongly believe that each of the programs within
America's Math and Science Excellence Act will encourage state and
local educators, as well as private industry, to engage themselves in
the fight to increase basic math and science literacy. These grants
target specific long-term deficiencies in the IT workforce shortage and
will help create innovative solutions to our current national dilemma.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this critical piece
of legislation.
______

By Mr. GREGG:
S. 2068. A bill to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission
from establishing rules authorizing the operation of new, low power FM
radio stations; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

the radio broadcasting presentation act of 2000

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Radio
Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000. On January 20, 2000, the FCC
approved a new non-commercial low-power FM (LPFM) radio service. In
order for LPFM stations to fit in the FM band, the FCC will have to
significantly weaken the existing interference protections it developed
and has subscribed to for decades. The public commentary and technical
analysis shows that LPFM will cause interference with current FM
stations, and thus result in a loss of service to listeners. It is
imperative that the integrity of the spectrum is protected and that all
individuals have access to local news, weather and emergency
information free from interference. Both public and commercial radio
stations are opposed to the FCC's proposal in its current form.

These new FCC rules are inconsistent with sound spectrum management.
I believe that this issue requires further study, as well as
Congressional hearings, to fully examine the impact that LPFM would
have on existing FM radio service. Therefore, I am introducing the
Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act. This legislation would repeal any
prescribed rules authorizing LPFM and revoke LPFM licenses that may be
issued prior to the date of enactment of this bill.
While the desire to provide a forum for community groups to have a
greater voice is laudable, a multitude of alternatives already exist.
Currently, groups may obtain commercial or noncommercial radio
licenses, use public access cable, publish newsletters, and utilize
Internet web sites and e-mail. It is important that our efforts to
create more opportunities for those who support LPFM do not lead to the
denial of access for others who depend on FM radio for safety, news,
and entertainment. For instance, inexpensive and older radios,
particularly vulnerable to interference and most commonly used by low-
income and elderly listeners, will sustain the greatest negative impact
caused by LPFM.
Furthermore, it is not clear whether the relaxation of first, second,
or third adjacent channel protection standards will have an adverse
effect on the transition to digital radio. Unlike television
broadcasters, who are being given additional free spectrum to broadcast
in digital format, radio broadcasters must use the current spectrum
allocations to transmit both digital and analog signals, making
adjacent channel safeguards all the more important. At a minimum,
adding a large number of LPFMs to the already congested FM band will
make the transition to digital radio increasingly difficult and
problematic.
Finally, the new low-power proposal makes formerly unlicensed, pirate
radio operators eligible for LPFM licenses. This ruling re-enforces
their unlawful behavior and encourages future illegal activity by
opening the door to new unauthorized broadcasters. The introduction of
thousands of LPFM stations not only rewards illegal activity, but is
certain to undermine the integrity of the radio spectrum, interfering
with current FM service and penalizing the listening public. The radio
programming supplied to listeners by existing radio stations provides
crucial news, weather, and emergency information, as well as cultural
entertainment, which must be preserved.
I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill
follows:

S. 2068

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 ``Radio Broadcasting
Preservation Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

(a) Rules Prohibited.--Notwithstanding section 303 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 303), the Federal
Communications Commission shall not prescribe rules
authorizing the operation of new, low power FM radio
stations, or establishing a low power radio service, as
proposed in MM Docket No. 99-25.
(b) Termination of Previously Prescribed Rules.--Any rules
prescribed by the Federal Communications Commission before
the date of the enactment of this Act that would be in
violation of the prohibition in subsection (a) if prescribed
after such date shall cease to be effective on such date. Any
low power radio licenses issued pursuant to such rules before
such date shall be void.
______

By Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 2070. A bill to improve safety standards for child restraints in
motor vehicles; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

THE CHILD PASSENGER SAFETY ACT OF 2000

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation
that will help us fight one of the leading killers of America's
children--the automobile collision. Car crashes account for 1 of every
3 deaths among children.
In the United States we lose an average of 7 of our children every
day to car collisions. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, crash injuries are the leading cause of death for the 5 to 12
year old age group. Regrettably, up to half of the deaths involve
children who already are buckled up or restrained in car seats and
booster seats.
That is why I am introducing legislation to substantially improve the
child safety seats that we buy to protect our children. My bill, ``The
Child Passenger

[[Page S627]]

Safety Act of 2000,'' would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to improve the safety features of car seats, to upgrade
the way we test and certify car seats, to consider adopting measures to
better protect older children, and to give parents the information they
need to shop for, and install, safe car seats for their children.
Over the years, NHTSA has implemented many measures to improve child
passenger safety. I applaud, in particular, the NHTSA Administrator's
recent efforts to implement a new tether requirement for child seat
makers and automobile manufacturers.
But we cannot allow these past successes to obscure a fundamental
fact: too many of our children are killed or injured in car crashes
every day. We should not wait to begin upgrading the safety of child
car seats and booster seats.
The first thing this bill seeks to do is to improve the testing of
car seats and booster seats. It calls for the government to consider
using more dummies that simulate children of many different ages in
these tests. A six-month old has a very different build than an
eighteen-month-old, and an eighteen-month-old is very different from a
six-year old. In Europe, they use as many as six different child
dummies in testing their car seats and booster seats, ranging in age
from newborn to ten years. In this country, we do not crash test child
safety seats with dummies that represent a premature infant, an
eighteen-month-old or a ten-year-old.
Currently, we test car seats on a sled. My bill directs NHTSA to put
car seats in some of the actual cars that already are being tested
under an existing program. Under this program, called the ``New Car
Assessment Program,'' the government buys 40 or so vehicles and crash
tests them to see how each would perform in a collision in the real
world. Why, Mr. President, could we not put at least one car seat or
booster seat in each of these cars? Doing it would help us better
understand how these safety seats perform in the real world.
In addition, my bill calls for the government to study ways to update
the seat bench that is used in tests of child safety seats to better
reflect the design of modern vehicles. The seat bench from a 1975 Chevy
Impala with lap belts is what we now use to test car seats.
I am also asking the government to focus attention on how car seats
and booster seats perform in rollover, rear-impact, and side-impact
crashes, as they do in Europe. These types of crashes are not as common
as frontal collisions, but they result in a number of injuries and
deaths. Finally, my proposal calls upon NHTSA to increase the funds
they spend on testing car seats each year to at least $750,000, from
the current $500,000.
Second, we must deal with the problem of head injuries in side-impact
crashes and rollovers. Children's heads and necks are even more
vulnerable than those of adults, because children's heads are larger in
proportion to the rest of their bodies. In Europe, car seats have side
impact padding to better protect children's heads in these types of
crashes. My bill would require car seat manufacturers in the U.S. to
provide the same type of protection.
Third, we must focus more attention on an issue that auto safety
advocates have dubbed ``the forgotten child'' problem. The ``forgotten
children'' (ages 8-12) have outgrown their car seats but do not fit
properly in adult seat belts. In crashes, they are at greater risk than
other passengers. My bill calls for NHTSA to close this child safety
seat gap, but it leaves it up to NHTSA to decide when and how to do
that. The agency could, for example, encourage the states to pass more
laws requiring the use of booster seats for older children. They could
do it by mounting a public information campaign about the importance of
booster seats. Or they could amend our safety standards for seat belts.
Fourth and finally, we must get more information to parents about the
safety of various car seats on the market today, as well, Mr.
President, as on the correct means of installing car seats. My bill
directs NHTSA to institute a new crash test results information system
that will help equip parents with the safety information and knowledge
they need to make rational choices when they are buying and installing
car seats for their children. My bill also requires that the warning
labels on child seats be straightforward and written in plain English.
Next week is National Child Passenger Safety Week. What better time
than now to make these efforts to protect our children? I urge my
colleagues to support this vitally important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2070

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 ``Child Passenger Protection
Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) each day, an average of 7 children are killed and 866
injured in motor vehicle crashes;
(2) certain standards and testing procedures for child
restraints in the United States are not as rigorous as those
in some other countries;
(3) although the Federal Government establishes safety
standards for child restraints, the Federal Government--
(A) permits companies that manufacture child restraints to
conduct their own tests for compliance with the safety
standards and interpret the results of those tests, but does
not require that the manufacturers make the results of the
tests public;
(B) has not updated test standards for child restraints--
(i) to reflect the modern designs of motor vehicles in use
as of the date of enactment of this Act;
(ii) to take into account the effects of a side-impact
crash, a rear-impact crash, or a rollover crash; and
(iii) to require the use of anthropomorphic devices that
accurately reflect the heights and masses of children at ages
other than newborn, 9 months, 3 years, and 6 years; and
(C) has not issued motor vehicle safety standards that
adequately protect children up to the age of 12 who weigh
more than 50 pounds; and
(4) the Federal Government should update the test standards
for child restraints to reduce the number of children killed
or injured in automobile accidents in the United States.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Child restraint.--The term ``child restraint'' has the
meaning given the term ``child restraint system'' in section
571.213 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (as in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Transportation.

SEC. 4. TESTING OF CHILD RESTRAINTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall update and improve
crash test standards and conditions for child restraints.
(b) Elements for Consideration.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the Secretary shall consider--
(1) whether to conduct more comprehensive and dynamic
testing of child restraints than is typically conducted as of
the date of enactment of this Act, including the use of test
platforms designed--
(A) to simulate an array of accident conditions, such as
side-impact crashes, rear-impact crashes, and rollover
crashes; and
(B) to reflect the designs of passenger motor vehicles in
use as of the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) whether to use an increased number of anthropomorphic
devices in a greater variety of heights and masses; and
(3) whether to provide improved protection in motor vehicle
accidents for children up to 59.2 inches tall who weigh more
than 50 pounds.
(c) Required Elements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) require that manufacturers design child restraints to
minimize head injuries during side-impact and rollover
crashes, including requiring that child restraints have side-
impact protection;
(2) include a child restraint in each vehicle crash-tested
under the New Car Assessment Program of the Department of
Transportation; and
(3) prescribe readily understandable text for any labels
that are required to be placed on child restraints.
(d) Funding.--For each fiscal year, of the funds made
available to the Secretary for activities relating to safety,
not less than $750,000 shall be made available to carry out
crash testing of child restraints.

SEC. 5. CHILD RESTRAINT SAFETY RATING PROGRAM.

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall develop and implement a safety
rating program for child restraints to provide practicable,
readily understandable, and timely information to parents and
caretakers for use in making informed decisions in the
purchase of child restraints.
______

By Mr. GORTON:
S. 2071. A bill to benefit electricity consumers by promoting the
reliability

[[Page S628]]

of the bulk-power system; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.

electric reliability 2000 act

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I introduce the Electric
Reliability 2000 Act, a measure that deals with the somewhat mysterious
world of the bulk electricity system. Although most Americans are not
experts on the intricacies of interstate electric transmission grids,
they need to have confidence that the system will work and their lights
and heat will be there when they need them.
This nation's interstate electric transmission system is an extremely
complex network that connects with Canada and Mexico. It has developed
over decades with various voluntary agreements that allow areas to work
together depending on changing power needs that vary from day to day
and hour to hour and sometimes minute to minute. These voluntary
agreements were developed after a disastrous event in 1965 led to a
blackout in New York City and throughout other parts of the Northeast.
Yet a fundamental change has made this voluntary system unworkable
for the future. With the expansion of competition in the wholesale
electricity market--starting with the 1992 Energy Policy Act--the
system of buying and selling wholesale power is now many times more
complex than it was just a decade ago. With a stronger economy,
electricity usage has increased while thousands of new electricity
marketers and buyers have created new stresses on the system.
These stresses to the system have affected many parts of the country.
In August 1996, a sagging power line in Oregon made contact with a
tree, and combined with other factors led to a power outage that
affected over 7 million consumers along the West Coast. Other outages
have occurred in different parts of the country since that time.
To address this situation, more than a year ago a group of
electricity industry officials began meeting to develop legislative
language needed in this new era in electricity. They developed
provisions that have been included as a small part of several bills,
including the larger restructuring bills developed in the House and by
the Clinton administration.
Events in recent months have lent urgency to this issue. I believe it
is time to separate the issue of electricity reliability from the
larger issue of restructuring. Our continued economic growth is fueled
by electricity, and we need to assure the public that the power will be
there for their homes and their jobs when they count on it.
The stresses in the system continue to mount. In the summer of 1999,
Americans experienced a wide-range of severe electricity outages. The
Department of Energy created a team of experts to investigate these
outages, and it submitted its report last month. I quote from the
report's summary:

In anticipation of competitive markets, some utilities have
adopted a strategy of cost cutting that involves reduced
spending on reliability. In addition, responsibility for
reliability management has been disaggregated to multiple
institutions, with utilities, independent system operators,
independent power producers, customers, and markets all
playing a role. The overall effect has been that the
infrastructure for reliability assurance has been
considerably eroded.

The report continues:

Moreover, historical levels of electric reliability may not
be adequate for the future. The quality of electric power and
the assurance that it will always be available are
increasingly important in a society that is ever more
dependent on electricity.

The report includes several findings that suggest a range of policy
questions that need to be addressed in order to assure the reliability
of the Nation's bulk power system.
The bill I introduce today includes what has been termed the
``consensus language'' that was developed over the past year by these
experts who work on the reliability side of the electricity industry.
This bill is not the complete solution to the reliability issue for
this industry. It is a good starting point. It creates a process to
develop enforceable rules for the bulk-power system, while giving
various regions the ability to tailor these rules in ways that make
sense for their individual systems and their specific geography.
In addition to setting up rules and a referee to enforce these rules,
``reliability'' also involves many other facets of the electricity
industry that are not addressed in this bill: full and open access to
transmission systems, effective conservation programs that can help
reduce peak system demands, the ability to site electricity generation
plants closer to the loads they serve, promoting small-scale
distributed generation, such as fuel-cells, throughout the grid, and
many other wide-ranging actions. Until we can gain a greater consensus
of the need to address these issues, this bill provides the opportunity
to begin these discussions.
Despite being described as a consensus bill, there may need to be
changes to this legislative language so that it is effective. For
example, there are ongoing discussions about the appropriate role for
State regulators as their responsibilities relate to the interstate
transmission system. Therefore I respectfully request Chairman
Murkowski to conduct hearings on this serious issue of the reliability
of the bulk power system and also to hold hearings on this bill as the
starting point for solving this problem.
Mr. President, I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in the
Record.
The bill follows:

S. 2071

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 ``Electric Reliability 2000
Act''.

SEC. 2. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY ORGANIZATION.

(a) In General.--Part II of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 824 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 215. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY ORGANIZATION.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Affiliated regional reliability entity.--The term
`affiliated regional reliability entity' means an entity
delegated authority under subsection (h).
``(2) Bulk-power system.--
``(A) In general.--The term `bulk-power system' means all
facilities and control systems necessary for operating an
interconnected electric power transmission grid or any
portion of an interconnected transmission grid.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `bulk-power system' includes--
``(i) high voltage transmission lines, substations, control
centers, communications, data, and operations planning
facilities necessary for the operation of all or any part of
the interconnected transmission grid; and
``(ii) the output of generating units necessary to maintain
the reliability of the transmission grid.
``(3) Bulk-power system user.--The term `bulk-power system
user' means an entity that--
``(A) sells, purchases, or transmits electric energy over a
bulk-power system; or
``(B) owns, operates, or maintains facilities or control
systems that are part of a bulk-power system; or
``(C) is a system operator.
``(4) Electric reliability organization.--The term
`electric reliability organization' means the organization
designated by the Commission under subsection (d).
``(5) Entity rule.--The term `entity rule' means a rule
adopted by an affiliated regional reliability entity for a
specific region and designed to implement or enforce 1 or
more organization standards.
``(6) Independent director.--The term `independent
director' means a person that--
``(A) is not an officer or employee of an entity that would
reasonably be perceived as having a direct financial interest
in the outcome of a decision by the board of directors of the
electric reliability organization; and
``(B) does not have a relationship that would interfere
with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the
responsibilities of a director of the electric reliability
organization.
``(7) Industry sector.--The term `industry sector' means a
group of bulk-power system users with substantially similar
commercial interests, as determined by the board of directors
of the electric reliability organization.
``(8) Interconnection.--The term `interconnection' means a
geographic area in which the operation of bulk-power system
components is synchronized so that the failure of 1 or more
of the components may adversely affect the ability of the
operators of other components within the interconnection to
maintain safe and reliable operation of the facilities within
their control.
``(9) Organization standard.--
``(A) In general.--The term `organization standard' means a
policy or standard adopted by the electric reliability
organization to provide for the reliable operation of a bulk-
power system.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `organization standard'
includes--
``(i) an entity rule approved by the electric reliability
organization; and
``(ii) a variance approved by the electric reliability
organization.
``(10) Public interest group.--

[[Page S629]]

``(A) In general.--The term `public interest group' means a
nonprofit private or public organization that has an interest
in the activities of the electric reliability organization.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `public interest group'
includes--
``(i) a ratepayer advocate;
``(ii) an environmental group; and
``(iii) a State or local government organization that
regulates participants in, and promulgates government policy
with respect to, the market for electric energy.
``(11) System operator.--
``(A) In general.--The term `system operator' means an
entity that operates or is responsible for the operation of a
bulk-power system.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `system operator' includes--
``(i) a control area operator;
``(ii) an independent system operator;
``(iii) a transmission company;
``(iv) a transmission system operator; and
``(v) a regional security coordinator.
``(12) Variance.--The term `variance' means an exception
from the requirements of an organization standard (including
a proposal for an organization standard in a case in which
there is no organization standard) that is adopted by an
affiliated regional reliability entity and is applicable to
all or a part of the region for which the affiliated regional
reliability entity is responsible.
``(b) Commission Authority.--
``(1) Jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding section 201(f), within
the United States, the Commission shall have jurisdiction
over the electric reliability organization, all affiliated
regional reliability entities, all system operators, and all
bulk-power system users, including entities described in
section 201(f), for purposes of approving organization
standards and enforcing compliance with this section.
``(2) Definition of terms.--The Commission may by
regulation define any term used in this section consistent
with the definitions in subsection (a) and the purpose and
intent of this Act.
``(c) Existing Reliability Standards.--
``(1) Submission to the commission.--Before designation of
an electric reliability organization under subsection (d),
any person, including the North American Electric Reliability
Council and its member Regional Reliability Councils, may
submit to the Commission any reliability standard, guidance,
practice, or amendment to a reliability standard, guidance,
or practice that the person proposes to be made mandatory and
enforceable.
``(2) Review by the commission.--The Commission, after
allowing interested persons an opportunity to submit
comments, may approve a proposed mandatory standard,
guidance, practice, or amendment submitted under paragraph
(1) if the Commission finds that the standard, guidance, or
practice is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.
``(3) Effect of approval.--A standard, guidance, or
practice shall be mandatory and applicable according to its
terms following approval by the Commission and shall remain
in effect until it is--
``(A) withdrawn, disapproved, or superseded by an
organization standard that is issued or approved by the
electric reliability organization and made effective by the
Commission under section (e); or
``(B) disapproved by the Commission if, on complaint or
upon motion by the Commission and after notice and an
opportunity for comment, the Commission finds the standard,
guidance, or practice to be unjust, unreasonable, unduly
discriminatory or preferential, or not in the public
interest.
``(4) Enforceability.--A standard, guidance, or practice in
effect under this subsection shall be enforceable by the
Commission.
``(d) Designation of Electric Reliability Organization.--
``(1) Regulations.--
``(A) Proposed regulations.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall
propose regulations specifying procedures and requirements
for an entity to apply for designation as the electric
reliability organization.
``(B) Notice and comment.--The Commission shall provide
notice and opportunity for comment on the proposed
regulations.
``(C) Final regulation.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall
promulgate final regulations under this subsection.
``(2) Application.--
``(A) Submission.--Following the promulgation of final
regulations under paragraph (1), an entity may submit an
application to the Commission for designation as the electric
reliability organization.
``(B) Contents.--The applicant shall describe in the
application--
``(i) the governance and procedures of the applicant; and
``(ii) the funding mechanism and initial funding
requirements of the applicant.
``(3) Notice and comment.--The Commission shall--
``(A) provide public notice of the application; and
``(B) afford interested parties an opportunity to comment.
``(4) Designation of electric reliability organization.--
The Commission shall designate the applicant as the electric
reliability organization if the Commission determines that
the applicant--
``(A) has the ability to develop, implement, and enforce
standards that provide for an adequate level of reliability
of bulk-power systems;
``(B) permits voluntary membership to any bulk-power system
user or public interest group;
``(C) ensures fair representation of its members in the
selection of its directors and fair management of its
affairs, taking into account the need for efficiency and
effectiveness in decisionmaking and operations and the
requirements for technical competency in the development of
organization standards and the exercise of oversight of bulk-
power system reliability;
``(D) ensures that no 2 industry sectors have the ability
to control, and no 1 industry sector has the ability to veto,
the applicant's discharge of its responsibilities as the
electric reliability organization (including actions by
committees recommending standards for approval by the board
or other board actions to implement and enforce standards);
``(E) provides for governance by a board wholly comprised
of independent directors;
``(F) provides a funding mechanism and requirements that--
``(i) are just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential and in the public interest; and
``(ii) satisfy the requirements of subsection (l);
``(G) has established procedures for development of
organization standards that--
``(i) provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public
comment, taking into account the need for efficiency and
effectiveness in decisionmaking and operations and the
requirements for technical competency in the development of
organization standards;
``(ii) ensure openness, a balancing of interests, and due
process; and
``(iii) includes alternative procedures to be followed in
emergencies;
``(H) has established fair and impartial procedures for
implementation and enforcement of organization standards,
either directly or through delegation to an affiliated
regional reliability entity, including the imposition of
penalties, limitations on activities, functions, or
operations, or other appropriate sanctions;
``(I) has established procedures for notice and opportunity
for public observation of all meetings, except that the
procedures for public observation may include alternative
procedures for emergencies or for the discussion of
information that the directors reasonably determine should
take place in closed session, such as litigation, personnel
actions, or commercially sensitive information;
``(J) provides for the consideration of recommendations of
States and State commissions; and
``(K) addresses other matters that the Commission considers
appropriate to ensure that the procedures, governance, and
funding of the electric reliability organization are just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in
the public interest.
``(5) Exclusive designation.--
``(A) In general.--The Commission shall designate only 1
electric reliability organization.
``(B) Multiple applications.--If the Commission receives 2
or more timely applications that satisfy the requirements of
this subsection, the Commission shall approve only the
application that the Commission determines will best
implement this section.
``(e) Organization Standards.--
``(1) Submission of proposals to commission.--
``(A) In general.--The electric reliability organization
shall submit to the Commission proposals for any new or
modified organization standards.
``(B) Contents.--A proposal submitted under subparagraph
(A) shall include--
``(i) a concise statement of the purpose of the proposal;
and
``(ii) a record of any proceedings conducted with respect
to the proposal.
``(2) Review by the commission.--
``(A) Notice and comment.--The Commission shall--
``(i) provide notice of a proposal under paragraph (1); and
``(ii) allow interested persons 30 days to submit comments
on the proposal.
``(B) Action by the commission.--
``(i) In general.--After taking into consideration any
submitted comments, the Commission shall approve or
disapprove a proposed organization standard not later than
the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of the
deadline for the submission of comments, except that the
Commission may extend the 60-day period for an additional 90
days for good cause.
``(ii) Failure to act.--If the Commission does not approve
or disapprove a proposal within the period specified in
clause (i), the proposed organization standard shall go into
effect subject to its terms, without prejudice to the
authority of the Commission to modify the organization
standard in accordance with the standards and requirements of
this section.
``(C) Effective date.--An organization standard approved by
the Commission shall take effect not earlier than 30 days
after the date of the Commission's order of approval.
``(D) Standards for approval.--
``(i) In general.--The Commission shall approve a proposed
new or modified organization standard if the Commission
determines the organization standard to be just,

[[Page S630]]

reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in
the public interest.
``(ii) Considerations.--In the exercise of its review
responsibilities under this subsection, the Commission--

``(I) shall give due weight to the technical expertise of
the electric reliability organization with respect to the
content of a new or modified organization standard; but
``(II) shall not defer to the electric reliability
organization with respect to the effect of the organization
standard on competition.

``(E) Remand.--A proposed organization standard that is
disapproved in whole or in part by the Commission shall be
remanded to the electric reliability organization for further
consideration.
``(3) Orders to develop or modify organization standards.--
The Commission, on complaint or on motion of the Commission,
may order the electric reliability organization to develop
and submit to the Commission, by a date specified in the
order, an organization standard or modification to an
existing organization standard to address a specific matter
if the Commission considers a new or modified organization
standard appropriate to carry out this section, and the
electric reliability organization shall develop and submit
the organization standard or modification to the Commission
in accordance with this subsection.
``(4) Variances and entity rules.--
``(A) Proposal.--An affiliated regional reliability entity
may propose a variance or entity rule to the electric
reliability organization.
``(B) Expedited consideration.--If expedited consideration
is necessary to provide for bulk-power system reliability,
the affiliated regional reliability entity may--
``(i) request that the electric reliability organization
expedite consideration of the proposal; and
``(ii) file a notice of the request with the Commission.
``(C) Failure to act.--
``(i) In general.--If the electric reliability organization
fails to adopt the variance or entity rule, in whole or in
part, the affiliated regional reliability entity may request
that the Commission review the proposal.
``(ii) Action by the commission.--If the Commission
determines, after a review of the request, that the action of
the electric reliability organization did not conform to the
applicable standards and procedures approved by the
Commission, or if the Commission determines that the variance
or entity rule is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory
or preferential, and in the public interest and that the
electric reliability organization has unreasonably rejected
or failed to act on the proposal, the Commission may--

``(I) remand the proposal for further consideration by the
electric reliability organization; or
``(II) order the electric reliability organization or the
affiliated regional reliability entity to develop a variance
or entity rule consistent with that requested by the
affiliated regional reliability entity.

``(D) Procedure.--A variance or entity rule proposed by an
affiliated regional reliability entity shall be submitted to
the electric reliability organization for review and
submission to the Commission in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (2).
``(5) Immediate effectiveness.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, a new or modified organization standard
shall take effect immediately on submission to the Commission
without notice or comment if the electric reliability
organization--
``(i) determines that an emergency exists requiring that
the new or modified organization standard take effect
immediately without notice or comment;
``(ii) notifies the Commission as soon as practicable after
making the determination;
``(iii) submits the new or modified organization standard
to the Commission not later than 5 days after making the
determination; and
``(iv) includes in the submission an explanation of the
need for immediate effectiveness.
``(B) Notice and comment.--The Commission shall--
``(i) provide notice of the new or modified organization
standard or amendment for comment; and
``(ii) follow the procedures set out in paragraphs (2) and
(3) for review of the new or modified organization standard.
``(6) Compliance.--Each bulk power system user shall comply
with an organization standard that takes effect under this
section.
``(f) Coordination With Canada and Mexico.--
``(1) Recognition.--The electric reliability organization
shall take all appropriate steps to gain recognition in
Canada and Mexico.
``(2) International agreements.--
``(A) In general.--The President shall use best efforts to
enter into international agreements with the appropriate
governments of Canada and Mexico to provide for--
``(i) effective compliance with organization standards; and
``(ii) the effectiveness of the electric reliability
organization in carrying out its mission and
responsibilities.
``(B) Compliance.--All actions taken by the electric
reliability organization, an affiliated regional reliability
entity, and the Commission shall be consistent with any
international agreement under subparagraph (A).
``(g) Changes in Procedure, Governance, or Funding.--
``(1) Submission to the commission.--The electric
reliability organization shall submit to the Commission--
``(A) any proposed change in a procedure, governance, or
funding provision; or
``(B) any change in an affiliated regional reliability
entity's procedure, governance, or funding provision relating
to delegated functions.
``(2) Contents.--A submission under paragraph (1) shall
include an explanation of the basis and purpose for the
change.
``(3) Effectiveness.--
``(A) Changes in procedure.--
``(i) Changes constituting a statement of policy, practice,
or interpretation.--A proposed change in procedure shall take
effect 90 days after submission to the Commission if the
change constitutes a statement of policy, practice, or
interpretation with respect to the meaning or enforcement of
the procedure.
``(ii) Other changes.--A proposed change in procedure other
than a change described in clause (i) shall take effect on a
finding by the Commission, after notice and opportunity for
comment, that the change--

``(I) is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest; and
``(II) satisfies the requirements of subsection (d)(4).

``(B) Changes in governance or funding.--A proposed change
in governance or funding shall not take effect unless the
Commission finds that the change--
``(i) is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest; and
``(ii) satisfies the requirements of subsection (d)(4).
``(4) Order to amend.--
``(A) In general.--The Commission, on complaint or on the
motion of the Commission, may require the electric
reliability organization to amend a procedural, governance,
or funding provision if the Commission determines that the
amendment is necessary to meet the requirements of this
section.
``(B) Filing.--The electric reliability organization shall
submit the amendment in accordance with paragraph (1).
``(h) Delegations of Authority.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Implementation and enforcement of compliance.--At the
request of an entity, the electric reliability organization
shall enter into an agreement with the entity for the
delegation of authority to implement and enforce compliance
with organization standards in a specified geographic area if
the electric reliability organization finds that--
``(i) the entity satisfies the requirements of
subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (F), (J), and (K) of
subsection (d)(4); and
``(ii) the delegation would promote the effective and
efficient implementation and administration of bulk-power
system reliability.
``(B) Other authority.--The electric reliability
organization may enter into an agreement to delegate to an
entity any other authority, except that the electric
reliability organization shall reserve the right to set and
approve standards for bulk-power system reliability.
``(2) Approval by the commission.--
``(A) Submission to the commission.--The electric
reliability organization shall submit to the Commission--
``(i) any agreement entered into under this subsection; and
``(ii) any information the Commission requires with respect
to the affiliated regional reliability entity to which
authority is delegated.
``(B) Standards for approval.--The Commission shall approve
the agreement, following public notice and an opportunity for
comment, if the Commission finds that the agreement--
``(i) meets the requirements of paragraph (1); and
``(ii) is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.
``(C) Rebuttable presumption.--A proposed delegation
agreement with an affiliated regional reliability entity
organized on an interconnection-wide basis shall be
rebuttably presumed by the Commission to promote the
effective and efficient implementation and administration of
the reliability of the bulk-power system.
``(D) Invalidity absent approval.--No delegation by the
electric reliability organization shall be valid unless the
delegation is approved by the Commission.
``(3) Procedures for entity rules and variances.--
``(A) In general.--A delegation agreement under this
subsection shall specify the procedures by which the
affiliated regional reliability entity may propose entity
rules or variances for review by the electric reliability
organization.
``(B) Interconnection-wide entity rules and variances.-- In
the case of a proposal for an entity rule or variance that
would apply on an interconnection-wide basis, the electric
reliability organization shall approve the entity rule or
variance unless the electric reliability organization makes a
written finding that the entity rule or variance--
``(i) was not developed in a fair and open process that
provided an opportunity for all interested parties to
participate;

[[Page S631]]

``(ii) would have a significant adverse impact on
reliability or commerce in other interconnections;
``(iii) fails to provide a level of reliability of the
bulk-power system within the interconnection such that the
entity rule or variance would be likely to cause a serious
and substantial threat to public health, safety, welfare, or
national security; or
``(iv) would create a serious and substantial burden on
competitive markets within the interconnection that is not
necessary for reliability.
``(C) Noninterconnection-wide entity rules and variances.--
In the case of a proposal for an entity rule or variance that
would apply only to part of an interconnection, the electric
reliability organization shall approve the entity rule or
variance if the affiliated regional reliability entity
demonstrates that the proposal--
``(i) was developed in a fair and open process that
provided an opportunity for all interested parties to
participate;
``(ii) would not have an adverse impact on commerce that is
not necessary for reliability;
``(iii) provides a level of bulk-power system reliability
that is adequate to protect public health, safety, welfare,
and national security and would not have a significant
adverse impact on reliability; and
``(iv) in the case of a variance, is based on a justifiable
difference between regions or subregions within the
affiliated regional reliability entity's geographic area.
``(D) Action by the electric reliability organization.--
``(i) In general.--The electric reliability organization
shall approve or disapprove a proposal under subparagraph (A)
within 120 days after the proposal is submitted.
``(ii) Failure to act.--If the electric reliability
organization fails to act within the time specified in clause
(i), the proposal shall be deemed to have been approved.
``(iii) Submission to the commission.--After approving a
proposal under subparagraph (A), the electric reliability
organization shall submit the proposal to the Commission for
approval under the procedures prescribed under subsection
(e).
``(E) Direct submissions.--An affiliated regional
reliability entity may not submit a proposal for approval
directly to the Commission except as provided in subsection
(e)(4).
``(4) Failure to reach delegation agreement.--
``(A) In general.--If an affiliated regional reliability
entity requests, consistent with paragraph (1), that the
electric reliability organization delegate authority to it,
but is unable within 180 days to reach agreement with the
electric reliability organization with respect to the
requested delegation, the entity may seek relief from the
Commission.
``(B) Review by the commission.--The Commission shall order
the electric reliability organization to enter into a
delegation agreement under terms specified by the Commission
if, after notice and opportunity for comment, the Commission
determines that--
``(i) a delegation to the affiliated regional reliability
entity would--

``(I) meet the requirements of paragraph (1); and
``(II) would be just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory
or preferential, and in the public interest; and

``(ii) the electric reliability organization unreasonably
withheld the delegation.
``(5) Orders to modify delegation agreements.--
``(A) In general.--On complaint, or on motion of the
Commission, after notice to the appropriate affiliated
regional reliability entity, the Commission may order the
electric reliability organization to propose a modification
to a delegation agreement under this subsection if the
Commission determines that--
``(i) the affiliated regional reliability entity--

``(I) no longer has the capacity to carry out effectively
or efficiently the implementation or enforcement
responsibilities under the delegation agreement;
``(II) has failed to meet its obligations under the
delegation agreement; or
``(III) has violated this section;

``(ii) the rules, practices, or procedures of the
affiliated regional reliability entity no longer provide for
fair and impartial discharge of the implementation or
enforcement responsibilities under the delegation agreement;
``(iii) the geographic boundary of a transmission entity
approved by the Commission is not wholly within the boundary
of an affiliated regional reliability entity, and the
difference in boundaries is inconsistent with the effective
and efficient implementation and administration of bulk-power
system reliability; or
``(iv) the agreement is inconsistent with a delegation
ordered by the Commission under paragraph (4).
``(B) Suspension.--
``(i) In general.--Following an order to modify a
delegation agreement under subparagraph (A), the Commission
may suspend the delegation agreement if the electric
reliability organization or the affiliated regional
reliability entity does not propose an appropriate and timely
modification.
``(ii) Assumption of responsibilities.--If a delegation
agreement is suspended, the electric reliability organization
shall assume the responsibilities delegated under the
delegation agreement.
``(i) Organization Membership.--Each system operator shall
be a member of--
``(1) the electric reliability organization; and
``(2) any affiliated regional reliability entity operating
under an agreement effective under subsection (h) applicable
to the region in which the system operator operates, or is
responsible for the operation of, a transmission facility.
``(j) Enforcement.--
``(1) Disciplinary actions.--
``(A) In general.--Consistent with procedures approved by
the Commission under subsection (d)(4)(H), the electric
reliability organization may impose a penalty, limitation on
activities, functions, or operations, or other disciplinary
action that the electric reliability organization finds
appropriate against a bulk-power system user if the electric
reliability organization, after notice and an opportunity for
interested parties to be heard, issues a finding in writing
that the bulk-power system user has violated an organization
standard.
``(B) Notification.--The electric reliability organization
shall immediately notify the Commission of any disciplinary
action imposed with respect to an act or failure to act of a
bulk-power system user that affected or threatened to affect
bulk-power system facilities located in the United States.
``(C) Right to petition.--A bulk-power system user that is
the subject of disciplinary action under paragraph (1) shall
have the right to petition the Commission for a modification
or rescission of the disciplinary action.
``(D) Injunctions.--If the electric reliability
organization finds it necessary to prevent a serious threat
to reliability, the electric reliability organization may
seek injunctive relief in the United States district court
for the district in which the affected facilities are
located.
``(E) Effective date.--
``(i) In general.--Unless the Commission, on motion of the
Commission or on application by the bulk-power system user
that is the subject of the disciplinary action, suspends the
effectiveness of a disciplinary action, the disciplinary
action shall take effect on the 30th day after the date on
which--

``(I) the electric reliability organization submits to the
Commission--

``(aa) a written finding that the bulk-power system user
violated an organization standard; and
``(bb) the record of proceedings before the electric
reliability organization; and

``(II) the Commission posts the written finding on the
Internet.

``(ii) Duration.--A disciplinary action shall remain in
effect or remain suspended unless the Commission, after
notice and opportunity for hearing, affirms, sets aside,
modifies, or reinstates the disciplinary action.
``(iii) Expedited consideration.--The Commission shall
conduct the hearing under procedures established to ensure
expedited consideration of the action taken.
``(2) Compliance orders.-- The Commission, on complaint by
any person or on motion of the Commission, may order
compliance with an organization standard and may impose a
penalty, limitation on activities, functions, or operations,
or take such other disciplinary action as the Commission
finds appropriate, against a bulk-power system user with
respect to actions affecting or threatening to affect bulk-
power system facilities located in the United States if the
Commission finds, after notice and opportunity for a hearing,
that the bulk-power system user has violated or threatens to
violate an organization standard.
``(3) Other actions.--The Commission may take such action
as is necessary against the electric reliability organization
or an affiliated regional reliability entity to ensure
compliance with an organization standard, or any Commission
order affecting electric reliability organization or
affiliated regional reliability entity.
``(k) Reliability Reports.--The electric reliability
organization shall--
``(1) conduct periodic assessments of the reliability and
adequacy of the interconnected bulk-power system in North
America; and
``(2) report annually to the Secretary of Energy and the
Commission its findings and recommendations for monitoring or
improving system reliability and adequacy.
``(l) Assessment and Recovery of Certain Costs.--
``(1) In general.--The reasonable costs of the electric
reliability organization, and the reasonable costs of each
affiliated regional reliability entity that are related to
implementation or enforcement of organization standards or
other requirements contained in a delegation agreement
approved under subsection (h), shall be assessed by the
electric reliability organization and each affiliated
regional reliability entity, respectively, taking into
account the relationship of costs to each region and based on
an allocation that reflects an equitable sharing of the costs
among all electric energy consumers.
``(2) Rules.--The Commission shall provide by rule for the
review of costs and allocations under paragraph (1) in
accordance with the standards in this subsection and
subsection (d)(4)(F).
``(m) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the following activities are rebuttably presumed to be
in compliance with the antitrust laws of the United States:

[[Page S632]]

``(A) Activities undertaken by the electric reliability
organization under this section or affiliated regional
reliability entity operating under a delegation agreement
under subsection (h).
``(B) Activities of a member of the electric reliability
organization or affiliated regional reliability entity in
pursuit of the objectives of the electric reliability
organization or affiliated regional reliability entity under
this section undertaken in good faith under the rules of the
organization of the electric reliability organization or
affiliated regional reliability entity.
``(2) Availability of defenses.--In a civil action brought
by any person or entity against the electric reliability
organization or an affiliated regional reliability entity
alleging a violation of an antitrust law based on an activity
under this Act, the defenses of primary jurisdiction and
immunity from suit and other affirmative defenses shall be
available to the extent applicable.
``(n) Regional Advisory Role.--
``(1) Establishment of regional advisory body.--The
Commission shall establish a regional advisory body on the
petition of the Governors of at least two-thirds of the
States within a region that have more than one-half of their
electrical loads served within the region.
``(2) Membership.--A regional advisory body--
``(A) shall be composed of 1 member from each State in the
region, appointed by the Governor of the State; and
``(B) may include representatives of agencies, States, and
Provinces outside the United States, on execution of an
appropriate international agreement described in subsection
(f).
``(3) Functions.--A regional advisory body may provide
advice to the electric reliability organization, an
affiliated regional reliability entity, or the Commission
regarding--
``(A) the governance of an affiliated regional reliability
entity existing or proposed within a region;
``(B) whether a standard proposed to apply within the
region is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest; and
``(C) whether fees proposed to be assessed within the
region are--
``(i) just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest; and
``(ii) consistent with the requirements of subsection (l).
``(4) Deference.--In a case in which a regional advisory
body encompasses an entire interconnection, the Commission
may give deference to advice provided by the regional
advisory body under paragraph (3).
``(o) Applicability of Section.--This section does not
apply outside the 48 contiguous States.
``(p) Rehearings; Court Review of Orders.--Section 313
applies to an order of the Commission issued under this
section.''.
(b) Enforcement.--
(1) General penalties.--Section 316(c) of the Federal Power
Act (16 U.S.C. 825o(c)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``subsection'' and inserting ``section'';
and
(B) by striking ``or 214'' and inserting ``214 or 215''.
(2) Certain provisions.--Section 316A of the Federal Power
Act (16 U.S.C. 825o-1) is amended by striking ``or 214'' each
place it appears and inserting ``214, or 215''.
(c) Savings Clause.--[RESERVED]
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr.
Jeffords):
S. 2072. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to report to
Congress on the readiness of the heating oil and propane industries; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

the home heating readiness act

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President today I am introducing the Home Heating
Readiness Act, which I offer with Senators Lautenberg, Lieberman, and
Jeffords. The goal of this legislation is to prevent sharp and
sustained increases in the price of home heating fuel, like the kind of
price spike we are experiencing right now in Massachusetts and other
northeastern states.
Mr. President, at the end of December, the price of a gallon of home
heating oil in Massachusetts average $1.78 across the state, and in
some local areas consumers are complaining of prices as high as $2.00
per gallon. Only several weeks ago, when the weather was warmer, the
price was far lower, about $.98, but as soon as the weather turned
cold--as soon as families needed more oil to heat their homes--the
price spiked. I want to be clear, on average, it appears that this
winter will be warmer than most. Our problem is not the weather alone,
something else in the supply chain of heating oil has failed. The Home
Heating Readiness Act is an effort to learn, before it's too late, the
steps we can take to correct deficiencies and prevent price spikes.
Already the Energy Information Administration examines the price of
heating fuel each fall in a report called the Winter Fuels Outlook, and
the Administration has done, overall, an excellent job of examining
supply, demand and potential weather scenarios and estimating the price
of heating oil and propane. This legislation would ask the
Administration to go farther and examine the functional capability of
the industries, to search out potential problems and help us prevent or
mitigate them. It asks EIA to examine the global and regional crude oil
and refined product supplies; the adequacy and utilization of refinery
capability; the adequacy, utilization, and distribution of regional
refined product storage capacity; weather conditions; refined product
transportation system; market inefficiencies; and any other factor
affecting the functional capability of the industry to provide
affordable home heating oil and propane. In addition to identifying
problems, EIA will make recommendations on how those problems can be
corrected, and how price spikes can be avoided or at least mitigated.
Mr. President, with this legislation we are asking the EIA to do more
and we should appropriate more funding to get the job done. For now,
this legislation does not authorize a specific amount. It is my hope
that the Clinton administration will work with us to determine an
appropriate authorization level that we can add into this bill at an
appropriate time. To help alleviate our current fuel crises the Clinton
administration has released roughly $175 million to help low income
families. I want to applaud that decision--those resources are urgently
needed. However, I want to also point out that if we prevent these
price spikes with better evaluation of the industry, we may have to
spend less of those emergency funds in future winters. Finally, I want
to work with Energy and Natural Resources Committee to get its input on
how this proposal can be improved to meet our goals.
The old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
certainly holds true in this case, and I hope that we act to create the
Home Heating Readiness Report.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2072

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 ``Home Heating Readiness
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) in the United States, more than 10,000,000 households
burn heating oil and more than 5,000,000 burn propane to
generate space heat;
(2) sharp and sustained increases in the price of heating
oil and propane disproportionately harm poor and elderly
people with low and fixed incomes, who may be forced to
choose between heat and food, medicine, and other basic
necessities;
(3) sharp and sustained increases in the price of heating
oil and propane can negatively affect the national economy
and regional economies, and such increases have occurred in
the winters of 1983-84, 1988-89, 1996-97, and 1999-2000;
(4) sharp and sustained increases in the price of heating
oil and propane can be caused by--
(A) deficiencies in global or regional crude oil or refined
product supplies;
(B) inadequacy or underutilization of refinery capacity;
(C) inadequacy, underutilization, or disadvantageous
distribution of regional refined product storage capacity;
(D) adverse weather conditions;
(E) impediments to efficient and timely transportation of
refined product;
(F) market inefficiencies; and
(G) other factors affecting the functional capability of
the energy industry;
(5) the Energy Information Administration is charged with
analyzing the United States energy industry and markets and
providing projections on the retail price of energy products,
including heating oil and propane;
(6) future sharp and sustained increases in the national
and regional price of heating oil and propane can be avoided
or at least mitigated if--
(A) the Energy Information Administration identifies
potential failures in the functional capability of the energy
industry to provide affordable heating oil and propane to
consumers in all regions of the United States; and
(B) those potential failures are remedied; and
(7) avoiding sharp and sustained increases in the national
and regional price of heating oil and propane can reduce
Federal, State, and local expenditures to assist low-income

[[Page S633]]

and other households in need of financial assistance when
prices increase.

SEC. 3. ANNUAL HOME HEATING READINESS REPORTS.

(a) In General.--Part A of title I of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6211 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 108. ANNUAL HOME HEATING READINESS REPORTS.

``(a) In General.--On or before September 1 of each year,
Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Energy
Information Agency, shall submit to Congress a Home Heating
Readiness Report on the readiness of the heating oil and
propane industries to supply fuel under various weather
conditions, including rapid decreases in temperature.
``(b) Contents.--The Home Heating Readiness Report shall
include--
``(1) estimates of the consumption, expenditures, and
average price per gallon of heating oil and propane for the
upcoming period of October through March for various weather
conditions, with special attention to extreme weather, and
various regions of the country;
``(2) an evaluation of--
``(A) global and regional crude oil and refined product
supplies;
``(B) the adequacy and utilization of refinery capacity;
``(C) the adequacy, utilization, and distribution of
regional refined product storage capacity;
``(D) weather conditions;
``(E) the refined product transportation system;
``(F) market inefficiencies; and
``(G) any other factor affecting the functional capability
of the heating oil industry and propane industry that has the
potential to affect national or regional supplies and prices;
``(3) recommendations on steps that the Federal, State, and
local governments can take to prevent or alleviate the impact
of sharp and sustained increases in the price of heating oil
and propane; and
``(4) recommendations on steps that companies engaged in
the production, refining, storage, transportation of heating
oil or propane, or any other activity related to the heating
oil industry or propane industry, can take to prevent or
alleviate the impact of sharp and sustained increases in the
price of heating oil and propane.
``(c) Information Requests.--The Secretary may request
information necessary to prepare the Home Heating Readiness
Report from companies described in subsection (b)(4).''.
(b) Conforming and Technical Amendments.--The Energy Policy
and Conservation Act is amended--
(1) in the table of contents in the first section (42
U.S.C. prec. 6201), by inserting after the item relating to
section 106 the following:

``Sec. 107. Major fuel burning stationary source.
``Sec. 108. Annual home heating readiness reports.''; and
(2) in section 107 (42 U.S.C. 6215), by striking ``Sec.
107. (a) No Governor'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 107. MAJOR FUEL BURNING STATIONARY SOURCE.

``(a) No Governor''.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an extremely
serious problem plaguing the citizens of my state of Connecticut and
those throughout the Northeast--the skyrocketing cost of home heating
oil and the fear of higher gas prices that will follow.
This complaint may sound familiar to some of my colleagues,
particularly those similarly-situated in cold-weather states. Senator
Dodd and I and several others have repeatedly voiced concerns about the
volatility of the heating oil-gasoline marketplace over the last
several years, about the sudden swings in prices we have experienced as
a result of that volatility, and the threat it poses to the livelihood
of our constituents and the stability of our regional economy. The
situation now, though, is more dire than anything we have seen in
recent years. While I do not want to be an alarmist, I think it is
critical for my colleagues to understand the severity of the squeeze
many families and businesses are feeling and the potential for economic
havoc.
We are bordering on a real crisis. The average price of a gallon of
heating oil in the Northeast has jumped more than 100 percent since
mid-January. Many families are really struggling to pay their bills and
keep their families warm. Dealers and distributors are reporting
significant shortages throughout the region, which promises to send
prices spiraling even higher in the near term. And if this vicious
cycle of high demand and low supply continues to turn, and if the
weather stays the way it has, many households may literally be left out
in the cold, and their well-being put at risk.
It is not just consumers, though, who are being hit hard by this
price spike. It is also hurting a number of small businesses that are
not prepared to absorb this kind of sudden surge in costs. It sure is
hurting many small companies in the heating oil industry, the
independent distributors and retailers, who form the backbone of this
market. I have already heard of one oil dealer in Connecticut who owns
a family business and who needed to take out a second mortgage on his
home to make it through this hardship. It may not be long before others
join him. There is also the very real risk of some small dealers being
forced out of business.
As a result of all this, a conspicuous current of fear and
uncertainty is rippling throughout the Northeast. People are anxious
for some answers just as they are desperate for some relief. Like many
of my colleagues, my offices have been inundated with calls from around
the state from outraged homeowners demanding to know why their heating
bills are going through the roof and what we are doing to bring them
down.
We know that supplies are low and demand is high, and that is the
basic source of the problem. But it goes much deeper than that. The
decision made by OPEC to limit the production and supply of crude oil
on the international market has been a major factor. Our domestic
supply has shrunk considerably. Another factor has been the
temperature; the cold weather and strong winds have not only kept
demand high, they have frozen rivers and made it difficult at times for
oil barges to dock and unload their product. And some questions have to
be raised about the choices made by the major oil companies, while the
supply of crude oil may have been sufficient to meet demand, the
refiners may have made matters worse by focusing on turning out more
gasoline than heating oil in anticipation of a warmer winter. These
questions deserve more attention, and I intend to press for more
information about how these decisions are being made about utilization
of capacity, which are critical to determining oil supplies and by
extension oil prices.

But the complexity of this problem does not mean we are powerless to
help. Along with Senator Dodd and the rest of our state delegation, we
have been doing all we can to provide some immediate relief from these
spiraling prices and troubling shortages. One of our principal concerns
is for the low-income families who are being asked to choose between
putting food on the table and heating their homes. The price spike is
hitting these families the hardest, and we are doing our best to help
them make it through. A bipartisan coalition sent a letter to the
President two weeks ago urging him to quickly release emergency funds
from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which is a critical
first line of defense for our neighbors who are least able to cope with
sudden price surges. The President thankfully responded by releasing
$45 million for the disadvantaged families of New England, including
$3.1 million for those in Connecticut. This was a significant gesture,
but there are many families who won't benefit from it. That is why just
two days ago our coalition sent the President another letter requesting
that an additional $200 million in LIHEAP funding be released
immediately. I hope the President again hears our concerns and heeds
our call.
I am also concerned about the independent oil suppliers in the
Northeast. Most home heating oil distributors are small businesses with
few employees; these businesses are not always in the position to
weather severe price fluctuations or shortages as we are seeing now.
Part of the problem is that small oil dealers often must pay the high
price of crude oil from large wholesalers before they are able to
collect on oil sales to residential homes. This leaves them with few
reserves to make due. To help relieve the burden on these businesses, I
have asked the Small Business Administration to make available a
package of short turnaround loans and technical assistance. The SBA has
been highly sensitive to this problem, and they are moving quickly to
spread the word around the region about these options.

[[Page S634]]

Along with several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I
have supported and continue to support a drawdown of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve as a way to quickly boost stocks in the Northeast and
thereby quickly reduce prices. Senator Dodd and I and several of our
colleagues from neighboring states have lobbied hard for the
Administration to take that step. We have cosponsored legislation that
explicitly authorizes the Secretary of Energy to tap the SPR in these
circumstances. We wrote the President two weeks ago urging him to
approve a drawdown as soon as possible. And shortly thereafter we met
with Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to plead this case directly. The
Secretary unfortunately has been reluctant to pursue this option, but
we have not given up hope of changing his mind, and will continue to
push our argument.
While we believe the SPR drawdown is critical to getting us through
this short-term emergency, it is not a long-term solution. It will not
and cannot defuse the volatility of the heating oil marketplace. But
there are a number of steps we can take to prevent these disruptive
price spikes from cycling in and out. First, it is important that we
convince leaders of the oil-producing nations that colluding to hold
down supply is not in their long-term interest. As we have seen, prices
of oil have indeed gone up, but there is growing resentment of the
policies of OPEC as our citizens feel a strengthening pinch. It is
important that these countries understand that if they continue with
this strategy, they may jeopardize good relations with the United
States. Secretary Richardson will soon be meeting with OPEC's leaders,
and we are pressing him to forcefully communicate this message to our
allies and trading partners.

Second, we should take a hard look at the use of interruptible gas
contracts by natural gas suppliers and the evidence that these
contracts may be exacerbating the volatility of the heating oil market.
These ``interruptible" contracts can be obtained at a discount rate in
exchange for giving the contractor the ability to suspend service when
gas supply is low or demand is high. When these contracts are
interrupted, many customers typically turn to heating oil as their
preferred alternative, creating a sudden, secondary demand jolt to the
oil market. I have heard from a number of leaders in the heating oil
industry who fear that this is exactly what is happening now. We need
to better understand the level of additional heating oil demand caused
by these types of contracts and be able to anticipate demand
fluctuations as accurately as possible so that we may avoid future
situations where demand exceeds supply. For that reason, I recently
asked Secretary Richardson to investigate the extent and impact of
interruptible contracts, and to report back to us on his findings to
determine what if anything we should do about this practice.
Our current situation points to the fundamental problem that we are
far too dependent upon foreign oil for our energy needs. We need to
employ long-term strategies to decrease our reliance upon foreign
nations and bolster our own energy capacity. Many of us have
cosponsored legislation in the past to increase research and
development funding for renewable energy sources. We need to invest
time, money, and an increased level of effort in the development of
energy efficient power sources such as wind, solar, and natural gas. I
will continue to work toward this goal and I strongly urge my
colleagues to do so as well.
Mr. President, as I said, I rise to speak about a very serious
problem plaguing the citizens of Connecticut and the Northeast; that
is, the skyrocketing cost of home heating oil and the fear of higher
gas prices that will come with the warmer weather. There is a very
complicated situation as to why it exists.
It begins with the decision by the OPEC cartel to reduce the supply
of oil. It goes to the decision of some oil companies not to refine
adequate supplies of home heating oil. Whatever the complexity, it does
not mean that we are powerless to help.
Senator Dodd and I, and the rest of our delegation, on earlier
occasions, with colleagues from throughout the Northeast from both
parties, have appealed to the President to release Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program funding. He did that--$45 million worth.
We have another request in now for an additional $200 million. It is
that bad in our State.
The real answer to this is to open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
and effect the laws of supply and demand, 560 million barrels of oil
that we, the taxpayers, U.S. Government own. This is the time to use
it.
Up until now, Secretary Richardson and the administration have
refused to do so. I appeal to them today on behalf of the people of
Connecticut who are suffering under the shock of doubling and in some
cases tripling of what they pay for home heating oil. Please open up
the reserve. There is now a new idea of swaps, not selling the oil but
allowing the oil companies to take it out of reserve, bring it into the
market, increase supply, lower price, and then put oil back into the
reserve, even a higher amount.
The short of it is, we are in crisis in the Northeast. It is a crisis
that, if it is not stopped and is allowed to go on, with higher
gasoline prices that will affect the rest of the country in spring
time, it will begin to create the kind of inflation that will cut the
economic growth we have enjoyed.

____________________