[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23975-23980]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BULLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1686. A bill to provide for the conveyances of land interests to 
Chugach Alaska Corporation to fulfill the intent, purpose, and promise 
of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


      CHUGACH ALASKA NATIVES SETTLEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1999

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. This morning I rise to introduce 
legislation to implement a settlement agreement between the Chugach 
Alaska Corporation (CAC) and the United States Forest Service. This 
legislation will fulfill a long overdue commitment of the Federal 
government made to certain Alaska Natives.
  I am terribly troubled and disappointed that Congress must once again 
step in to secure promises to Alaska Natives that at best have been 
unnecessarily delayed by this Administration and at worst have been 
trampled by them.
  This legislation will accomplish three goals:
  It will direct the Secretary of Agriculture to, not later than 90 
days after enactment, grant CAC the access rights they were granted 
under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
  It will return to CAC cemetery and historical sites they are entitled 
to under section 14(h)(1) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
  It will require the Secretary of Agriculture to coordinate the 
development, maintenance, and revision of land and resource management 
plans for units of the National Forest System in Alaska with the plans 
of Alaska Native Corporations for the utilization of their lands which 
are intermingled with, adjacent to, or dependent for access upon 
National Forest System lands.


                               Background

  Pursuant to section 1430 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary 
of Agriculture, the State of Alaska, and the CAC, were directed to 
study land ownership in and around the Chugach Region in Alaska. The 
purpose of this study was twofold. The first purpose was to provide for 
a fair and just settlement of the Chugach people and realizing the 
intent, purpose, and promise of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
by CAC. The second purpose was to identify lands that, to the maximum 
extent possible, are of like kind and character to those that were 
traditionally used and occupied by the Chugach people and, to the 
maximum extent possible, those that provide access to the coast and are 
economically viable.
  On September 17, 1982, the parties entered into an agreement now 
known as the 1982 Chugach Natives, Inc. Settlement Agreement that set 
forth a fair and just settlement for the Chugach people pursuant to the 
study directed by Congress. Among the many provisions of this agreement 
the United States was required to convey to CAC not more than 73,308 
acres of land in the vicinity of Carbon Mountain. The land eventually 
conveyed contained significant amounts of natural resources that were 
inaccessible by road. A second major provision of the Settlement 
Agreement granted CAC rights-of-way across Chugach National Forest to 
their land and required the United States to also grant an easement for 
the purpose of constructing and using roads and other facilities 
necessary for development of that tract of land on terms and conditions 
to be determined in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. It is 
obvious that without such an easement the land conveyed to CAC could 
not be utilized or developed in a manner consistent with the intent of 
Congress as expressed in ANILCA and ANCSA.
  More than seventeen years after the Settlement Agreement was signed 
the much needed easement still has not been granted and CAC remains 
unable to make economic use of their lands. It seems absurd to me that 
Congress passed a Settlement Act for the Benefit of Alaska Natives; 
then the federal government entered into a Settlement Agreement to 
implement that Act where the CAC was concerned; and today, we find 
ourselves once again in a position of having to force the government to 
comply with these agreements.
  I have spoken directly to the Chugach Forest Supervisor, the Regional 
Forester, and to the Chief of the Forest Service about this issue. Just 
last month I facilitated a meeting between the Forest Service and CAC 
to work out final details. While the parties thought they had an 
agreement in principle it fell apart once it reached Washington, D.C. 
Therefore, I find it necessary to once again have Congress rectify 
inaction on behalf of the Forest Service.
  It is my intent to hold a hearing on this issue in the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee as soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1687. A bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to 
authorize appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


          federal trade commission reauthorization act of 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Federal Trade 
Commission Reauthorization Act. The bill will authorize funding for the 
Commission for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The measure sets spending 
levels at $149 million in FY 2001 and increases that amount for 
inflation and mandatory pay benefits to $156 for FY 2002.
  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has two primary missions: (1) the 
prevention of anticompetitive conduct in the marketplace; and (2) the 
protection of consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The 
Commission accomplishes its anticompetitive mission primarily through 
premerger reviews under that Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. Under that Act, 
merger and acquisitions of a specified size are reviewed for 
anticompetitive impact. During the 1990's, the number of mergers that 
met these size requirements tripled. This has placed an increased 
burden on the Commission.
  Additionally, the Commission pursues claims of unfair or deceptive 
practices or acts--essentially fraud. As electronic commerce on the 
Internet increases, fraud will certainly increase with it and the FTC 
should and will play a role in protecting consumers on the Internet, as 
they do in the traditional market place. The Commission's performance 
of these dual missions is vital to the protection of consumers.
  The Commission was last reauthorized in 1996. That legislation 
provided for funding levels of $107 million in FY 1997 and $111 million 
in FY 1998. The bill I introduce today increases the previous 
authorization by $37 million. In general, the increase is necessary to 
meet the rising number of merger reviews under the Hart-Scott-Rodino 
Act and to protect consumers in the expanding world of e-commerce. 
According to the Commission's justification, the new authorization 
would fund 25 additional employees to work on merger and Internet 
issues. It will also help the Commission upgrade its computing 
facilities and fund increased consumer education activities.
  The authorization, however, does not provide for the full amount 
requested by the Commission. In a recent request, the Commission asked 
for $176

[[Page 23976]]

million in FY2002. While I agree the Commission plays an important role 
in protecting consumers, their request represents more than a 50% 
increase in their authorization over a four-year period. At this point, 
I am not convinced that such a dramatic increase is warranted.
  As we move through the authorization process, I look forward to 
hearing further from the FTC as to why such an increase is needed to 
meet its statutory functions. I also hope to explore other ways we can 
improve the Commission's ability to protect customers without 
increasing spending.
  For example, I was very interested in the comments of the FTC nominee 
Thomas Leary during his confirmation hearing regarding the Commission's 
merger review process. I know over the past few years, the Commission 
has taken steps to simplify this process reducing its own costs and the 
costs to the business community. Mr. Leary indicated, however, that 
more work could be done to change the internal procedures of the FTC to 
further reduce the number of reviews without harming competition. I 
look forward to exploring this topic with Mr. Leary and the other 
commissioners.
  I look forward to working with the members of the Commerce Committee, 
the full Senate, and the Commission as we move through the 
authorization process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1688. A bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, 
relating to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, to enable 
the Federal Government to enroll an employee and the family of the 
employee in the program when a State court orders the employee to 
provide health insurance coverage for a child of the employee, but the 
employee fails to provide the coverage, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


    federal employees health benefits children's equity act of 1999

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with my 
distinguished colleague Senator Akaka, the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Children's Equity Act of 1999.
  This legislation concerns Federal employees who are under a court 
order to provide health insurance to their dependent children. If a 
Federal employee is under such a court order and his dependent children 
have no health insurance coverage, the Federal government would be 
authorized to enroll the employee in a ``family coverage'' health plan. 
If the employee is not enrolled in any health care plan, the Federal 
government would be authorized to enroll the employee and his or her 
family in the standard option of the service benefit plan. The bill 
would also prevent the employee from canceling health coverage for his 
dependent children for the term of the court order.
  This bill would close a loophole created by the 1993 Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act. The 1993 bill required each State to enact 
legislation requiring an employer to enroll a dependent child in an 
employee's group health plan when an employee is under a court order to 
provide health insurance for his or her child but neglects to do so. 
This legislation simply provides Federal agencies with the same 
authority granted to the states.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1688

       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 Employees Health 
     Benefits Children's Equity Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ENROLLMENT OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES AND FAMILY.

       Section 8905 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f)(1)(A) An unenrolled employee who is required by a 
     court or administrative order to provide health insurance 
     coverage for a child who meets the requirements of section 
     8901(5) may enroll for self and family coverage in a health 
     benefits plan under this chapter.
       ``(B) The employing agency of an employee described under 
     subparagraph (A) shall enroll the employee in a self and 
     family enrollment in the option which provides the lower 
     level of coverage under the service benefit plan if the 
     employee--
       ``(i) fails to enroll for self and family coverage in a 
     health benefits plan that provides full benefits and services 
     in the location in which the child resides; and 
       ``(ii) does not provide documentation demonstrating that 
     the required coverage has been provided through other health 
     insurance.
       ``(2)(A) An employee who is enrolled as an individual in a 
     health benefits plan under this chapter and who is required 
     by a court or administrative order to provide health 
     insurance coverage for a child who meets the requirements of 
     section 8901(5) may change to a self and family enrollment 
     in--
       ``(i) the health benefits plan in which the employee is 
     enrolled; or
       ``(ii) another health benefits plan under this chapter.
       ``(B) The employing agency of an employee described under 
     subparagraph (A) shall change the enrollment of the employee 
     to a self and family enrollment in the plan in which the 
     employee is enrolled if--
       ``(i) such plan provides full benefits and services in the 
     location where the child resides; and
       ``(ii) the employee--
       ``(I) fails to change to a self and family enrollment; and
       ``(II) does not provide documentation demonstrating that 
     the required coverage has been provided through other health 
     insurance.
       ``(C) The employing agency of an employee described under 
     subparagraph (A) shall change the coverage of the employee to 
     a self and family enrollment in the option which provides the 
     lower level of coverage under the service benefit plan if--
       ``(i) the plan in which the employee is enrolled does not 
     provide full benefits and services in the location in which 
     the child resides; or
       ``(ii) the employee fails to change to a self and family 
     enrollment in a plan that provides full benefits and services 
     in the location where the child resides.
       ``(3)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), an employee who is 
     subject to a court or administrative order described under 
     this section may not discontinue the self and family 
     enrollment in a plan that provides full benefits and services 
     in the location in which the child resides for the period 
     that the court or administrative order remains in effect if 
     the child meets the requirements of section 8901(5) during 
     such period.
       ``(B) Enrollment described under subparagraph (A) may be 
     discontinued if the employee provides documentation 
     demonstrating that the required coverage has been provided 
     through other health insurance.''.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ANNUITY 
                   SUPPLEMENT COMPUTATION.

       Section 8421a(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (4), the 
     reduction required by subsection (a) shall be effective 
     during the 12-month period beginning on the first day of the 
     seventh month after the end of the calendar year in which the 
     excess earnings were earned.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Helms, and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 1689. A bill to require a report on the current United States 
policy and strategy regarding counter-narcotics assistance for 
Colombia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


           colombian counter-narcotics assistance legislation

 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I share many of my colleagues 
concerns about the need to do more to aid Colombia. But I also believe 
that our aid must be based on a clear and consistent plan, not on good 
intentions. We do Colombia no favors by throwing money at the problem. 
We do not help ourselves. Too often, throwing money at a problem is the 
same thing as throwing money away. For that reason, I, along with 
Senator Helms and Senator DeWine, am introducing legislation today 
calling on the U.S. Administration to present a plan.
  Colombia is the third largest recipient of U.S. security aid behind 
Israel and Egypt. It is also the largest supplier of cocaine to the 
United States. But, we seem to find ourselves in the midst of a muddle. 
Our policy appears to be adrift, and our focus blurred.
  This past Tuesday, the Caucus on International Narcotics Control held 
a

[[Page 23977]]

hearing to ask the Administration for a specific plan and a detailed 
strategy outlining U.S. interests and priorities dealing with counter-
narcotics efforts in Colombia. Before we in Congress get involved in a 
discussion about what and how much equipment we should be sending to 
Colombia, we need to discuss whether or not we should send any and why. 
Recent press reports indicate that the Administration is preparing a 
security assistance package to Colombia with funding from $500 million 
dollars to somewhere around $1.5 billion dollars.
  And yet, Congress hasn't been able to evaluate any strategy. That's 
because there is none. From the hearing, it seems the Administration is 
incapable of thinking about the situation with any clarity or 
articulating a strategy with any transparency. It seems confused as to 
what is actually happening in Colombia.
  At Tuesday's hearing, representatives from the Department of State 
and the Department of Defense assured me they were currently working on 
a detailed strategy to be unveiled at some future point. So far there 
have been difficulties in creating a detailed and coherent strategy and 
presenting it to Congress. Today we are introducing a bill that 
requires the Secretary of State to submit to Congress within 60 days a 
detailed report on current U.S. policy and strategy for counter-
narcotics assistance for Colombia.
  This is an issue that will not just simply disappear. Before we begin 
appropriating additional funding for Colombia, we need strategies and 
goals, not just piecemeal assistance and operations. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Dodd, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 1690. A bill to require the United States to take action to 
provide bilateral debt relief, and improve the provision of 
multilateral debt relief, in order to give a fresh start to poor 
counties; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


               debt relief for poor countries act of 1999

 Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, to introduce the Debt Relief for Counties Act 
of 1999. This bill simply forgives much of the debt owed to us by the 
world's poorest countries in exchange for commitments from these 
countries to reform their economies and work toward a better quality of 
life for their people. Our effort today is premised on the fact that we 
must help these poverty-stricken nations break the vicious cycle of 
debt and give them the economic opportunity to liberate their futures. 
I ask my colleagues to join me in this worthwhile effort.
  Today, the world's poorest countries owe an average of $400 for every 
man, woman, and child within their borders. This is much more than most 
people in these countries make in a year. Debt service payments in many 
cases consume a majority of a poor country's annual budget, leaving 
scarce domestic resources for economic restructuring or such vital 
human services as education, clean water and sanitary living 
conditions. In Tanzania, for example, debt payments would require 
nearly four-fifths of the government's budget. In a country where one 
child in six dies before the age of five, little money remains to 
finance public health programs. Among Sub-Saharan African countries, 
one in five adults can't read or write, and it is estimated that in 
several countries almost half the population does not have access to 
safe drinking water.
  Mr. President, the problems that yield such grim statistics will 
never be solved without a monumental commitment of will from their 
leaders, their citizens, and the outside world. That is not what we 
propose to do here today. Our bill is only a small step in the right 
direction, but it is one we can do quickly and for relatively little 
cost.
  The effort to forgive the debts of the world's poorest countries has 
been ongoing for more than a decade. During this time the international 
community and the G7 came to the realization that the world's poorest 
countries are simply unable to repay the debt they owe to foreign 
creditors. The external debt for many of the developing nations is more 
than twice their GDP, leaving many unable to even pay the interest on 
their debts. We must accept the fact that this debt is unpayable. the 
question is not whether we'll ever get paid back, but rather what we 
can encourage these heavily indebted countries to do for themselves in 
exchange for our forgiveness.
  Our bill requires the President to forgive at least 90 percent of the 
entire bilateral debt owed by the world's heavily indebted poor 
countries in exchange for verifiable commitments to pursue economic 
reforms and implement poverty alleviation measures. While roughly $6 
billion is owed to the United States by these poor countries, it is 
estimated the cost of forgiving this debt would be less than ten 
percent of that amount. The U.S. share of the bilateral debt is less 
than four percent of the total, but our action would provide leadership 
to the rest of the world's creditor nations and provide some savings 
benefits to these countries as well.
  Our bill also requires a restructuring of the IMF and World Bank's 
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC). This program was 
begun in 1996, but to date only three countries have received any 
relief. While the premise of HIPC is sound, its shortcomings have 
become evident during the implementation. It promises much, but in 
reality it benefits too few countries, offers too little relief, and 
requires too long a wait before debt is forgiven. A process of 
reforming the HIPC was begun this year during the G7's meeting in 
Cologne, and our bill meets or exceeds the standards set out in the 
Cologne communique.
  Specifically, we shorten the waiting period for eligibility from six 
to three years. We extend the prospect of relief to more countries. And 
we ensure that savings realized from the relief will be used to enhance 
ongoing economic reforms in addition to initiatives designed to 
alleviate poverty. This is a sound and balanced approach to help these 
poor countries correct their underlying economic problems and improve 
the standard of living of their people.
  Mr. President, this legislation is not a handout to the developing 
world. Rather, it is an investment in these countries' commitment to 
implementing sound economic reforms and helping their people live 
longer, healthier and more prosperous lives. In order to receive debt 
relief under our bill, countries must commit the savings to policies 
that promote growth and expand citizens' access to basic services like 
clean water and education.
  We have included a strict prohibition in our bill on providing relief 
to countries that sponsor terrorism, spend excessively on their 
militaries, do not cooperate on narcotics matters, or engage in 
systematic violations of their citizens' human rights. We are not 
proposing to help any country that is not first willing to help itself.
  Mr. President, the debt accumulated in the developing world 
throughout the Cold War and into the 1990s has become a significant 
impediment to the implementation of free-market economic reforms and 
the reduction of poverty. We in the developed world have an interest in 
removing this impediment and providing the world's poorest countries 
with the opportunity to address their underlying economic problems and 
set a course for sustainability.
  I believe our bill is an important first step in this process and I 
look forward to the support of my colleagues in the Senate.
 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with 
my colleague from Florida, Mr. Mack, in introducing the ``Debt Relief 
for Poor Countries Act of 1999.'' This bill is the companion 
legislation to H.R. 1095, offered in the House by Representatives Leach 
and LaFalce and cosponsored by 116 other Members.
  The purpose of the bill is to provide the world's poorest countries 
with relief from the crippling burden of debt and to encourage 
investment of the proceeds in health, education, nutrition, sanitation, 
and basic social services for their people.

[[Page 23978]]

  All too often, payments on the foreign debt--which account for as 
much as 70 percent of government expenditures in some countries--mean 
there is little left to meet the basic human needs of the population. 
In effect, debt service payments are making it even harder for the 
recipient governments to enact the kinds of economic and political 
reforms that the loans were designed to encourage, and that are 
necessary to ensure broad-based growth and future prosperity.
  To address this problem the World Bank and the IMF began a program in 
1996 to reduce $27 billion in debt from the most Heavily Indebted Poor 
Countries, known as the ``HIPC Initiative.'' But the program created a 
number of stringent criteria and provided only partial relief, which 
meant that only a small number of countries actually qualified for 
participation and the ones who did received only marginal benefits 
after an extended period of time.
  Following calls by non-government organizations, religious groups and 
member governments for faster and more flexible relief, the G-7 Finance 
Ministers, meeting this past June in Cologne, Germany, proposed 
alternative criteria that would make expanded benefits available 
quicker and to more countries. Last week, at the annual World Bank-IMF 
meetings here in Washington, President Clinton pledged to cancel all 
$5.7 billion of debt owed to the U.S. government by 36 of the poorest 
countries, and he sent a supplemental request for $1 billion over 4 
years to pay the U.S. portion of the multilateral initiative. Canceling 
the debt will not cost the full $5.7 billion because many of the loans 
would never have been repaid and are no longer worth their full face-
value. I commend the President for exercising international leadership 
on this important issue and for making it a foreign policy priority.
  The legislation we are offering today goes even further by requiring 
the President to forgive at least 90 percent of the U.S. non-
concessional loans and 100 percent of concessional loans to countries 
that meet the eligibility guidelines. To qualify, the countries must 
have an annual per capita income of less than $925, have public debts 
totaling at least 150 percent of average annual exports, and agree to 
use the savings generated by debt relief to facilitate the 
implementation of economic reforms in a way that is transparent and 
participatory, to reduce the number of persons living in poverty, to 
promote sustainable growth and to prevent damage to the environment.
  Countries that have an excessive level of military expenditures, 
support terrorism, fail to cooperate in international narcotics control 
matters, or engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of 
internationally recognized human rights are not eligible for debt 
relief under this legislation.
  In addition, the bill urges the President to undertake diplomatic 
efforts in the Paris Club to reduce or cancel debts owed bilaterally to 
other countries, and to work with international financial institutions 
to maximize the impact of the HIPC Initiative. The United States 
accounts for less than 5 percent of the total debt burden, so it is 
essential that relief is provided in a coordinated and comprehensive 
fashion.
  Mr. President, countries should not be forced to make a tradeoff 
between servicing their debt and feeding their people. And once debt is 
relieved, we should ensure that the savings are being used to reduce 
poverty and improve living standards, so that the benefits are widely 
shared among the population. This bill achieves both objectives, and I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its prompt 
consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 1691. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to authorize programs for predisaster 
mitigation, to streamline the administration of disaster relief, to 
control the Federal costs of disaster assistance, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                    disaster mitigation act of 1999

 Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Disaster Mitigation Act of 1999. As the chairman of the Senate 
Subcommittee with jurisdiction over FEMA, I have been working on this 
legislation for the last couple of years. I am joined in the 
introduction today with my ranking member Senator Bob Graham. I 
appreciate his commitment to this legislation and I look forward to 
working with him to shepherd this Bill through the process.
  We have been witness to several major natural disasters already this 
year. And, we have three more months to go. We have seen devastating 
tornadoes ravage Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City. We have also seen 
the destruction brought on the East Coast by hurricanes Dennis and 
Floyd. Our hearts go out to the victims of these natural disasters. I 
was in Oklahoma City the morning of May 4, the day after the tornadoes 
moved through the Oklahoma City metro area. I have never seen 
destruction like that any place in the world. I was moved by the 
stories I heard and saw as we traveled through the remains of entire 
neighborhoods.
  Now a few months later, I see and hear stories of the destruction 
brought by the flooding in North Carolina and I know the problems that 
lie ahead as they begin to recover. As the recovery effort begin, our 
hearts and our prayers go out to the people of North Carolina.
  The Federal government, through FEMA, has been there to help people 
and their communities deal with the aftermath of disasters for over a 
generation. As chairman of the oversight Subcommittee I want to ensure 
that FEMA will continue to respond and help people in need for 
generations to come. Unfortunately, the costs of disaster recovery have 
spiraled out of control. For every major disaster Congress is forced to 
appropriate additional funds through Supplemental Emergency Spending 
Bills. This not only plays havoc with the budget and forces us to spend 
funds which would have gone to other pressing needs, but sets up 
unrealistic expectations of what the federal government can and should 
do after a disaster.
  For instance, following the Oklahoma City tornadoes, there was an 
estimated $900 million in damage, with a large portion of that in 
federal disaster assistance. Now, in the aftermath of hurricane Floyd 
in North Carolina, estimates of $1 billion or more in damages are being 
discussed. This problem is not just isolated to Oklahoma City or North 
Carolina. In the period between fiscal years 1994 and 1998, FEMA 
disaster assistance and relief costs grew from $8.7 billion to $19 
billion. That marks a $10.3 billion increase in disaster assistance in 
just five years. To finance these expenditures, we have been forced to 
find over $12 billion in rescissions.
  The Bill I am introducing today will address this problem from two 
different directions. First, it authorizes a Predisaster Hazard 
Mitigation Program, which assists people in preparing for disasters 
before they happen. Second, it provides a number of cost-saving 
measures to help control the costs of disaster assistance.
  In our bill, we are authorizing PROJECT IMPACT, FEMA's natural 
disaster mitigation program. PROJECT IMPACT authorizes the use of small 
grants to local communities to give them funds and technical assistance 
to mitigate against disasters before they occur. Too often, we think of 
disaster assistance only after a disaster has occurred. For the very 
first time, we are authorizing a program to think about preventing 
disaster-related damage prior to the disaster. We believe that by 
spending these small amounts in advance of a disaster, we will save the 
federal government money in the long-term. However, it is important to 
note that we are not authorizing this program in perpetuity. The 
program, as drafted, is set to expire in 2003. If PROJECT IMPACT is 
successful, we will have the appropriate opportunity to review its work 
and make a determination on whether to continue program.
  We are also proposing to allow states to keep a larger percentage of 
their federal disaster funds to be used on state mitigation projects. 
In Oklahoma, the state is using its share of

[[Page 23979]]

disaster funds to provide a tax rebate to the victims of the May 3 
tornadoes who, when rebuilding their homes, build a ``safe room'' into 
their home. Because of limited funding, this assistance is only 
available to those who were unfortunate enough to lose everything they 
owned. We seek to give states more flexibility in determining their own 
mitigation priorities and giving them the financial assistance to 
follow through with their plans.
  While we are attempting to re-define the way in which we respond to 
natural disasters, we must also look to curb the rising cost of post-
disaster related assistance. The intent of the original Stafford Act 
was to provide federal assistance after States and local communities 
had exhausted all their existing resources. As I said earlier, we have 
lost sight of this intent.
  To meet our cost saving goal, we are making significant changes to 
FEMA's Public Assistance program. One of the most significant changes 
in the PA program focuses on the use of insurance. FEMA is currently 
developing an insurance role to require States and local government to 
maintain private or self-insurance in order to qualify for the PA 
program. We applaud their efforts and are providing them with some 
parameters we expect them to follow in developing any insurance rule.
  Second, we are providing FEMA with the ability to estimate the cost 
of repairing or rebuilding projects. Under current law, FEMA is 
required to stay in the field and monitor the rebuilding of public 
structures. By requiring FEMA to stay afield for years after the 
disaster, we run up the administrative cost of projects. Allowing them 
to estimate the cost of repairs and close out the project will bring 
immediate assistance to the State or local community and save the 
Federal government money.
  We have spent months working closely with FEMA, the States, local 
communities, and other stakeholders to produce a bill that gives FEMA 
the increased ability to respond to disasters, while assuring States 
and local communities that the federal government will continue to meet 
its commitments.
  In closing, I want to thank Senator Graham for his help and the 
leadership he has taken on this important issue. Without his help, 
input, and insight, this legislation would be little more than an idea. 
As we continue to move this bill forward in the process, I look forward 
to continuing to work with him to make this legislation a 
reality.
 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join my distinguished 
colleague from Oklahoma in introducing legislation that creates public 
and private incentives to reduce the cost of future disasters.
  On June 1st, the start of the 1999 Hurricane Season, the National 
Weather Service predicted that the United States would face three or 
four intense hurricanes during the next six months.
  We did not have a long wait to experience the accuracy of that 
forecast. From September 12-15, 1999, Hurricane Floyd dragged 140 mph 
winds and eight foot tidal surges along the eastern seaboard. Floyd 
caused flooding, tornadoes, and massive damage from Florida to New 
Jersey. Evacuations were conducted as far north as Delaware. This 
disaster claimed the lives of 68 people. Initial damage estimates 
suggest that Floyd could cost the federal government more than $6 
billion. Just days later, Tropical Storm Harvey struck Florida's west 
coast. We are still assessing the combine effects of these storms.
  Coming just seven years after Hurricane Andrew damaged 128,000 homes, 
left approximately 160,000 people homeless, and caused nearly $30 
billion in damage, this year's developments remind us of the 
inevitability and destructive power of Mother Nature. We must prepare 
for natural disasters if we are going to minimize their devastating 
effects.
  It is impossible to stop violent weather. But Congress can reduce the 
losses from severe weather by legislating a comprehensive, nationwide 
mitigation strategy. Senator Inhofe and I have worked closely with 
FEMA, the National Emergency Management Association, the National 
League of Cities, the American Red Cross, and numerous other groups to 
construct a comprehensive proposal that will make mitigation--not 
response and recovery--the primary focus of emergency management.
  Our legislation amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act. It will: Authorize programs for pre-disaster 
emergency preparedness; streamline the administration of disaster 
relief; restrain the Federal costs of disaster assistance; and provide 
incentives for the development of community-sponsored mitigation 
projects.
  Mr. President, history has demonstrated that no community in the 
United States is safe from disasters. From tropical weather along the 
Atlantic Coast to devastating floods in the Upper Midwest to 
earthquakes in the Pacific Rim, we have suffered as a result of Mother 
Nature's fury. She will strike again. But we can avoid some of the 
excessive human and financial costs of the past by applying what we 
have learned about preparedness technology.
  Florida has been a leader in incorporating the principles and 
practice of hazard mitigation into the mainstream of community 
preparedness. We have developed and implemented mitigation projects 
using funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Flood 
Mitigation Assistance Program and other public-private partnerships.
  Everyone has a role in reducing the risks associated with natural and 
technological related hazards. Engineers, hospital administrators, 
business leaders, regional planners and emergency managers and 
volunteers are all significant contributors to mitigation efforts.
  An effective mitigation project may be as basic as the Miami Wind 
Shutter program. The installation of shutters is a cost-effective 
mitigation measure that has proven effective in protecting buildings 
from hurricane force winds, and in the process minimizing direct and 
indirect losses to vulnerable facilities. These shutters significantly 
increase strength and provide increased protection of life and 
property.
  In 1992, Hurricane Andrew did $17 million worth of damage to Baptist, 
Miami South, and Mercy Hospitals in Miami. As a result, these hospitals 
were later retrofitted with wind shutters through the Hazard Mitigation 
Grant Program.
  Six years after Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Georges brushed against 
South Florida. The shutter project paid dividends. Georges' track 
motivated evacuees to leave more vulnerable areas of South Florida to 
seek shelter. The protective shutters allowed these three Miami 
hospitals to serve as a safe haven for 200 pregnant mothers, prevented 
the need to evacuate critical patients, and helped the staff's families 
to secure shelter during the response effort.
  In July of 1994, Tropical Storm Alberto's landfall in the Florida 
Panhandle triggered more than $500 million in federal disaster 
assistance. State and local officials concluded that the direct 
solution to the problem of repetitive flooding was to remove or 
demolish the structures at risk. A Community Block Grant of $27.5 
million was used to assist local governments in acquiring 388 extremely 
vulnerable properties.
  The success of this effort was evident when the same area experienced 
flooding again in the spring of 1998. While both floods were of 
comparable severity, the damages from the second disaster were 
significantly lower in the communities that acquired the flood prone 
properties. This mitigation project reduced their vulnerability.
  We have an opportunity today to continue the working partnership 
between the federal government, the states, local communities and the 
private sector. In mitigating the devastating effects of natural 
disasters, it is also imperative that we control the cost of disaster 
relief. Our legislation will help in this effort. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this initiative.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMS:
  S. 1693. A bill to protect the Social Security surplus by requiring a 
sequester to eliminate any deficit; to the

[[Page 23980]]

Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions 
that if one Committee reports, the other Committee has thirty days to 
report or be discharged.


             social security surplus protection act of 1999

  Mr. GRAMS. 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. 1693

       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 ``Social Security Surplus 
     Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. SEQUESTER TO PROTECT THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS.

       Section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(d) Social Security Surplus Protection Sequester.--
       ``(1) In general.--Within 15 calendar days after Congress 
     adjourns to end a session and on the same day as a 
     sequestration (if any) under subsection (a), section 252, and 
     section 253, there shall be a sequestration to eliminate any 
     on-budget deficit (excluding any surplus in the Social 
     Security Trust Funds).
       ``(2) Eliminating Deficit.--The sequester required by this 
     subsection shall be applied in accordance with the procedures 
     set forth in subsection (a). The on-budget deficit shall not 
     be subject to adjustment for any purpose.''.

                          ____________________