[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1316-S1326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bond, 
        Mr. Bunning, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
        Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
        Gramm, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        McConnell, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Stevens, 
        Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
        Abraham, Mr. Hagel):
  S. 2214. A bill to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas 
leasing program that will result in an environmentally sound and job 
creating program for the exploration, development, and production of 
the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


   legislation to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas 
                            leasing program

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me advise you, yesterday at the 
close of business, the posted price of oil was $34.13 a barrel. The Dow 
was down 374 points. The share price of one company, Procter & Gamble, 
plunged 30 percent as a consequence of their third quarter profits 
falling off because of the high cost of oil.
  We have a crisis in this country. Today, I rise to introduce 
legislation on behalf of myself and 33 other Members that I believe, 
and they believe with me, offers the United States its best chance to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil; that is, by producing more oil 
domestically.
  We have seen the oil price rise in the last year from roughly $10 to 
over $30 a barrel. That is a pretty dramatic increase. There is an 
inflation factor associated with this. While we have not really 
addressed it, it is fair to say that for every $10 increase in the 
price of a barrel of oil, there is an inflation factor of about a half 
of 1 percent. Alan Greenspan has been quoted as saying, ``I have never 
seen a price spike on oil that I have ever ignored.''
  So we are now in a situation where we have seen heating oil prices in 
the Northeast reach historic highs this winter, nearly $2 a gallon. We 
are seeing a surcharge on our airline tickets of $20. You do not see it 
at the counter where you buy your ticket; of course not. You do not 
know what the price of a ticket generally is because they have so many 
prices between point A and point B. But it is there. It is $20. The 
American public ought to be questioning that. They at least ought to be 
aware of it, if they do not question it.
  Regarding diesel prices, we saw the truckers come to Washington, DC. 
Diesel prices are the highest since the Department of Energy began 
tracking.
  We are in a crisis. We have to do something about it. There are many 
factors that contribute to the price structure of each particular fuel, 
but underlying all of these, without a doubt, is our reliance on 
imported crude oil. We are 56-percent dependent on foreign crude oil. 
The current reserves indicate we are consuming twice as much crude in 
the U.S., as we are able to produce domestically.
  I had the professional staff of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee trying to do a forecast, with the Department of Energy--we 
have a net decline because we are using more crude reserves than we are 
bringing in--about what time the bear goes through the buckwheat; that 
is, when perhaps we are looking at $2 a gallon, $2.50 a gallon for 
gasoline. Relief is not in sight as yet.
  The worst part of it is this did not come without some warning. Those 
of us from oil-producing States, my State of Alaska, the overthrust 
belt--Louisiana Senators, Texas, Mississippi, other areas, Colorado, 
Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming--have been predicting the dangers of increased 
dependence on imported oil. The administration, Department of Energy, 
has forecast by the years 2015 to 2020 we will be approaching 65-
percent dependence on imported oil. The problem with that is it looks 
now as if that is a goal rather than a forecast. They are not taking 
any steps to relieve us of that dependency.
  The facts, I think, are staggering. If you look at what is happening 
in this country, domestic production has decreased 17 percent since 
1990. That is a fact. Consumption, however, has increased 14 percent. I 
have a chart to show this. It shows, I think very clearly, what is 
happening in this country.
  We are seeing the demand, and that is the black line here, going, in 
1990, from 16 million to 19 million barrels per day. So what is 
happening is we see a constant demand going up. Then what happens on 
the offset? Where is the crude production? The crude production is 
declining, from 7.4 to a domestic production of 5.9.
  This reflects the reality of what has been happening. This should not 
come as a great surprise to the Department of Energy, the Clinton 
administration, or the Congress of the United States. This has been 
coming for some time.

  In one year, total petroleum net imports rose 7.6 percent. So, as we 
look for relief, we look towards imports. Now we are 56-percent 
dependent. What does it mean? It means we do not learn from history. We 
do not learn much. In 1973, when we had the Arab oil embargo--some 
people remember the gasoline lines around the block--at that time, we 
were 37-percent dependent on imported oil. We said it would never 
happen again. We said we would create a Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 
ensure we were not held hostage.
  What did other countries do? Different things. The French, for 
example, said they would never be held hostage by the Mideast again, 
and they departed on a nuclear program so that today the French are 
over 90-percent dependent on nuclear energy. We do not have that 
situation in the United States. I simply point that out to direct 
attention to what some countries have done with their energy policy 
vis-a-vis others. What we have done is very little.
  We fought a war over in the Mideast, didn't we? We fought that war, 
Desert Storm, to keep Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait and taking 
over those oil fields. During Desert Storm, we were 46-percent 
dependent. Today we are held hostage to aggressive OPEC pricing 
policies. What has our response been?
  Secretary of Energy Richardson went to the Mideast. Some suggest it 
was the greatest hostage recovery effort since the Carter 
administration sent the military to Tehran. He went there and said: We 
have an emergency in the United States. We have a crisis. We need you 
to produce more oil.
  Do you know what they told him? They looked him in the eye and they 
said: We are going to have a meeting March 27 and we will address our 
policies then.
  That is hardly responding to an emergency, particularly at a time 
when he reminded them of how quickly

[[Page S1317]]

we responded to the emergency when Saddam Hussein was about to invade 
Kuwait. Nevertheless, that is reality, that is business, that is the 
attitude of OPEC. This time the hostage is our country, our energy 
security--and the rescue mission is flawed.
  We can look to the non-OPEC countries for relief. We can look to 
Venezuela. We can look to Mexico.
  I happened to have a little feedback from Mexico. We went down to 
Mexico. The Secretary met with them and said we need you to produce 
more oil. There was a message, and that message that came back from 
Mexico is: Where was the United States when the Mexican economy was in 
the tank? When oil was selling at $11 a barrel, were you, the United 
States, doing anything to help out Mexico and its economy? Clearly, we 
were not. We were very happy to get $11, $12 oil.
  So somebody said: If the shoe fits, wear it.
  We have been stiffed. We have been poked in the eye because OPEC is 
saying: Ho, ho, the United States--do you know what the United States 
could do, if they wanted to do a favor for the consumer? They can waive 
all their taxes, waive all the highway taxes, waive all the State 
taxes. That will bring the price down.
  It is an interesting suggestion. Obviously, it is unacceptable to us 
and an indignity, but I think it is sobering to recognize that is their 
proposed answer.
  The irony that Iraq has emerged as the fastest growing source of U.S. 
oil imports is something beyond comprehension. We need to question 
where we are placing the Nation's energy security. Are we placing it 
with Saddam Hussein? That is where our imported oil is coming.
  Our own Government agencies question this policy. Isn't that 
interesting? They question the policy they make.
  Here is the statement on a chart. This is at a time when the 
administration is suppressing domestic production. This is from the 
Minerals Management Service:

       Much of the imported oil that the United States depends on 
     comes from areas of the world that may be hostile to the 
     interest of the United States and where political instability 
     is a concern.

  That speaks for itself. The Mideast is unstable. We see our friends 
in Libya, Iran, Iraq, and now the relationship between Iran and Iraq 
seems to be closer than it ever was. We are caught in the middle.
  In the meantime, What has happened to our domestic industry? It is 
interesting. We have seen in the oil industry a 28-percent decline in 
jobs, a 77-percent decline in oil rigs that are used in exploration, 
and we have seen a 7-percent decline in reserves. That is the largest 
decline in 53 years.
  This is what we are doing, particularly under this administration, 
relative to encouraging domestic exploration and drilling: Rigs 
drilling for oil are down from 657 in 1990 to roughly 153 in 2000.
  What has our energy policy been under the Clinton-Gore 
administration? Coal: Highly dependent on coal. But EPA filed a lawsuit 
against eight electric utilities with coal-fired powerplants. The 
lawsuit says these plants have been allowed to extend beyond their 
lifespan, and the management says they are trying to maintain these 
plants according to the permitting process and not necessarily 
extending their life.
  One gets a different point of view, but clearly there is going to be 
employment for a lot of attorneys.
  Hydro: Secretary Babbitt wants to be the first Secretary to tear down 
dams. It is estimated by my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest that 
if the dams go down, we are going to see roughly 2,000 trucks per day 
on the highways to replace the barge service, particularly in Oregon, 
and the environmental air quality and congestion issues will be 
significant.
  Nuclear power: The administration opposes this. They do not want to 
address what they are going to do with nuclear waste on their watch.
  Natural gas: It is the fuel of the future, but they have closed so 
much of the public lands; 60 percent of the overthrust belt is off 
limits in the Rocky Mountain area, which is Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, 
Utah, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota. They estimate there 
is 137 trillion cubic feet of gas out there. And as a consequence, but 
they have put 60 percent of the area off limits.
  Let's look at one more thing. If we look at our reliance on natural 
gas and oil, we recognize that we are not going to change over the next 
20 or 25 years, as much as we would like to have greater dependence on 
alternative energy sources. The realization is the technology is not 
there. We have to continue to encourage them. The real answer is long-
term and short-term relief. There is some short-term potential relief 
in repealing the Clinton-Gore gas tax hike. With prices at the pump 
steadily rising, one thing we can do is suspend the 4.3 cent-per-gallon 
Clinton-Gore gas tax. That came in 1993. The Democratic Congress, 
without a single Republican vote, adopted the Clinton-Gore gas tax as 
part of one of the largest tax increases in history.

  That tax has cost the American motorist $43 billion over the last 6 
years. We can suspend this tax until the end of the year when prices 
may be stabilized, and we can make sure the highway trust fund is 
reimbursed for any lost revenue so we can ensure all highway 
construction authorized will be constructed.
  It is interesting to note that when Clinton-Gore passed this tax, it 
was not used for highway construction; it was used for Government 
spending, until Republicans took over Congress and authorized the tax 
to be restored for highway construction.
  Long-term fixes: We need to stimulate the domestic oil and gas 
industry. We need to get in the overthrust belt. We need the Department 
of Interior to open up these areas, and we need a long-term fix. It 
involves legislation that I am introducing to authorize the opening of 
the Coastal Plain.
  I will show my colleagues what I am talking about. This is an area 
that lies in the northeast corner of Alaska, north of the Arctic 
Circle, 1,300 miles south of the North Pole. The pipeline of Prudhoe 
Bay over the last 30 years has produced 25 percent of the total crude 
oil produced in this country.
  I will show another chart because we have to put this area in 
perspective, otherwise you lose it.
  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge consists of 19 million acres in 
its entirety. We have set aside in wilderness permanently 8 million 
acres. We set another 9.5 million acres in refuge, permanently--no 
drilling, nothing in those two areas. But Congress set aside what they 
call the 1002 area, the Coastal Plain, for a determination of whether 
or not to open it for competitive oil and gas bids. The Eskimo people 
of Kaktovik, a little village there, support exploration in this area. 
The geologists say it is the most likely area for a significant find.
  We propose a competitive lease sale. We propose only exploration in 
the wintertime, that way we will make no footprint on the ground. There 
is roughly 1.5 million acres on the Coastal Plain. The industry says if 
they are allowed to develop it with the technology they have, they will 
use less than 2,000 acres in the entirety of the 1.5 million acres. 
That is the kind of footprint the technology gives us.
  As we look at national energy security, we have to look at some long-
term solutions because Prudhoe Bay, as can be seen on this chart, shows 
a good degree of compatibility with abundant wildlife. This shows 
Prudhoe Bay field and the caribou wandering around. This is the 
pipeline that goes 800 miles to Valdez. If the oil is where we think it 
is, we simply extend the pipeline over to Prudhoe Bay and produce it.
  This chart shows what frequently happens on the pipeline. Here are 
some bears going for a little walk on the pipeline enjoying the 
afternoon. They get away from bugs and flies, and it is easier walking 
on the pipeline than it is in the heavy snow. They know what they are 
doing.
  I conclude by recognizing in October our Vice President made a 
statement that he is going to do everything in his power to make sure 
there is no new drilling off our coastal areas relative to OCS lease 
sales. I think that statement is going to come back and haunt the 
administration and certainly haunt the Vice President because if we do 
not go for OCS activities, we are not going to go anywhere.

[[Page S1318]]

  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Sierra Club soliciting 
visitations to Washington to lobby Members of Congress be printed in 
the Record. The Sierra Club pays for all the meals, all the 
transportation, and all the lodging for these recruits it is simply 
reflective of the other point of view and that they are attempting to 
influence us on this issue. It is a good issue for revenue, for their 
membership.
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of 
the proposed lease sale by the Gwich'in people of Venetie for their 
lands on the North Slope that they hold, which is about 1.8 million 
acres. It is necessary that you understand the opposition. This will 
give you a point of view that, indeed, the opposition was prepared to 
lease their land. The only unfortunate problem was, there was no oil on 
it.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From SC--Action Vol. II, January 6, 2000]

                   The Arctic Refuge Needs Your Help:

       This February 5-9, the Sierra Club, together with the 
     Alaska Wilderness League, the Wilderness Society and the 
     National Audubon Society, is hosting another National Arctic 
     Wilderness Week in Washington, DC. Support from the 
     grassroots is the key to protecting the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge and its fragile coastal plain--and this 
     gathering will help arm you with the skills and knowledge you 
     need be build support in your own community.


                           Hands-on Training

       Arctic Wilderness Week is your introduction to the campaign 
     to protect the Arctic Refuge and its vast array of wildlife--
     polar bears, grizzlies, caribou, and thousands of migratory 
     birds--from the ravages of oil and gas development. If you 
     can make it on Friday night, the training begins with a 
     potluck dinner and a chance to meet other like-minded 
     wilderness and environmental activists. Saturday and Sunday 
     offer two full days of intensive skills training, including 
     message development, media communications and legislative 
     advocacy. All of it will be tied together with hands-on role 
     playing and campaign planning exercises.
       If you can stay longer, on Monday and Wednesday we'll brush 
     up your lobbying skills. You'll be pounding the marble halls 
     of Congress, meeting with your own Congressional 
     Representatives and Senators or their staffs. It's your 
     chance to make your voice heard!


                         We've Got You Covered

       We know your time is valuabel--so we don't ask you to cover 
     all of your expenses for the trip. You pay a $40 registration 
     fee (some scholarships available), and we'll pay for your 
     travel to D.C., your hotel (two per room), a continental 
     breakfast each morning, and several dinners. Unfortunately, 
     space is limited. And we are making it a priority to bring in 
     activists from a number of targeted states and media 
     markets--where our public education efforts are most 
     critical. To find out if you're eligible, contact Dana Wolfe 
     of the Sierra Club at (202) 675-6690. We'll send you a packet 
     of information about the battle to save the Arctic Refuge and 
     a tentation agenda for the wilderness training.
       Please join us in Washington and be a hero for America's 
     great Arctic wilderness!
                                  ____



                                    Native Village of Venetie,

                                                   March 21, 1984.
     To Whom It May Concern:
       This letter is authorization for Donald R. Wright, as our 
     consultant, to negotiate with any interested persons or 
     company for the purpose of oil or gas exploration and 
     production on the Venetie Indian Reservation, Alaska; subject 
     to final approval by the Native village of Venetie Tribal 
     Government Council.
                                  ____


                       Native Village of Venetie


               request for proposals for oil & gas leases

       The Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government hereby 
     gives formal notice of intention to offer lands for 
     competitive oil and gas lease. This request for proposals 
     involves any or all of the lands and waters of the Venetie 
     Indian Reservation, U.S. Survey No. 5220, Alaska, which 
     aggregates 1,799,927.65 acres, more or less, and is located 
     in the Barrow and Fairbanks Recording Districts, State of 
     Alaska. These lands are bordered by the Yukon River to the 
     South, the Christian River to the East, the Chandalar River 
     to the West and are approximately 100 miles west of the 
     Canadian border on the southern slope of the Brooks Range and 
     about 140 miles East of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. 
     Communities in the vicinity of the proposed sale include 
     Arctic Village, Christian and Venetie. Bidders awarded leases 
     at this sale will acquire the right to explore for, develop 
     and produce the oil and gas that may be discovered within the 
     leased area upon specific terms and provisions established by 
     negotiation, which terms and provisions will conform to the 
     current Federal oil and gas lease where applicable.
     Bidding method
       The bidding method will be cash bonus bidding for a minimum 
     parcel size of one-quarter of a township, or nine (9) 
     sections, which is 5,760 acres, more or less, and a minimum 
     annual rent of $2.00 per acre. There shall be a minimum fixed 
     royalty of twenty percentum (20%).
     Length of lease
       All leases will have an initial primary term of five (5) 
     years.
     Other terms of sale
       Any bidder who obtains a lease from the Native Village of 
     Venetie Tribal Government as a result of this sale will be 
     responsible for the construction of access roads and capital 
     improvements as may be required. All operations on leased 
     lands will be subject to prior approval by the Native Village 
     of Venetie Tribal Government as required by the lease. 
     Surface entry will be restricted only as necessary to protect 
     the holders of surface interests or as necessary to protect 
     identified surface-resource values.
       Prior to the commencement of lease operations, an oil and 
     gas lease bond for a minimum amount of $10,000.00 per 
     operation is required. This bonding provision does not affect 
     the Tribal Government's authority to require such additional 
     unusual risk bonds as may be necessary.
     Bidding procedure
       Proposals must be received by 12:00 p.m. sixty (60) days 
     from the date of this Request for Proposals, at the office of 
     the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, Attention, 
     Mr. Don Wright, S. R. Box 10402, 1314 Heldiver Way, 
     Fairbanks, Alaska 99701, telephone (907) 479-4271.
     Additional information
       A more detailed map of reservation lands and additional 
     information on the proposed leases are available to the 
     bidders and the public by contacting Mr. Don Wright at the 
     office identified above.
       DATED this 2nd day of April, 1984.
       Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, Allen Tritt, 
     Second Chief.
                                                 Donald R. Wright,
                                            Authorized Consultant.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I encourage my colleagues to look at this legislation 
and recognize that we have to decrease our dependence on imported oil. 
The best way to do that is to stimulate domestic production here at 
home. The Coastal Plain of ANWR is one way to do it.
  I thank the Chair and wish everybody a good day.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 2215. A bill to clarify the treatment of nonprofit entities as 
noncommercial educational or public broadcast stations under the 
Communications Act of 1934; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


           noncommercial broadcasting eligibility act of 2000

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, in late-December 1999, the Federal 
Communications Commission took the unusual and aggressive step to 
restrict the programming of noncommercial television stations by not 
allowing certain types of religious programming.
  Within the context of a license transfer involving a noncommercial 
television station in Pittsburgh, PA, the FCC attempted to establish 
guidelines for what they felt were ``acceptable'' educational religious 
programming.
  The commission states in the Additional Guidance section of their 
decision document that, ``. . . programming primarily devoted to 
religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personally-held 
religious views or beliefs generally would not qualify as `general 
educational' programming.''
  As a former religious broadcaster, this type of misguided agenda 
coming from a nonelected agency of the federal government is very 
disturbing. My office was flooded with letters and phone calls from 
Arkansans who were worried that the Federal Government had finally made 
an overt attempt to restrict what religious programming we watch on 
television or listen to on the radio.
  Surprisingly, the national media remained strangely quiet despite the 
serious free speech implications and first amendment violation by the 
commission's ruling.
  Soon after the FCC's controversial decision, I sent a letter to 
Chairman Kennard, along with Senators Nickles, Helms, Enzi, and Inhofe, 
criticizing the commission's actions. Congressman Oxley introduced 
legislation in the House to address this issue.
  Although I am a cosponsor of Senator Brownback's companion bill to 
Congressman Oxley's bill, I do not believe this legislation to prevent 
future attempts by the FCC to restrict religious programming goes far 
enough.
  That is why I am introducing S. 2215, the ``Noncommercial 
Broadcasting Eligibility Act of 2000.''

[[Page S1319]]

  Simply put, my bill would effectively deny the FCC the ability to 
create new rules defining what is appropriate and eligible programming 
for noncommercial television and radio stations, while creating a 
``clear and simple test'' and guidance as to what programming 
noncommercial television and radio broadcasters may broadcast.
  This ``clear and simple test'' is based on the well-established 
guidelines from section 501(c)(3) and 513 (a) and (c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986.
  By requiring the FCC to look to the well-established guidance used by 
the Internal Revenue Service and the courts in defining what is 
``substantially related'' programming, my legislation gives 
noncommercial broadcasters the ability to broadcast programming that is 
``substantially related'' to their tax-exempt purpose, whether it be 
educational, religious, or charitable.
  It is clear that the FCC intended to restrict religious programming 
and may be inclined to do so in the future. The commission should not 
be allowed to circumvent the United States Constitution and pursue its 
own political agenda.
  Again, the Noncommercial Broadcasting Eligibility Act of 2000 will 
help prevent future misguided attempts by the FCC to limit our rights 
which are protected by the first amendment to the United States 
Constitution.
  I ask that my colleagues join me by cosponsoring this bill and making 
it clear that the Senate will not stand idly by as the FCC attempts to 
unilaterally decide what religious programming is in the public's best 
interest.
  I think it is outrageous for a nonelected agency to decide that a 
church service is not educational or that certain choral presentations 
do not fit their accepted definition of religious education. It is time 
that we draw the line. This legislation will do that. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2216. A bill to direct the Director of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to require, as a condition of any financial 
assistance provided by the Agency on a nonemergency basis for a 
construction project, that products used in the project be produced in 
the United States; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


  the federal emergency management agency buy american compliance act

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency Buy American Compliance Act, legislation 
which would apply the requirements of the Buy American Act to non-
emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance 
payments.
  The Buy American Act was designed to provide a preference to American 
businesses in the federal procurement process. Currently, when FEMA 
awards grants for non-emergency projects, the agency itself adheres to 
the requirements of the Buy American Act. However, when FEMA awards 
taxpayer money to state or local entities in the form grants, those 
entities are not similarly required to comply with the Buy American 
Act's standards. This disparity needs to be changed.

  Mr. President, the Buy American Act's requirements should be applied 
to all FEMA non-emergency grants. It should not make a difference 
whether FEMA is directly spending federal tax dollars or passing those 
same federal tax dollars on to states or local governments for them to 
spend. The Buy American Act's standards should apply to all federal 
dollars distributed by FEMA for non-emergency situations, no matter who 
is spending it. It is only right that we ensure that the American 
people's federal tax dollars are spent according to the Buy American 
Act.
  The Buy American Act is necessary to protect American firms from 
unfair competition from foreign corporations. Many of the nations we 
trade with have significantly lower labor costs than the United States. 
Without the safeguard provided by the Buy American Act foreign 
companies are able to underbid American companies on U.S. government 
contracts.
  It is important to understand the Buy American Act's criteria for 
determining whether a product is foreign or domestic. The nation where 
the corporation is headquartered is irrelevant--the Buy American Act is 
focused upon the origin of the materials used in the construction 
project. In order to be considered an American product, the product in 
question has to fulfill the following two criteria; first; the product 
must be manufactured in the United States, and second; the cost of the 
components manufactured in the United States must constitute over 50 
percent of the cost of all the components used in the item.
  My proposed legislation would stipulate that federal funds 
distributed by FEMA as financial assistance could only be used for 
projects in which the manufactured products are American made, 
according to the criteria established by the Buy American Act. The 
House version of this legislation has been recently introduced by 
Congressman Michael Collins of Georgia.
  Mr. President, it does not make sense that the American people's hard 
earned tax dollars should be allowed to slip through a loophole that 
makes it possible for some entities to avoid the Buy American Act. The 
Buy American Act should apply to all who spend FEMA non-emergency 
funds. When these federal funds are passed down from FEMA to another 
government agency, those other government agencies should also be 
required to abide by the Buy America Act.
  Mr. President, I introduce this legislation in order to ensure there 
is consistency in the law, with regard to FEMA and the provisions of 
the Buy American Act. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
passage of this pro-American measure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill I am introducing today be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2216

       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 ``Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency Buy American Compliance Act''.

     SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENTS TO FEMA 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``Agency'' means the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency.
       (2) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 308 of the Trade Agreements Act of 
     1979 (19 U.S.C. 2518).
       (3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
       (4) Domestic product.--The term ``domestic product'' means 
     a product that is mined, produced, or manufactured in the 
     United States.
       (5) Product.--The term ``product'' means--
       (A) steel;
       (B) iron; and
       (C) any other article, material, or supply.
       (b) Requirement To Use Domestic Products.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (c), the Director shall require, as a 
     condition of any financial assistance provided by the Agency 
     on a nonemergency basis for a construction project, that the 
     construction project use only domestic products.
       (c) Waivers.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     requirements of subsection (b) shall not apply in any case in 
     which the Director determines that--
       (A) the use of a domestic product would be inconsistent 
     with the public interest;
       (B) a domestic product--
       (i) is not produced in a sufficient and reasonably 
     available quantity; or
       (ii) is not of a satisfactory quality; or
       (C) the use of a domestic product would increase the 
     overall cost of the construction project by more than 25 
     percent.
       (2) Limitation on applicability of waivers with respect to 
     products produced in certain foreign countries.--A product of 
     a foreign country shall not be used in a construction project 
     under a waiver granted under paragraph (1) if the Director, 
     in consultation with the United States Trade Representative, 
     determines that--
       (A) the foreign country is a signatory country to the 
     Agreement under which the head of an agency of the United 
     States waived the requirements of this section; and
       (B) the signatory country violated the Agreement under 
     section 305(f)(3)(A) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 
     U.S.C. 2515(f)(3)(A)) by discriminating against a domestic 
     product that is covered by the Agreement.
       (d) Calculation of Costs.--For the purposes of subsection 
     (c)(1)(C), any labor cost involved in the final assembly of a 
     domestic product shall not be included in the calculation of 
     the cost of the domestic product.
       (e) State Requirements.--The Director shall not impose any 
     limitation or condition on assistance provided by the Agency 
     that restricts--
       (1) any State from imposing more stringent requirements 
     than this section on the use of articles, materials, and 
     supplies

[[Page S1320]]

     mined, produced, or manufactured in foreign countries in 
     construction projects carried out with Agency assistance; or
       (2) any recipient of Agency assistance from complying with 
     a State requirement described in paragraph (1).
       (f) Report on Waivers.--The Director shall annually submit 
     to Congress a report on the purchases from countries other 
     than the United States that are waived under subsection 
     (c)(1) (including the dollar values of items for which 
     waivers are granted under subsection (c)(1)).
       (g) Intentional Violations.--
       (1) In general.--A person described in paragraph (2) shall 
     be ineligible to enter into any contract or subcontract 
     carried out with financial assistance made available by the 
     Agency in accordance with the debarment, suspension, and 
     ineligibility procedures of subpart 9.4 of chapter 1 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor 
     regulation).
       (2) Persons ineligible to receive contract or 
     subcontract.--A person referred to in paragraph (1) is any 
     person that a court of the United States or a Federal agency 
     determines--
       (A) has affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription (or any inscription with the same meaning) to any 
     product that is not a domestic product that--
       (i) was used in a construction project to which this 
     section applies; or
       (ii) was sold in or shipped to the United States; or
       (B) has represented that a product that is not a domestic 
     product, that was sold in or shipped to the United States, 
     and that was used in a construction project to which this 
     section applies, was produced in the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Lott):
  S. 2217. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 
coins in commemoration of the National Museum of the American Indian of 
the Smithsonian Institution, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


 national museum of the american indian commemorative coin act of 2000

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, 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. 2217

       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 ``National Museum of the 
     American Indian Commemorative Coin Act of 2000'', or the 
     ``American Buffalo Coin Commemorative Coin Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Smithsonian Institution was established in 1846, 
     with funds bequeathed to the United States by James Smithson 
     for the ``increase and diffusion of knowledge'';/
       (2) once established, the Smithsonian Institution became an 
     important part of the process of developing the United 
     States' national identity, an ongoing role which continues 
     today;
       (3) the Smithsonian Institution, which is now the world's 
     largest museum complex, including 16 museums, 4 research 
     centers, and the National Zoo, is visited by millions of 
     Americans and people from all over the world each year;
       (4) the National Museum of the American Indian of the 
     Smithsonian Institution (referred to in this section as the 
     ``NMAI'') was established by an Act of Congress in 1989, in 
     Public Law 101-185;
       (5) the purpose of the NMAI, as established by Congress, is 
     to--
       (A) advance the study of Native Americans, including the 
     study of language, literature, history, art, anthropology, 
     and life;
       (B) collect, preserve, and exhibit Native American objects 
     of artistic, historical, literary, anthropological, and 
     scientific interest; and
       (C) provide for Native American research and study 
     programs;
       (6) the NMAI works in cooperation with Native Americans and 
     oversees a collection that spans more than 10,000 years of 
     American history;
       (7) it is fitting that the NMAI will be located in a place 
     of honor near the United States Capitol, and on the National 
     Mall;
       (8) thousands of Americans, including many American 
     Indians, came from all over the Nation to witness the 
     groundbreaking ceremony for the NMAI on September 28, 1999;
       (9) the NMAI is scheduled to open in the summer of 2002;
       (10) the original 5-cent buffalo nickel, as designed by 
     James Earle Fraser and minted from 1913 through 1938, which 
     portrays a profile representation of a Native American on the 
     obverse side and a representation of an American buffalo on 
     the reverse side, is a distinctive and appropriate model for 
     a coin to commemorate the NMAI; and
       (11) the surcharge proceeds from the sale of a 
     commemorative coin, which would have no net cost to the 
     taxpayers, would raise valuable funding for the opening of 
     the NMAI and help to supplement the endowment and educational 
     outreach funds of the NMAI.

     SEC. 3. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

       (a) $1 Silver Coins.--In commemoration of the opening of 
     the Museum of the American Indian of the Smithsonian 
     Institution, the Secretary of the Treasury (hereafter in this 
     Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall mint and issue 
     not more than 500,000 $1 coins, each of which shall--
       (1) weigh 26.73 grams;
       (2) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
       (3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
       (b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be 
     legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 4. SOURCES OF BULLION.

       The Secretary may obtain silver for minting coins under 
     this Act from any available source, including stockpiles 
     established under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock 
     Piling Act.

     SEC. 5. DESIGN OF COINS.

       (a) Design Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The design of the $1 coins minted under 
     this Act shall be based on the original 5-cent buffalo nickel 
     designed by James Earle Fraser and minted from 1913 through 
     1938. Each coin shall have on the obverse side a profile 
     representation of a Native American, and on the reverse side, 
     a representation of an American buffalo (also known as a 
     bison).
       (2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted 
     under this Act there shall be--
       (A) a designation of the value of the coin;
       (B) an inscription of the year ``2001''; and
       (C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We 
     Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus 
     Unum''.
       (b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be--
       (1) selected by the Secretary, after consultation with the 
     Commission of Fine Arts; and
       (2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory 
     Committee.

     SEC. 6. ISSUANCE OF COINS.

       (a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be 
     issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
       (b) Mint Facility.--
       (1) In general.--Only 1 facility of the United States Mint 
     may be used to strike any particular quality of the coins 
     minted under this Act.
       (2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the United States Mint facility in Denver, Colorado 
     should strike the coins authorized by this Act, unless the 
     Secretary determines that such action would be technically or 
     cost-prohibitive.
       (c) Commencement of Issuance.--The Secretary may issue 
     coins minted under this Act beginning on January 1, 2001.
       (d) Termination of Minting.--No coins may be minted under 
     this Act after December 31, 2001.

     SEC. 7. SALE OF COINS.

       (a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be 
     sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
       (1) the face value of the coins;
       (2) the surcharge required by subsection (d) with respect 
     to such coins; and
       (3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including 
     labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, 
     marketing, and shipping).
       (b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the 
     coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
       (c) Prepaid Orders.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders 
     for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of 
     such coins.
       (2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders 
     under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.
       (d) Surcharges.--All sales of coins minted under this Act 
     shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.

     SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF SURCHARGES.

       (a) In General.--Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31, 
     United States Code, the proceeds from the surcharges received 
     by the Secretary from the sale of coins issued under this Act 
     shall be paid promptly by the Secretary to the National 
     Museum of the American Indian of the Smithsonian Institution 
     for the purposes of--
       (1) commemorating the opening of the National Museum of the 
     American Indian; and
       (2) supplementing the endowment and educational outreach 
     funds of the Museum of the American Indian.
       (b) Audits.--The National Museum of the American Indian 
     shall be subject to the audit requirements of section 
     5134(f)(2) of title 31, United States Code, with regard to 
     the amounts received by the museum under subsection (a).

     SEC. 9. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.

       (a) No Net Cost to the Government.--The Secretary shall 
     take such actions as may be necessary to ensure that minting 
     and issuing coins under this Act will not result in any net 
     cost to the United States Government.
       (b) Payment for Coins.--A coin shall not be issued under 
     this Act unless the Secretary has received--
       (1) full payment for the coin;
       (2) security satisfactory to the Secretary to indemnify the 
     United States for full payment; or
       (3) a guarantee of full payment satisfactory to the 
     Secretary from a depository institution, the deposits of 
     which are insured

[[Page S1321]]

     by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the National 
     Credit Union Administration Board.
                                  ____

      By Mr. CLELAND (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
        Akaka, Mr. Warner, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Robb):
  S. 2218. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
the establishment of a program under which long-term care insurance is 
made available to Federal employees and annuitants and members of the 
uniformed services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND UNIFORMED SERVICES GROUP LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE 
                              ACT OF 2000

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, I am very 
pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Barbara 
Mikulski and Charles Grassley, to introduce our proposal for the 
largest employer-based long-term care insurance program in American 
history. Today, we are introducing the Federal Employees and Uniformed 
Services Group Long-Term Care Insurance Act of 2000.
  At age 25, I returned from Vietnam facing the potential need for 
long-term care. I did not have the opportunity to plan for those needs 
and I was fortunate to avoid that outcome through the support of my 
family and the wonderful military health care system and VA system I 
encountered. Our legislation will provide federal employees, members of 
the Uniformed Services, including Reservists and the National Guard, 
retirees, spouses, parents and parents-in-law with the opportunity to 
plan for assistive care needs that become a necessity for all of us at 
some time in our lives.
  Currently there are several measures pending in the Senate which 
offer different approaches to providing long-term care insurance to 
federal and military employees and their families. Our bill represents 
a carefully considered compromise between these competing approaches.
  The Cleland-Mikulski-Grassley bill combines the features of our 
original proposals, S. 894, S. 57 and S. 36, as well as additional 
provisions to produce the most comprehensive proposal for an employer-
based long-term care insurance program. Our legislation will:
  One, allow federal employees, members of the Uniformed Services and 
Foreign Service, Reservists and retirees, spouses, parents, and parent-
in-laws to purchase long-term care insurance at group rates.
  Second, have premiums based on age (premiums are expected to be 10%-
20% less than on the open market).
  Third, provide individuals with options, including cash 
reimbursements for family caregivers, tax exemptions under the Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and portability 
of benefits.
  The current forecast for the cost of meeting long-term care needs of 
our aging population is staggering in terms of personal and national 
resources. Average nursing home costs are projected to increase from 
$40,000 per person per year today to $97,000 by 2030. Medicare and 
regular health insurance programs do not cover most long-term care 
needs. Medicaid can offer some long-term care support, but generally 
requires ``spend-down'' of income and assets to qualify. Additionally, 
very few employers offer a long-term care insurance benefit to their 
employees. We hope that our legislation will be a model that other 
employers will use in providing long-term care insurance for their 
employees and will lessen the financial burden on the Medicare and 
Medicaid programs.
  Working families are too often being forced to choose between sending 
a child to college and paying for a nursing home for a parent. Families 
desperately need the tools to help themselves and to meet their family 
responsibilities.
  Consider these astounding statistics:
  Almost 6 million Americans aged 65 or older currently need long-term 
care.
  As many as six out of 10 Americans have experienced a long-term care 
need either for themselves or a family member.
  41% of women in caregiver roles quit their jobs or take family 
medical leave to care for a frail older parent or parent-in-law.
  80% of all long-term care services are provided by family and 
friends.
  The need for this legislation is clear. By working together in a 
bipartisan cooperative spirit my fellow sponsors and I have bridged 
some significant differences in approach to craft a proposal which 
should have widespread support in the Senate. I hope and expect that we 
will take up and pass this bill this year. Those who have served, and 
are now serving, our nation deserve nothing less.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Section-by-Section Analysis of this 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Federal Employees and Uniformed Services Group Long-Term Care Insurance 
                    Act--Section-by-Section Analysis

(To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for the establishment 
of a program under which long-term care insurance is made available to 
Federal employees and annuitants and members of the uniformed services, 
                        and for other purposes)

       Section 1 of the bill titles the bill as the ``Federal 
     Employees and Uniformed Services Group Long-Term Care 
     Insurance Act of 2000.''
       Section 2 of the bill amends title 5, United States Code, 
     to provide for the establishment and operation of the Program 
     by adding a new chapter 90.
       New section 9001 provides the definitions used in the 
     administration of the Program. Included are the following:
       ``Activities of daily living'' includes eating, toileting, 
     transferring, bathing, dressing, and continence.
       ``Annuitant'' has the meaning such term would have under 
     section 8901(3), if for purposes of such paragraph, the term 
     ``employee'' were considered to have the meaning of 
     ``employee'' in (5) of this section.
       ``Appropriate Secretary'' means, except as otherwise 
     provided, the Secretary of Defense; with respect to the 
     United States Coast Guard when it is not operating as a 
     service of the Navy, the Secretary of Transportation; with 
     respect to the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration, the Secretary of Commerce; and 
     with respect to the commissioned corps of the Public Health 
     Service, the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       ``Eligible individual'' means (A) an annuitant, employee, 
     member of the uniformed services, or retired member of the 
     uniformed services, or (B) a qualified relative of an 
     individual described in (A).
       ``Employee'' means an employee as defined under section 
     8901(1)(A) through (D) and (F) through (I), but does not 
     include an employee excluded by regulation of the Office 
     under section 9010, and an individual described under section 
     2105(e).
       ``Member of the uniformed services'' means a person who (A) 
     is a member of the uniformed services on active duty for a 
     period of more than 30 days; or is a member of the Selected 
     Reserve as defined under section 10143 of title 10, including 
     members on (1) full-time National Guard duty as defined under 
     section 101(d)(5) of title 10; or (2) active Guard and 
     Reserve duty as defined under section 101(d)(6) of title 10; 
     and (B) satisfies such eligibility requirements as the Office 
     prescribes under section 9010.
       ``Office'' means the Office of Personnel Management.
       ``Qualified carrier'' means a company or consortium 
     licensed and approved to issue group long-term care insurance 
     in all States and to do business in each of the States.
       ``Qualified relative'' as used with respect to an eligible 
     individual in this section means the spouse of such 
     individual; a parent or parent-in-law of such individual; and 
     any other person bearing a relationship to such individual 
     specified by the Office in regulations.
       ``Retired member of the uniformed services'' means a member 
     of the uniformed services entitled to retired or retainer pay 
     (other than chapter 1223 of title 10) who satisfies such 
     eligibility requirements as the Office prescribes under 
     section 9010.
       ``State'' means a State of the United States, and includes 
     the District of Columbia.
       New section 9002 provides that any eligible individual may 
     obtain coverage under this chapter; that a qualified relative 
     must provide documentation to demonstrate the relationship as 
     prescribed by the Office, and; an individual is not eligible 
     for coverage if the individual would be immediately eligible 
     to receive benefits upon obtaining coverage.
       New section 9003 provides the contracting authority for the 
     Office to use in establishing and operating the Program.
       Paragraph 1 of subsection (a) of this section provides that 
     the Office is authorized to contract with carriers for a 
     policy or policies of group long-term care insurance for 
     benefits specified in this chapter, without regard to section 
     3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5) or any other 
     statute requiring competitive bidding.
       Paragraph (2) of this subsection states that the Office 
     shall contract with a primary carrier for the assumption of 
     risk; no less than 2 qualified carriers to act as reinsurers; 
     and; as many qualified carriers as necessary to administer 
     this chapter, which shall also act as reinsurers. The Office 
     will ensure that each contract is awarded on the basis of 
     contractor qualifications, price, and reasonable competition 
     to the extent practicable. This

[[Page S1322]]

     provision ensures that at least 3 companies or consortia will 
     participate in the Program.
       Subsection (b) gives the Office the authority to design a 
     benefits package or packages and negotiate final offerings 
     with qualified carriers.
       Subsection (c) provides that each contract shall contain a 
     detailed statement of the benefits offered, including any 
     limitations or exclusions, the rates charged, and other terms 
     and conditions as may be agreed upon by the Office and the 
     carrier involved can be consistent with the provisions of 
     this chapter.
       Subsection (d) provides that premium rates shall reasonably 
     reflect the cost of the benefits provided under a contract, 
     as determined by the Office.
       Subsection (e) provides that the coverage and benefits 
     under this section shall be guaranteed renewable and may not 
     be canceled except for nonpayment of premium.
       Subsection (f) gives the Office the authority to withdraw 
     an offering based on open season participation rates, the 
     composition of the risk pool, or both.
       Subsection (g) requires each contract to provide insurance, 
     payment, or benefits to an  individual if the Office, or a 
     designated party, determines the individual is entitled to 
     such under the contract. The subsection also requires 
     reinsurers under (a)(2)(A)(ii) to participate in 
     administrative procedures to effect an expeditious 
     resolution of disputes arising under such contract, and 
     where appropriate, one or more means of dispute 
     resolution.
       Subsection (h) provides in paragraph (1) that each contract 
     shall be for a term of five years, unless terminated earlier 
     by the Office. The rights and responsibilities of the 
     enrolled individual, the insurer, and the Office (or a duly 
     designated third party) under any contract shall continue 
     until the termination of coverage of the individual.
       Paragraph (2) of subsection (h) specifies that the 
     termination of coverage shall occur upon the occurrence of 
     death, the exhaustion of benefits, or nonpayment of premium 
     as specified in subsection (e).
       Paragraph (3) of subsection (h) provides that each contract 
     under this section shall be consistent with regulations of 
     the Office under section 9010 to (1) preserve all parties' 
     rights and responsibilities under such contracts, 
     notwithstanding the termination of such contract and (2) 
     ensure that once an individual is enrolled, the coverage will 
     not terminate due to any change in status, such as separation 
     from Government service or the uniformed services, or ceasing 
     to be a qualified relative.
       Subsection (i) specifies that nothing in this chapter shall 
     be construed to grant authority to the Office or a third 
     party to change the rules under which the contract operates 
     for disputed claims purposes.
       New Section 9004 specifies the long-term care benefits to 
     be provided under this chapter.
       Subsection (a) states that benefits under this chapter will 
     be long-term care insurance under qualified long-term care 
     insurance contracts within the meaning of section 7702B of 
     the Internal Revenue Code. Additionally, as determined 
     appropriate by the Office, the benefits under such contracts 
     will be consistent with the more stringent of the most recent 
     standards of the National Association of Insurance 
     Commissioners or such standards as recommended in 1993.
       Subsection (b) of this requires each contract under this 
     chapter to provide for: (1) adequate consumer protections; 
     (2) adequate protections in the event of carrier bankruptcy; 
     (3) the availability of benefits upon certification as to the 
     individual's inability to perform at least 2 activities of 
     daily living for a period of at least 90 days or substantial 
     supervision of the individual to protect such individual from 
     threats to health and safety due to severe cognitive 
     impairment; (4) choice of service benefits; (5) availability 
     of inflation protection; (6) portability of benefits; (7) 
     length-of-benefit options; (8) options relating to flexible 
     long-term care benefit options regarding care modalities, 
     such as nursing home care, assisted living care, home care, 
     and care by family members; (9) options relating to 
     elimination periods; and (10) options relating 
     to nonforfeiture benefits.
       New section 9005 addresses the financing of the Program and 
     makes clear that each individual enrolled for coverage must 
     pay 100 percent of the charges for such coverage. Subsections 
     (b) through (d) of this section provide for the withholding 
     of premium from the pay of an employee or member of the 
     uniformed services or the annuity of an annuitant or retired 
     member of the uniformed services. Withholdings for a 
     qualified relative, may at the discretion of the individual 
     related to the relative, be withheld from pay as if the 
     enrollment were for the qualified relative. An enrollee whose 
     pay, annuity, or retired or retainer pay is insufficient to 
     cover the withholding is required to remit the full amount of 
     premiums directly to the carrier.
       Subsection (e) of this section requires each carrier to 
     account for all funds under this chapter separate and apart 
     from funds unrelated to this chapter.
       Subsection (f) of this section specifies that a contract 
     under this chapter must include provisions under which the 
     carrier must reimburse the Office or other administering 
     agency for administrative costs incurred by the Office or 
     other agency, including implementation costs. These costs are 
     considered allocable to the carrier. Reimbursements under 
     this section, except for the initial costs of implementation, 
     must be deposited in the Employees Health Benefits Fund and 
     held in a separate Long-Term Care Insurance Account. This 
     account is available without limitation to the Office for 
     purposes of this chapter.
       New section 9006 provides that this chapter shall supersede 
     and preempt any State or local law, or law of a territory or 
     possession, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this 
     chapter or, after consultation with the National Association 
     of Insurance Commissioners, the efficient provision of a 
     nationwide long-term care insurance Program for Federal 
     employees. An exception applies to any financial requirement 
     by a State or District of Columbia that is more stringent 
     than the requirements of 9004(b)(1).
       New section 9007 provides that each qualified carrier 
     entering into a contract with this Office shall provide such 
     reasonable reports as the Office determines necessary to 
     carry out its functions and permit the Office and the General 
     Accounting Office to examine the records of the carrier. It 
     also requires Federal agencies to keep records and 
     certifications, and furnish the Office, the carrier, or both 
     with information the Office may require.
       New section 9008 addresses claims for benefits under this 
     chapter.
       Subsection (a) of this section requires that claims be 
     filed within 4 years after the date on which the reimbursable 
     cost was incurred or the service was provided.
       Subsection (b)(1) provides that benefits payable under this 
     chapter are secondary to any other benefit payable for such 
     cost or service, e.g., workers' compensation, no-fault 
     insurance. It also provides that no benefit is payable where 
     no legal obligation exists to pay.
       Paragraph (2) of subsection (b) specifies the exceptions to 
     the policy in paragraph (1) such that benefits payable under 
     the medical assistance program of title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act and any other Federal or State program that the 
     Office may specify in regulations that provide health 
     coverage designated to be secondary to other insurance 
     coverage are secondary to benefits paid under this chapter.
       New section 9009 specifies that a claimant may file suit 
     against a carrier of the long-term insurance policy covering 
     such claimant in the district courts of the United States, 
     after exhausting all available administrative remedies.
       New section 9010 requires the Office, in subsection (a), to 
     prescribe regulations to carry out the requirements of this 
     chapter.
       Subsection (b) of this section that the Office shall 
     prescribe the time at which and manner and conditions under 
     which an individual can obtain or continue long-term care 
     insurance, including the length of time for the first 
     opportunity to enroll, the minimum period of coverage 
     required for portability, and provisions for periodic 
     coordinated enrollment.
       Subsection (c) provides that the Office cannot exclude an 
     employee or group of employees solely on the basis of the 
     hazardous nature of employment or part-time employment.
       Subsection (d) specifies that any regulations necessary to 
     effect the application and operation of this chapter with 
     respect to an eligible individual or qualified relative shall 
     be prescribed by the Office in consultation with the 
     appropriate Secretary.
       The Technical and Conforming Amendment amends the table of 
     chapters for part III of title 5, United States Code, by 
     inserting, after the item relating to chapter 89, the new 
     reference to chapter 90, Long-Term Care Insurance.
       Section 3 of the bill authorizes the appropriations of such 
     sums as may be necessary to pay for costs incurred by the 
     Office in the implementation of chapter 90, title 5, United 
     States Code, from enactment of this Act to the date on which 
     long-term care insurance coverage first becomes effective. 
     Any reimbursements of such costs by carriers under 9005(f) of 
     title 5, United States Code, are to be deposited in the 
     General Fund.
       Section 4 provides that the amendments made by this Act 
     will be effective on the date of enactment. However, this 
     section also provides that coverage will be effective under 
     this Act not later than the first day of the first fiscal 
     year beginning more than 2 years after the date of enactment. 
     This time frame is necessary to negotiate contracts, 
     preparation of materials, and the large task of educating the 
     millions of potential enrollees about this Program.

 Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor 
of the ``Federal Employees and Uniformed Services Group Long-Term Care 
Insurance Act of 2000.'' This important piece of legislation represents 
a carefully considered compromise between several bills currently 
pending in the Senate.
  I would like to thank Senator Cleland and Senator Grassley for all of 
their hard work in coming to a consensus on how best to provide federal 
and military employees, retirees, and their families with the 
opportunity to purchase long-term care insurance.
  Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to help people 
afford the burdens of long-term care. Ten years ago, I introduced 
legislation to change the cruel rules that forced elderly couples to go 
bankrupt before

[[Page S1323]]

they could get any help in paying for nursing home care. Because of my 
legislation, AARP tells me that we've kept over six hundred thousand 
people out of poverty and stopped liens on family farms.
  I also fought for higher quality standards for nursing homes. Through 
the Older Americans Act, seniors have easier access to information and 
referrals they need to make good choices about long-term care. I am 
also working hard to create a National Family Caregivers Program, so 
that families can access comprehensive information when faced with the 
dizzying array of choices in addressing the long-term care needs of a 
family member.
  These are important steps. But unfortunately, we haven't made much 
progress in the last few years. We've been stymied by partisan 
bickering, shutdowns, and inaction. The long-term care crisis needs a 
long-term care solution. I am pleased to say that this new bipartisan 
legislation puts an important down payment on this solution.
  Despite past disagreements on approaches to financing long-term care, 
everyone agrees that the crisis is growing. Nursing home costs are 
projected to increase from $40,000 today to $97,000 by 2030. This will 
only get worse since the number of senior citizens will double over the 
next thirty years. Families are being forced to choose between sending 
a child to college or paying for a nursing home for a parent, or a 
parent-in-law. I think that is wrong.
  Consider these sobering statistics:

       At least 5.8 million Americans aged 65 or older currently 
     need long-term care
       As many as six out of 10 Americans have experienced a long-
     term care need
       41 percent of women in caregiver roles quit their jobs or 
     take family medical leave to care for a frail older parent or 
     parent-in-law
       80 percent of all long-term care services are provided by 
     family and friends

  Families desperately need the tools to help themselves and meet their 
family responsibilities. This bill is the first step in helping all 
Americans do just that. Let me tell you what our new legislation will 
do:

       It will enable federal and military workers, retirees and 
     their families to purchase long-term care insurance
       It will provide help to those who practice self-help by 
     offering employees the option to better prepare for their 
     retirement and the potential need for long-term care
       It will enable federal employees to buy long-term care 
     insurance at group rates--they are projected to be 10%-20% 
     below open market rates.
       Participants will pay the entire premium but because of the 
     lower premium this is a good deal for federal workers--and 
     for taxpayers

  I'm starting with federal employees for two reasons. First, as our 
nation's largest employer, the federal government can be a model for 
employers around the country. By offering long-term care insurance to 
its employees, the federal government can set the example for other 
employers whose workforce will be facing the same long-term care needs. 
Starting with the nation's largest employer also raises awareness and 
education about long-term care options.
  I have a second reason for starting with our federal employees. I am 
a strong supporter of our federal employees. I am proud that so many of 
them live, work, and retire in Maryland. They work hard in the service 
of our country. And I work hard for them. Whether it's fighting for 
fair COLAs, lower health care premiums, or to prevent unwise schemes to 
privatize important services our federal workforce provide, they can 
count on me.
  One of my principles is ``promises made should be promises kept.'' 
Federal retirees made a commitment to devote their careers to public 
service. In return, our government made certain promises to them. One 
important promise made was the promise of health insurance. The lack of 
long-term care for federal workers has been a big gap in this important 
promise to our federal workers. This legislation will close that gap 
and provide our federal workers and retirees with comprehensive health 
insurance.
  Mr. President, I reiterate my commitment to finding long-term 
solutions to the long-term care problem. I am proud that this 
bipartisan bill takes an important step forward in helping all 
Americans to prepare for the challenges facing our aging 
population.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I cosponsor 
the Federal Employees and Uniformed Services Long-Term Care Group 
Insurance Act of 2000, introduced by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. 
Cleland], the ranking minority member of the HELP Aging Subcommittee 
[Ms. Mikulski], and the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging [Mr. 
Grassley]. This bipartisan legislation is testament to what can be 
accomplished when members from both sides of the aisle have a common 
goal. I salute the months-long effort undertaken by my colleagues and 
their staffs to bring this compromise bill to fruition.
  As the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on International 
Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, with direct jurisdiction 
over this measure, I am mindful that there are several long-term care 
bills pending before the Subcommittee. However, I would like to point 
out that the three pending bills, S. 894, S. 57, and S. 36, are 
original proposals introduced by the Senators from Georgia, Maryland, 
and Iowa, who have combined features from each of their bills to craft 
a measure that will address the long-term care insurance needs of 
federal and military personnel and their families.
  Many Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare and their regular 
health insurance programs will pay for long-term care. They do not. 
Although Medicaid provides some long-term care support, an individual 
generally must ``spend-down,'' his or her income and assets to qualify 
for coverage.
  More and more Americans are requiring long-term care. About 5.8 
million Americans aged 65 or older require long-term, care due to 
illness or disability. An approximately equal number of children and 
adults under the age of 65 also require long-term care because of 
health conditions from birth or a chronic illness developed later in 
life.
  The need for long-term care is great. By the year 2030, the number of 
Americans age 65 years or older will double, from 34.3 to 69.4 million. 
The cost of nursing home care now exceeds $40,000 per year in many 
parts of the country, and home care visits for nursing or physical 
therapy runs about $100 per visit. In 1996, over $107 billion was spent 
on nursing homes and home health care. However, this figure does not 
take into account that fully 80 percent of all long-term care services 
are provided by family and friends.
  In my own state of Hawaii, 13.2 percent of the population is persons 
65 and older. Although Hawaii enjoys one of the highest life 
expectancies--79 years, compared to a national average of 75 years--the 
state's rapidly aging population will greatly impact available 
resources for long-term care, both institutional and from non-
institutional sources. Hawaii's long-term care facilities are operating 
at full capacity. According to the Hawaii State Department of Health, 
the average occupancy rate peaked at 97.8 percent in 1994. But 
occupancy remains high. By 1997, the average occupancy dropped to 90 
percent.
  These statistics point to the overriding need to help American 
families provide dignified and appropriate care to their parents and 
relatives. We know that the demand for long-term care will increase 
with each passing year, and that federal, state, and local resources 
cannot cover the expected costs. Nursing home costs are expected to 
reach $97,000 by the year 2030.
  What Congress can do, however, is make long-term care insurance 
available to a broad segment of the population and offer a model for 
the private sector. The bill introduced today will provide quality 
group long-term care insurance to the nation's federal employees, 
including postal workers, members of the Foreign Service, and Uniformed 
Services. Retirees of these agencies and their spouses, parents, and 
parents-in-law will be eligible to participate, and employees in a 
``deferred annuitant status'' can enroll when retirement benefits are 
activated. The bill has broad-based support, including endorsement by 
the National Treasury Employees Union and the National Association of 
Retired Federal Employees, two federal employee unions, as well as the 
Military Consortium, an organization of the major military groups.
  The proposal parallels portions of the President's four-part 
initiative designed to address long-term health, including having the 
federal government

[[Page S1324]]

serve as a model employer by offering quality private long-term care 
insurance to federal employees. The bill introduced today allows the 
Office of Personnel Management to use its market leverage to offer 
enrollee-paid quality private long-term care insurance to federal 
employees, military personnel, retirees, and their families at group 
rates. Participants would pay the full premium, whose costs are 
expected to be 10-20 percent lower than open market rates. There would 
be options, including cash reimbursement for family care givers, tax 
exemptions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act (HIPAA), and portability benefits--features that will provide 
enrollees the ability to tailor policies to individual needs.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill, 
which will offer federal employees, uniformed service personnel, 
retirees, and their families an opportunity to plan for future long-
term care needs in a responsible manner. I foresee this proposal as 
serving as a model for the private sector and state and local 
governments, and I again thank my colleagues for their diligence in 
crafting this compromise measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 2220. A bill to protect Social Security and provide for repayment 
of the Federal debt; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 
1977.


     THE AMERICAN SOCIAL SECURITY PROTECTION AND DEBT REPAYMENT ACT

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in this 
important discussion about the federal budget, the budget surplus, and 
the American government's economic future. When I first came to 
Congress in 1992 the discussion was radically different. The concept of 
a budget surplus, let alone long term projections for a surplus, was 
foreign. The notion that a national debt measured in trillions could 
ever be paid off was practically science fiction. While 1992 was only 
eight years ago, we stand on the floor of the Senate today a million 
miles away from the bleak fiscal outlook of those times. But we must be 
careful. While our present fiscal condition may be rose colored, fiscal 
irresponsibility and a refusal to wisely use the budget surplus can not 
only lead us back to our deficit spending ways of the past, but it will 
threaten the fiscal health of our nation for yet another generation of 
Americans. I am here today to urge my colleagues to address the 
responsibility that comes with a five-point-seven trillion dollar debt.
  During the 105th Congress I introduced the American Debt Repayment 
Act. This legislation provided an amortization schedule for the 
repayment of the national debt. The largest purchase an average 
American family will ever make is the purchase of a home. This 
expenditure is made possible through the use of a mortgage, a set 
schedule of payment. When I was crafting the American Debt Repayment 
Act I studied this traditional form of payment and applied it to the 
enormous federal debt. Two short years later the outlook has somewhat 
changed as the federal government has run, and is estimated to continue 
to run, an on-budget surplus. During the previous two budget cycles we 
have witnessed an eagerness to spend more and more money. On-budget 
surplus dollars have become lumped in to the appropriations process to 
allow for increased spending. We have seen the results yielded by our 
time of prosperity as surplus money has been used to raise the 
discretionary spending level, allowing Congress to shy away from making 
some hard choices. The willingness to spend surplus dollars is so 
strong, in fact, that when Congress adjourned last fall there was no 
real certainty as to whether we spent all of the on-budget surplus and 
then dipped into Social Security Trust Fund dollars. This, quite 
simply, is no way to run any enterprise. Flowing surplus money back 
into discretionary spending to the extent that Social Security money 
would be jeopardized is bad policy.
  Today I rise to offer legislation that offers not only an opportunity 
to control the impulse to spend surplus dollars, but would eliminate 
the entire three-point-six trillion dollar debt owed to the public, 
save over three trillion dollars in interest, and protect the Social 
Security program from annual discretionary appropriations raids. It is 
simple legislation in the model of the American Debt Repayment act, 
providing dedicated debt repayment over a twenty year period.
  Beginning with the fiscal year 2001 and for every year thereafter my 
legislation requires that the federal government maintain a balanced 
budget. As most families and business owners know, you must live within 
your means. It is fair and equitable that the federal government live 
under the same parameters. I believe that this is the first and most 
essential step in federal budget accountability and debt repayment.
  My legislation further provides that Congress must budget for a 
surplus that will be dedicated to the repayment of the publicly held 
portion of the debt. Specifically, in fiscal year 2001 Congress must 
use fifteen billion dollars of on-budget surplus receipts to pay down 
the debt. Every succeeding year the amount of debt payment must 
increase by fifteen billion dollars, so the amount Congress must budget 
for and pay toward the debt in fiscal year 2002 will be thirty billion 
dollars, forty-five billion in fiscal year 2004, and so on. If Congress 
can remain within the framework of a spending freeze at fiscal year 
2000 levels the entire amount of annual payment will fit within the 
projected amount of federal on-budget surplus.

  If this system is adopted, by the year 2021 the entire debt owed to 
the public will be zero.
  We must have a plan to repay the debt. When we have a plan and a 
repayment schedule, just like you have on your home mortgage, we will 
have the ability to cut taxes. A plan provides certainty and structure. 
I believe that anyone concerned with the national debt or tax cuts will 
understand the need for a responsible repayment schedule.
  In addition to the on-budget surplus payment required by this 
legislation, I have added language to require that until such time as 
serious Social Security reform is implemented Social Security surplus 
dollars must also be dedicated to the repayment of debt owed to the 
public. Every Member of this body is aware of the enormous obligation 
this country has made to present and future Social Security recipients. 
Policy makers must address the future solvency of Social Security. I am 
not here today, and my legislation is not drafted, to address this 
vital issue. What my legislation will do, however, is dedicate surplus 
Social Security dollars to debt repayment until the Congress can 
generate an appropriate, long term fix to the obstacles that stand in 
the way of this program.
  In recent weeks the distinguished Speaker of the House and the 
President have talked a great deal publicly about seizing the 
unprecedented opportunity that lies before us--to pay down this 
nation's debt. Testifying before the Senate Banking Committee in 
January, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan strongly urged 
Congress to use surplus dollars to pay down the debt. Chairman 
Greenspan stated that his, quote, first priority would be to allow as 
much of the surplus to flow through into a reduction in debt to the 
public, unquote. This dialogue has been tremendously helpful in further 
drawing the attention of the public and elected officials to the 
importance of debt repayment. As many of my colleagues can attest, and 
as I have experienced in my numerous town meetings around my home state 
of Colorado, this is an issue the public understands. It is an issue 
basis common sense, equity and responsibility.
  This legislation is a call to action and accountability. It demands 
that this country and this Congress recognize the debt it has created. 
It structures a disciplined, fiscally responsible schedule for the 
repayment of our debt. In the process it is my hope that this 
legislation will serve to generate greater fiscal responsibility with 
every appropriations cycle, prevent future deficit spending, and save 
the taxpayer more than three trillion dollars in interest payments. 
That is three trillion dollars that would be far better spent on 
necessary expenditures, the strengthening of Social Security, and tax 
cuts.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the 
American Social Security Protection and

[[Page S1325]]

Debt Repayment Act, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2220

       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 ``American Social Security 
     Protection and Debt Repayment Act''.

     SEC. 2. BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENT.

       Beginning with fiscal year 2001 and for every fiscal year 
     thereafter, budgeted outlays shall not exceed budgeted 
     revenues.

     SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF NATIONAL DEBT.

       (a) In General.--Beginning with fiscal year 2001 and for 
     every fiscal year thereafter, actual revenues shall exceed 
     actual outlays in order to provide for the reduction of the 
     Federal debt held by the public as provided in subsections 
     (b) and (c).
       (b) Amount.--The on budget surplus shall be large enough so 
     that debt held by the public will be reduced each year 
     beginning in fiscal year 2001. The amount of reduction 
     required by this subsection shall be $15,000,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2001 and shall increase by an additional 
     $15,000,000,000 every fiscal year until the entire debt owed 
     to the public has been paid.
       (c) Social Security Surplus and Debt Repayment.--
       (1) In general.--Until such time as Congress enacts major 
     social security reform legislation, the surplus funds each 
     year in the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall be 
     used to reduce the debt owed to the public. This section 
     shall not apply beginning on the fiscal year after social 
     security reform legislation is enacted by Congress.
       (2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``social 
     security reform legislation'' means legislation that--
       (A) insures the long-term financial solvency of the social 
     security system; and
       (B) includes an option for private investment of social 
     security funds by beneficiaries.

     SEC. 4. POINT OF ORDER AND WAIVER.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order to consider 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget that does not comply 
     with this Act.
       (b) Waiver.--Congress may waive the provisions of this Act 
     for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in 
     effect.

     SEC. 5. MAJORITY REQUIREMENT FOR REVENUE INCREASE.

       No bill to increase revenues shall be deemed to have passed 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate unless approved by 
     a majority of the total membership of each House of Congress 
     by a rollcall vote.

     SEC. 6. REVIEW OF REVENUES.

       Congress shall review actual revenues on a quarterly basis 
     and adjust outlays to assure compliance with this Act.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Outlays.--The term ``outlays'' shall include all 
     outlays of the United States excluding repayment of debt 
     principal.
       (2) Revenues.--The term ``revenues'' shall include all 
     revenues of the United States excluding borrowing.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
        Schumer, and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 2221. A bill to continue for 2000 the Department of Agriculture 
program to provide emergency assistance to dairy producers; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                   Financial Relief for Dairy Farmers

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to help 
relieve the financial crisis in the dairy industry.
  Last fall, milk prices took their steepest dive in history and fell 
to their lowest level in more than two decades.
  This is particularly devastating for farmers in Wisconsin who milk on 
average only about 55 cows. These farmers have particularly tight 
margins and are less able to withstand low milk prices that USDA 
forecasts will continue through the year.
  Dairy farmers continue to call my office in despair. Some farmers 
can't meet their feed bills, even though feed prices remain relatively 
low. Meanwhile, other input costs, like fuel and interest rates, are 
rising. Auctions in the countryside return little to farmers who have 
made the difficult decision to quit dairying; their neighbors can't 
afford even the insanely discounted prices for equipment.
  Are the trials facing farmers markedly different than the difficult 
conditions that other producers have faced over the last several years? 
No. But what is different is the level of assistance that dairy farmers 
have received from the federal government relative to other 
commodities.
  The dairy price support program costs only about $150 million per 
year. That stands in contrast to the more than $14 billion spent in 
AMTA payments and Loan Deficiency Payments provided to other producers 
last year.
  Anticipating a price decline in dairy, Congress provided $325 million 
for dairy market loss payments. Compare that to the $15 billion 
provided to crop producers over the last two years. While milk 
producers are happy for the extra help, most have told me that it 
simply is not enough given. Milk prices fell far lower than 
anticipated. And now we must do more.
  On top of this injustice, Midwest dairy farmers, where much of the 
nation's milk supply is produced, also suffer from lower income 
resulting from the discriminatory pricing under the Federal Milk 
Marketing Order system. Last year, Secretary Glickman attempted to 
restore some fairness to that system by making some modest reforms. But 
this Congress unjustly overturned those reforms while simultaneously 
extending the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact--a milk price cartel 
which protects producers in the Northeast at the expense of consumers 
and producers outside the cartel.
  I am going to work to repeal the Northeast Dairy Compact and to 
restore some common sense to federal milk pricing. I also will work 
with my colleagues to develop a meaningful and lasting safety net for 
dairy producers.
  But, Mr. President, that will take time. And right now, dairy farmers 
in Wisconsin don't have time. They need relief.
  So, today I am introducing a bill to provide $500 million in direct 
income relief payments to dairy farmers throughout the nation. The 
money is targeted to small scale farms--those least able to withstand 
these wild price fluctuations. I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Feingold, Specter, Grams, Santorum, and Schumer on this legislation. 
Mr. President, I hope to include this funding in the upcoming 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  This will put money in the pockets of dairy farmers now, when they 
most need it. Not a year from now when many of them will have already 
sold their cows.
  Let me emphasize that this is a national solution to a national 
problem. It is not a regional fix. It does not exclude any dairy farmer 
from participation. And it does not help some at the expense of others. 
It helps all dairy farmers.
  But it is, like last year's funding, merely a bandage to stop the 
bleeding. Dairy farmers everywhere need a meaningful safety net, not 
regional milk cartels. I urge my colleagues who have sought regional 
solutions to depressed dairy farm income to join me in my efforts to 
fight for a new, national dairy policy that will provide both an 
adequate safety net and hope to dairy farmers across the nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 2223. A bill to establish a fund for the restoration of ocean and 
coastal resources, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                        COASTAL STEWARDSHIP ACT

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an amended 
version of the Coastal Stewardship Act, which I offer along with 
Senators Hollings and Inouye. The purpose of introducing this amended 
version is to provide a blueprint for how we believe the Senate should 
address coastal and marine issues in larger proposals that allocate 
revenues from oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf 
(OCS) to the States for conservation. This amended version creates the 
Ocean and Coast Conservation Fund with $375,000,000 to address urgent 
needs in our coastal and marine environment, including wetlands, non-
point pollution, fisheries research and management, coral reefs and 
enforcement.
  The bill allocates $100,000,000 to Cooperative Fisheries Research and 
Management. We have a great need to improve our understanding of 
fisheries and the fishing industry. The National Marine Fisheries 
Service, regional fisheries councils, states, the commercial and 
recreational fishing industries and conservationists rely on fishery 
data to make difficult management and investment decisions. Given the 
importance of having sound information, Congress requested the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to assess the

[[Page S1326]]

quality of our fisheries data. NOAA concluded that, ``Despite some 
regional successes, it is clear that the current overall approach to 
collecting and managing fisheries information needs to be re-thought, 
revised, and reworked. The quality and completeness of fishery data are 
often inadequate. Data are often on inaccessible in an appropriate form 
or timely manner. Methods for data collection and management are 
frequently burdensome and inefficient. These drawbacks result in the 
inability to answer some of the most basic question regarding the state 
of the Nation's fisheries . . .'' NOAA added, ``Simply put, to manage 
fisheries at local, state, regional, or national levels requires a much 
better fisheries information system than the one in place.'' I have 
heard a similar refrain from almost every person and group involved in 
our fisheries, whether their interest is fisheries management, 
commercial or recreational harvest or fisheries conservation. With this 
legislation, the Governor of any State represented by an Interstate 
Maine Fishery Commission may make an application to the Secretary of 
Commerce for funding to support projects that address this critical 
need. We will establish comprehensive programs to improve the quality 
and quantity of information available to evaluate stocks, design 
control measures, develop more environmentally-sound gear and include 
the fishing community in the process.
  The Cooperative Enforcement provision allocates $25,000,000 for the 
Secretary of Commerce to enter joint agreements with coastal states to 
enhance our coastal and marine enforcement. As with all our laws, our 
natural resources laws are only effective if they are enforced. These 
joint ventures allow states and local governments to tailor enforcement 
procedures to fit local needs and available resources, and allow for 
collaboration between state and local enforcement agencies and federal 
agencies, including the Coast Guard. The proposal authorizes the 
Secretary of Commerce to delegate its living marine resource 
enforcement authorities to a state marine law enforcement entity and to 
pay state enforcement costs pursuant to the individual agreements 
crafted with each participating state. State enforcement under these 
agreements would extend to requirements of federal or regional 
fisheries management plans, including those of interjurisdictional 
fishery management commissions. When first introduced, this proposal 
was endorsed by the National Association of Conservation Law 
Enforcement Chiefs, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, the 
Northeast Conservation Law Enforcement Chiefs Association and others.
  A total of $250,000,000 is dedicated to Coastal Stewardship. This 
flexible program allocates funds to states based on coastline, 
population and need for projects that restore and preserve coastal and 
marine habitat. Projects must be consistent with the Coastal Zone 
Management Act, National Estuary Program, National Marine Sanctuary 
Act, the National Estuarine Research Reserve program and other laws 
governing conservation and restoration of coastal or marine habitat. In 
this program, states set priorities and decide how and when projects 
proceed within broad national goals. The benefits will be enormous. We 
will preserve and restore wetlands, reduce non-point source pollution, 
remove abandoned vessels causing environmental damage, address 
watershed protection, and undertake a range of other projects, all 
aimed at coastal conservation.
  Finally, $25,000,000 is set targeted at Coral Reef Restoration and 
Conservation. We must recognize the importance of maintaining the 
health and stability of coral reefs which possess enormous 
environmental and economic value. With this legislation we will fund 
cooperative projects with States to preserve and restore our coral 
reefs.
  A portion of these authorizations is set aside for the Department of 
Commerce to enhance its National Marine Sanctuaries, coral programs and 
other critically important conservation efforts.
  I want to thank Senator Hollings and Inouye for joining as 
cosponsors. I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman, the 
Commerce Committee, and Senator Landrieu and others who are working to 
pass comprehensive legislation to dedicate revenues from Outer 
Continental Shelf exploration to the conservation of our coastal and 
marine environment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Kennedy, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2224. A bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to 
encourage summer fill and fuel budgeting programs for propane, 
kerosene, and heating oil; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


             THE SUMMER FILL AND FUEL BUDGETING ACT OF 2000

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Summer 
Fill and Fuel Budgeting Act of 2000.
  This winter's fuel crisis will be etched on the memories of New 
Englanders for many years to come. Price spikes and low inventories 
have hit Vermonters hard. Schools closed down, oil dealers were driven 
out of business, and many low income families were forced to choose 
between heating their homes and purchasing necessary food and 
prescription medications. The region's Senators have focused with a 
single-mindedness on the seriousness of the situation and the dire need 
to ensure that it is never repeated.
  There have been many letters written, emergency funds released, 
meetings held, and legislative initiatives discussed. Today after weeks 
of diligent research and careful analysis, I am introducing the Summer 
Fill and Fuel Budgeting Act of 2000. Senators Joe Lieberman, John 
Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Patrick Leahy are joining me as original co-
sponsors.
  The legislation is a critical long term education initiative. Its 
purpose is to educate our constituents about the benefits of filling 
their propane, kerosene and heating oil tanks in the summer and 
entering into annual fuel budget contracts. The legislation authorizes 
$25 million for Fiscal Year 2001, and such sums in each fiscal year 
thereafter, for the states to use to develop education and outreach 
programs to encourage consumers to fill their fuel storage facilities 
during the summer months. It also promotes the use of budget plans, 
price cap arrangements, fixed-price contracts and other advantageous 
financial arrangements to help avoid severe seasonal price increases 
for and supply shortages of propane, kerosene, and heating oil.
  I believe that we must work with retailers and consumers to implement 
these types of proactive measures to ensure that our fuel supply, as 
well as the health and safety of millions of Americans, is not subject 
to the whims of foreign oil producing countries. I invite other 
Senators, concerned about the influence that major oil producing 
countries have on our economy and national security, to join me in 
cosponsoring this legislation.

                          ____________________