Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 22, for purposes of conducting a joint committee hearing with the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Select Committee on Intelligence, which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony from the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board regarding its report to the President: Science at its Best, Security at its Worst: A Report on Security Problems at the U.S. Department of Energy.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 22, 1999, to conduct a hearing with respect to the nomination of Lawrence H. Summers, to be Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Aging, be authorized to meet for a hearing on Older Americans during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 22, 1999, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the GAO report examines two reports done by the Lewin Group on the impact of premium increases on coverage. A 1997 report by Lewin indicates that a 1% increase will result in 400,000 losing coverage. A 1998 report by Lewin for the AFL/CIO indicates that a 1% increase will result in 300,000 Americans losing coverage. It is this lower number that I used.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Let me repeat that. Adoption of the Democratic approach would cancel the insurance policies of almost a million and half Americans. I cannot support legislation that would result in the loss of health insurance coverage for a population the size covered in the combined states of Vermont, Delaware, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Fortunately, we can provide the key protections that consumers want at a minimal cost and without disruption of coverage--if we apply these protections responsibly and where they are needed. In sharp contrast to the Democratic alternative, our bill would actually increase coverage. With the additional of the Tax Code provisions to S. 326, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act, our bill allows for the full deduction of health insurance for the self-employed, the full availability of medical savings accounts and the carryover of unused benefits from flexible spending accounts. With the new Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act we provide Americans with greater choice to more affordable health insurance. S. 326, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act, provides necessary consumer protections without adding significant new costs; without increasing litigation; and without micro-managing health plans. I also point out that under the law a doctor is still open to suit. Although they are prescribed health plans, the doctors are liable. Our goal is to give Americans the protections they want and need in a package that they can afford and that we can enact. This is why I hope the Patients' Bill of Rights that we are offering today will be enacted and signed into law by the President. I believe very strongly that the advantages we get, especially that we require, the standard of best medicine, and not just the medicine that is generally used in the area is by far a much better protection for the people we are trying to protect--the patients--than the Democrat's Patient's Bill of Rights. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 General Accounting Office, Health, Education and Human Services Division, Washington, DC, July 7, 1998. Subject: Private Health Insurance: Impact of Premium Increases on the Number of Covered Individuals Is Uncertain Hon. James M. Jeffords, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate. Dear Mr. Chairman: Almost 150 million individuals obtained health insurance through the workplace in 1996, either through their own employment or the employment of a family member. During the last several years, an increasing number of individuals with employer-sponsored insurance have enrolled in some form of managed care rather than in fee-for- service plans. Recently, concerns have grown regarding the ways in which some managed care plans operate and the adequacy of information shared between each plan, its providers, and its members. In response to these concerns, several legislative proposals have been made to require health insurance plans to adopt specified operational practices. The proposals apply to all types of plans, but would likely have their greatest impact on health maintenance organizations (HMO). Other types of plans, such as preferred provider organizations (PPO) and indemnity, or fee-for-service, plans, will likely be affected to a lesser degree. Included in various proposals are requirements, for example, to disclose certain information,\1\ guarantee patient access to emergency and specialty services, implement internal and external grievance policies, guarantee freedom of communication between providers and patients, and eliminate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) restrictions on health plan liability. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Footnotes at end of Report. (Figure not reproducible in Record.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, some lawmakers are concerned that these types of mandates could increase the cost of health insurance and have the unintended consequence of reducing the number of individuals covered by private health insurance. This letter responds to your request for information on the relationship between the amount charged for private health insurance and the number of insured individuals. You also asked us to analyze the basis for a widely cited statistic from the Lewin Group, a private research and consulting organization, that the number of insured individuals would fall by 400,000 for every 1-percent increase in health insurance premiums. Specifically, we (1) examined the trends in employers' decisions to offer insurance and employees' decisions to purchase it, (2) assessed the methodology used by the Lewin Group to support its 400,000 coverage loss estimate, (3) assessed the methodology used by the Lewin Group to produce its most recent estimates, and (4) evaluated conditions or factors that could affect the impact of premium increases on insurance coverage. To conduct our study, we reviewed relevant published research. We also evaluated the applicability of the Lewin Group's estimates given the data, methods, and assumptions it used to produce its estimates. We performed our work between May 1998 and June 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In summary, during a period of rising health insurance premiums, the proportion of employees offered coverage rose, while the share that accepted insurance fell. Between 1988 and 1996, health insurance premiums increased, on average, by approximately 8 percent per year.\2\ During roughly the same period, 1987 to 1996, the proportion of workers who were offered insurance by their employers rose from 72.4 percent to 75.4 percent, according to one recent study.\3\ The same study found that the proportion of workers who accepted coverage, however, fell from 88.3 percent to 80.1 percent. This may be because employers required employees to pay a larger share of the premiums.\4\ In 1988, employees in small firms (fewer than 200 workers) paid an average of 12 percent of single-coverage premiums. Employees in large firms paid about 13 percent.\5\ By 1996, the employee share had risen to 33 percent in small firms and 22 percent in large firms. Other factors, such as decreases in some workers' real incomes, Medicaid-eligibility expansions, and changes in benefit generosity, also may have contributed to the fall in the acceptance rate. In November, 1997, the Lewin Group used published studies to estimate that 400,000 fewer individuals would have health insurance coverage for every 1 percent increase in insurance premiums.\6\ Several of these studies had sought to quantify the impact of subsidized insurance premiums on the increase in the number of employers offering insurance. The Lewin Group concluded from these studies that a 1-percent decrease in premiums would likely induce an additional 0.4 percent of employers to offer insurance. It then assumed that an increase in premiums might cause a similar percentage of firms to drop health insurance coverage and cause 400,000 individuals to be without coverage. The findings of more recent studies, however, call into question the basis for the Lewin Group's estimate. Although these studies did not quantify the relationship between premium increases and changes in the number of employees with coverage, they clearly show that employers generally continued to offer insurance during a period of rising premiums but that fewer employees decided to purchase coverage. The estimate also assumes equal premium increases for all types of insurance products. If new federal mandates primarily affect HMO premiums, some employees may switch to other types of insurance--especially insurance with different benefit packages--instead of dropping coverage entirely. Thus, the Lewin Group's estimate may not be a good predictor of the coverage loss that might be caused by new federal mandates. In January 1998, the Lewin Group lowered its estimate of potential coverage losses by about 25 percent.\7\ It now estimates that a 1-percent premium increase could result in approximately 300,000 fewer individuals being covered by private insurance. The new estimate is based on the Lewin Group's statistical analysis of the relationship between how much employees pay for insurance and the probability that they, their spouses, and their dependent children have employer-sponsored health insurance. However, it is unclear how accurately the Lewin Group was able to measure the price paid by the individuals in its sample. Moreover, the new estimate applies to situations in which premiums for all insurance types increase, on average, by 1 percent. If premiums increase by 1 percent only for some insurance types (for example, HMOs), then the coverage loss predicted by the Lewin Group would be less than 300,000. Because many factors can affect the number of individuals covered by private insurance, it is difficult to predict the impact of an increase in insurance premiums. For example, new mandates may increase premiums but may also change individuals' willingness to purchase insurance. Individuals may not mind paying higher premiums if they like the changes brought about by the mandates. The extent to which employers pass on premium increases to employees also can affect coverage by influencing employees' purchasing decisions. Another important determinant is the extent to which employees switch from plans with high premium increases to plans with no or low premium increases, or to less expensive plans with more limited benefits. Finally, changes in other economic factors, such as income, or changes in public insurance program eligibility requirements can affect the number of individuals with private health insurance. background Between 1995 and 1997, real health insurance premiums (adjusted for inflation) remained nearly constant or fell slightly across all plan types. (See table 1.) This represents a sharp decline from the previous 5 years, in which inflation- adjusted growth was as high as 11.6 percent for indemnity plans and 10.6 percent for HMO plans in 1990.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I would be happy to make that a part of the Record, yes. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Tuesday, June 22, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-628 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``ESEA: Professional Development''. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Wednesday, June 23, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-628 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``ESEA: Title VI''. For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Subcommittee on Aging will be held on June 22, 1999, 2:30 p.m., in SD-628 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Older Americans Act''. For further information, Please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on June 24, 1999 in SR-328A at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss Agriculture issues related to a variety of trade topics.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the gradual but accelerating loss of soil fertility and productive agricultural land worldwide may not be headline-grabbing news. But it is the kind of threat that, if not addressed, will exacerbate global problems of hunger, poverty, migration and conflict over local scarce land and water resources in the 21st century. The process of soil erosion and severe land degradation, often referred to as ``desertification,'' results from over-cultivation, deforestation, improper irrigation and drought. Most Americans are aware of the phenomenon from our own ``dust bowl'' in the 1930's when hundreds of thousands of farmers were forced to abandon their exhausted land. Today, dust bowls are occurring in more than 90 countries with an alarming annual loss of 10 million acres of productive agricultural land worldwide. Because of our own successful soil and water conservation programs, U.S. businesses, universities and non- governmental organizations have a crucial role to play in providing technical expertise and support to communities around the world that are fighting land degradation. Today is World Day to Combat Desertification, which marks the fifth anniversary of a coordinated international initiative to address the land degradation problem. In recognition of this observance, I would like to share a recent Christian Science Monitor op-ed piece on the seriousness of land degradation in Africa written by His Excellency Mamadou Mansour Seck, Senegal's Ambassador to the United States. I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: Shrinking Forests--Will U.S. Aid in the Greening of World's ``Dust Bowls''? (By Mamadou Mansour Seck) As a young pilot 40 years ago, flying over my country of Senegal and across Africa's Sahel region, I remember looking down on vast stretches of green fields and forests. Today the view is of a yellowish brown landscape that's growing barren. Like many African countries, Senegal is losing precious agricultural land to a process of soil erosion and degradation known as ``desertification.'' It occurs when land that receives little or irregular rainfall is overcultivated, overgrazed, deforested, or otherwise stripped of its soil- fixing vegetative cover. Worldwide, with more than 10 million acres of farm land becoming unproductive each year, ``dust bowls'' are multiplying and raising legitimate concern about our planet's capacity to feed its rapidly growing population. In Africa and elsewhere, desertification fuels a downward cycle of poverty and hunger, which leads to migration from rural areas to overcrowded urban centers including those in North America and Europe. Desertification can lead to conflict over scarce resources, threatening to undermine the progress Africa is making toward democracy and economic reform. But desertification is not inevitable. The U.S. can play a larger role in stemming the tide by ratifying the Convention to Combat Desertification, already ratified by 150 other countries. The 1994 Convention focuses on food security and poverty reduction. It also promotes African self-reliance, a shift from aid to trade, the sustainable use of natural resources, and the benefits of democratic participation. The U.S. signed the treaty in 1994, and President Clinton, during his trip last year to Africa, reaffirmed U.S. support for it. But U.S. interests in an economically healthy and politically stable Africa would be well served by ratification by the Senate. The desertification convention provides a coordinated international framework to channel technical and financial resources to communities where the fight against the interrelated problems of desertification and poverty must be waged. Under the treaty, developing countries must engage local communities and organizations of farmers, herders, women, and youth in a ``bottom up'' process to devise national action programs. Senegal and other desertified countries around the world are now active in this joint public-private planning process. Senegal's capital, Dakar, recently hosted the Second Conference of Parties to the Convention, attended by more than 140 countries. Much more progress could be made with the help of the U.S., which has successful community-based soil and water conservation programs and is recognized as one of the world's leaders on fighting desertification. The technical resources of American universities, research institutions, and businesses are urgently needed in the Convention-generated partnerships with communities around the world. Unchecked, desertification will continue to foster food crises, poverty, conflict, migration, floods and other environmental disasters. No nation is immune from the consequences. Africa's 750 million people look to the U.S. for leadership on many issues, and desertification is one of the closest to our hearts. We look forward to welcoming the U.S. as a full partner to the convention.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the time has come. Our friends with disabilities have waited patiently. Our bipartisan coalition has remained united. The last obstacles have been resolved. Assurances have been given. I am referring to yesterday's passage of the landmark legislation, S. 331, the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. When I came to Congress in January 1975, one of my legislative priorities was to provide access to the American dream for individuals with disabilities. It was not an easy task. I learned quickly that providing access for Americans with disabilities was complicated. It involved providing access to education, it involved removing physical barriers, and it involved ensuring access to rehabilitation, job training, and job placement assistance. It required obtaining access to assistive technology and health care. Most importantly, access to the American dream for people with disabilities meant gaining the opportunity to choose and to participate in the full range of community activities. Moreover, it involved making sure that the federal government, along with other entities, be made to comply with laws affecting access for people with disabilities. We have made tremendous progress in the last 24 years. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Assistive Technology Act have changed, and will continue to change lives. Children with disabilities are being educated with their peers. No agency or individual, including the Federal Government, can discriminate against individuals on the basis of disability in employment, transportation, public accommodations, public services, or telecommunications. Job training and placement opportunities for individuals with disabilities are ever expanding because of the reforms we achieved in the Work Force Investment Act of 1998. I am proud of these accomplishments. I began work on the Work Incentives Improvement Act more than 2 years ago. Since then, I have learned a great deal. I suspect the same holds true for the 79 other co-sponsors of this bill. S. 331 addresses a fundamental flaw in federal policy. Individuals with disabilities must choose between working or having health care. This is an absurd choice. Yet, current federal law forces individuals with disabilities to make this choice. People with disabilities want to work, and will work, if they are given access to health care. S. 331 does just that--it gives workers with disabilities access to appropriate health care--health care that is not readily available or affordable from the private sector. People with disabilities want to work, and will work, if they are given access to job training and job placement assistance. S. 331 does just that--it gives individuals with disabilities training and help in securing a job. Over the past several months, we have all received letters in support of S. 331. I would like to share one such story with you. Don is a 30 year-old man, who has mild mental retardation, cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder, and a visual impairment. Don works, but only part- time. At the end of his letter, Don wrote: The Work Incentives Improvement Act will help my friends become independent too. Then they can pay taxes too. But most of all, they will have a life in the community. We are adults. We want to work. We don't need a hand out, we need a hand up. S. 331 will give Don and his friends a hand up. Doing so would be good for Don, and good for the nation. Hard facts make a compelling case for S. 331: The growth rate of Social Security disability programs between 1989 and 1997 was 64 percent. Social Security disability cash payments grew from $34.4 billion in 1989 to $62.9 billion in 1997. For 1997, GAO estimated weekly disbursements in cash payments to be $1.21 billion. In my state of Vermont, 24,355 Social Security disability beneficiaries are waiting for S. 331 to become law. Nationally, that figure is 7.5 million. Under current law, if these people work and earn over $500 per month, they lose cash payments and health care coverage under Medicaid or Medicare. There are few if any private insurance options available to these individuals, so only one-half of one percent of the 7.5 million forgo cash payments and federally subsidized health care, and work without health insurance. Would any of us take that risk? Let's take a closer look at some numbers. As I indicated, there are 7.5 million Social Security disability beneficiaries. Of those who work, very few make more than $500 a month. In fact, of working individuals with disabilities on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), only 17 percent make over $500 per month and only 10 percent make over $1000 per month. Another 29 percent make $65 or less per month. Let's assume that S. 331 and the companion bill in the House, H.R. 1180 become law, and only 200 Social Security disability beneficiaries in each state work and forgo cash payments. That would be 10,000 individuals across the country out of the 7.5 million disability beneficiaries. The annual savings to the Federal Treasury in cash payments for just these 10,000 people out of 7.5 million would be $133,550,000! Imagine the savings to the Federal Treasury if this number were higher. Clearly, the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 is targeted, fiscally responsible legislation. It enables individuals with significant disabilities to enter the work force for the first time, re-enter the work force, or avoid leaving it in the first place. These individuals will no longer need to worry about losing their health care if they choose to work a forty-hour week, to put in overtime, or to pursue a career advancement. Individuals who need job training or job placement assistance will get it. Private insurers will begin to have access to data that describes the health care-use patterns of workers with disabilities, and as a result, will be able to expand or develop appropriate health care packages for individuals with disabilities who work. I would like to highlight a few of the health care provisions in S. 331. First, S. 331 allows states to expand Medicaid coverage to workers with disabilities and to require the workers, depending on their income, to pay a part or all of the premium for this coverage. A state that elects to expand coverage receives a grant to support the design, establishment, and operation of infrastructures to support working individuals with disabilities. The bill also includes a 6-year trial program that permits Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries to continue to receive Medicare coverage if they work. Finally, the legislation includes a time-limited demonstration program allowing states to extend Medicaid coverage to workers who have a disability which, without access to health care, would become severe enough to qualify them for Social Security disability cash payments. This demonstration will produce important information on the cost effectiveness of early health care intervention in keeping people with disabilities from becoming too disabled to work. S. 331 reflects what individuals with disabilities say they need. It was shaped by input across the philosophical spectrum. It was endorsed by the President in his State of the Union Address. And, it's companion bill H.R. 1180 has recently been reported out of the House Committee on Commerce with unanimous support. The passage of S. 331 allows responsible change to federal policy and the elimination of a perverse dilemma for many Americans with disabilities--if you don't work, you get health care; if you do work, you don't get health care. S. 331 is a vital link in making the American dream, an accessible dream, for Americans with disabilities. Let me tell you about the dream of a young constituent of mine. Her name is Maria, and she faces many daily challenges as a result of her disabilities. She contacted my office to let me know that she is counting on S. 331 being signed into law. Maria is a junior majoring in Spanish at a college in Vermont. She plans to graduate next year, and hopes to attend graduate school to become a Spanish teacher for children and adults from Central and South America. Maria has her whole life ahead of her. She has dreams, and she has contributions to make. Yesterday's passage of S. 331 made Maria's dreams possible. She will be able to pursue a career without fear of losing the health care she needs. The enactment of S. 331 is our graduation present to Maria . . . and to the millions of other Americans with disabilities, who also want to work, a sign of our recognition of their right to contribute to the economic and social vibrancy of America. In closing, I would like to thank my many colleagues who contributed to making yesterday, with a record vote of 99-0, a reality. First, I must thank my bipartisan co-sponsors Senators Kennedy, Roth, and Moynihan the original co-sponsors of this bill. Each of them made a commitment many months ago to work together to create a sound piece of legislation to address a real problem for millions of Americans with disabilities. Such commitment represents the best of what the Senate can accomplish when principle is placed above partisanship. I also thank the additional, original 35 co-sponsors of this bill and the subsequent 45 co-sponsors who represent a total of over three quarters of this body, perhaps a Senate record on health care legislation. Together, we have come to understand the importance of health care and a job to individuals with disabilities. Sometimes the power of common sense and the voices of reason transcend politics and help us to forge new policy that will make America a better place for all of its citizens. Over the last two weeks, the Majority Leader has been the driving force who urged us to work out policy differences that were delaying floor consideration. We did so through good faith efforts that broadened support for the bill and reduced its overall modest cost. In particular, I want to recognize Senators Nickles, Bunning, and Gramm for their willingness to reach consensus with us on policy without compromising the integrity of the legislation, thus, allowing S. 331 to move forward. I must strongly thank the over two hundred national organizations that offered time, energy, and ideas to create and support a bill that will improve the quality of life for millions of Americans with disabilities who want to work. And finally, I would like to thank several individuals and groups who have contributed to the development and to the Senate passage of this legislation. In particular, I would like to thank my staff including Patricia Morrissey, Mark Powden, Paul Harrington, Lu Zeph, Erik Smulson, Joe Karpinski, Leah Menzies, Chris Crowley and the many others who worked long and hard to bring this bill about. Additionally, I would like to recognize and thank the staff members of the three other primary co-sponsors who took the lead in their offices: Connie Garner from Senator Kennedy's Staff, Jennifer Baxendell and Alec Vachon from Senator Roth's staff, and Kristen Testa from Senator Moynihan's staff. In addition to staff, I would like to recognize the contributions of the Work Incentives Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities who met weekly with staff for over a year to build the consensus necessary to get us here today. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as far as I know, my amendment has not been called up.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I did not hear the request.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I hope Members understand that this amendment would be perfectly appropriate to make this bill a more useful document. I understand the strong desires of some not to have this amendment apply, but it is an amendment which has over 50 cosponsors. It is only appropriate that this body have the right to exercise their will on a vote which will let them modify this bill in a manner which they think will make it more appropriate. I urge all Members, especially the 50 cosponsors, to join with me on appealing the ruling of the Chair to allow this amendment to be placed upon the bill. It is only appropriate considering that the only problem we had was the one word ``unnecessary'' which made it subject to a point of order because the CBO ruled that the word ``unnecessary'' would prevent the funding and, therefore, would not be appropriate. I believe very strongly we ought to have an opportunity for the majority of this Senate to express their will on this bill. Therefore, I am appealing the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I do not believe that the order includes a motion to recommit with an amendment. I ask for clarification in that respect.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Fine.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield for the purposes of debate, control of the floor, to my great friend from Colorado.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me first ask unanimous consent to add 13 additional original cosponsors to my amendment. These are: Mr. Allard, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Roth, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Bryan, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Hagel, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Wellstone. I yield, reserving my right to the floor, to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will continue with my presentation of the merits of this amendment. I have no intention of holding up this body any longer than necessary; necessary meaning this preemptive strike is designed to make us accomplish our goals. The next chart is the Westinghouse power connection's biomass gasification facility in Hawaii. This demonstrates the potential to convert agricultural waste--sugarcane in this case --into electricity. I have another chart to demonstrate the power of all of these generating plants. This one is at BC International Corporation, biomass ethanol plant in Jennings, LA. This plant will be retrofitted to produce ethanol from sugarcane bagasse and rice waste. That completes my charts. I hope my colleagues have been impressed with what we could have done if we were not prohibited. Let me conclude by reminding everyone we are proposing to add $70 million through our amendment to the Department of Energy's solar, wind, and renewable budget. Federal support for renewable energy research and development has been a major success story in the United States. Costs have declined, reliability has improved, and a growing domestic industry has been born. More work still needs to be done in applied research and development to bring down the cost of the production even further. This is a tremendous opportunity for this Nation which will help us reduce our trade deficits. The need for renewable R&D is not a partisan issue: We must encourage environmentally responsible development of all U.S. energy resources, including renewable energy. Renewable energy does reduce demand upon our other finite natural resources. It enhances our energy security, and clearly, it protects the environment. This was President Bush, September 1991. Motion To Recommit Mr. President, I move to recommit the bill to the Appropriations Committee, and further, that the committee report the bill forthwith, with the following amendment. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Delaware without giving up my right to the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I certainly thank my good friend from Delaware who has been out front on this issue for many years. I appreciate his efforts in this area. The amendment that Senator Roth and I desire to offer today is about priorities. I think we all agree that increased domestic energy production should be a priority. We agree that a lower balance of payments should be a priority. We agree that helping farmers, ranchers and rural communities is a priority. We agree that standing up for U.S. companies selling U.S. manufacturing energy technologies in overseas markets is a priority. We cheer the increased job markets in every State in this Nation. We support the small companies across the Nation that are working to capture the booming global energy market, and we would make it a priority to promote clean air. The bill does not do that in its present form. The bill before us further whittles away our Nation's efforts to wean itself from foreign oil. It erodes our efforts to develop technology that increases domestic energy production. It ends commitments made to small energy companies that depend on Federal assistance to enter the giant global energy market. It reduces our efforts to make major advancements in energy development. It reduces our commitment to energy that is affordable, that is clean, and, most importantly, that is made in America. The administration requested a 16-percent increase in renewable funding--from $384 million to $446 million. More than half of the Senate--54 Senators--signed a letter in support of this $62 million increase. The committee did not request an increase in the renewable budget. It did not even hold at a renewable budget level. The committee cut the budget by $13 million. There is a $92 million shortfall between the committee mark and the amount requested by more than one-half of the Senate. A vote for this amendment is a vote for five things, if we are allowed to present it. It is a vote for national security. It is a vote for small businesses across the United States that produce clean, renewable energy. It is a vote for farmers and ranchers in rural communities across America. It is a vote to help American business grab onto a chunk of that rapidly growing export market for renewable products. And a vote for this amendment is a vote for cleaner air for our children. I am going to address each of these reasons why my colleagues should support this bill in turn. First of all, we have charts that allow you to understand better what we are discussing. This is a vote about national security. It is about making our Nation's future secure by securing our energy future. The U.S. trade deficit has scored as its No. 1 contributor imported foreign oil, which has reached record levels. Foreign oil imports constituted 55 percent of consumption early this year and is expected to reach more than 70 percent by the year 2020. At that time, most of the world's oil--over 64 percent--is expected to come from potentially unstable Persian Gulf nations. These imports account for over $60 billion, or 36 percent of the U.S. trade deficit. These are U.S. dollars being shipped overseas to the Middle East which could be put to better use at home. The defense leaders of our Nation agree that increasing dependence on foreign oil has serious implications for our national and energy security. They agree that investing in renewable energy is an invaluable insurance policy to enhance our national and energy security. Lee Butler agrees. He is the former commander of the Strategic Air Command and strategic air planner for Operation Desert Storm. Robert McFarlane agrees. Robert McFarlane was National Security Adviser under former President Ronald Reagan. Thomas Moorer agrees. Thomas Moorer is former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. James Woolsey agrees. James Woolsey is a former Director of the CIA. In a recent letter to Members of Congress, these national security leaders support the administration's budget request for renewable energy. Reading from my first chart, the national security leader said: Current conflicts in the Middle East and the Balkans and our stressed defense capability only reinforce our earlier concerns that our increasing dependence on imported oil has serious implications for national and energy security. Wars and terrorism strongly highlight the benefits of obtaining domestic, dispersed renewable energy systems and efficiency. . . . Now is clearly the time to increase our coverage under this valuable insurance policy for our security--the availability of renewable resources and improvements in energy efficiency. Such a commitment will not only enhance national and energy security, but also bring with it global leadership, environmental and economic benefits, new industry and high quality jobs. Privilege Of The Floor I ask unanimous consent David Hunter of my staff be granted privilege of the floor during the pendency of the energy and water appropriations.