March 8, 2000 sees Congressional Record publish “STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS”

Volume 146, No. 25 covering the 2nd Session of the 106th Congress (1999 - 2000) was published by the Congressional Record.

The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.

“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Senate section on pages S1316-S1326 on March 8, 2000.

The publication is reproduced in full below:

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 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.

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:

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.''

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

(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.

(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

(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 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

(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

(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.

(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.

(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 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 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 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 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 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.

(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 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.

____________________

SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 146, No. 25

March 8, 2000 sees Congressional Record publish “STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS”

March 8, 2000 sees Congressional Record publish “STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS”

Top Stories

More News