Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 25 (Wednesday, March 8, 2000)

[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.

____________________