[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11551-S11553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. KERRY):

  S. 2149. A bill to establish a program to provide health insurance 
for workers changing jobs; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


THE TRANSITIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR WORKERS BETWEEN JOBS ACT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last month, President Clinton signed the 
Kassebaum-Kennedy Health Insurance Reform Act. That legislation 
provides portability of health insurance coverage. It said to American 
workers and their families: you do not have to lose your health 
insurance coverage because you lose your job.

  That legislation is important. But for too many workers who lose 
their job, it could be an empty promise if the coverage is 
unaffordable. In fact, those between jobs typically have great 
difficulty paying the cost of insurance coverage. In 1996, family 
coverage costs an average of $6,900 a year, and individual coverage 
costs $2,600.
  The legislation we are introducing today will help fill this gap. It 
is a modified version of President Clinton's proposal to provide 
temporary assistance for workers to keep their coverage between jobs. I 
commend the President for offering this progressive, thoughtful 
program, and I commend my colleague, Senator John Kerry, for his 
leadership on this issue and his important contribution to the 
development of this legislation.
  This is a logical and needed step in health insurance reform. The 
needs of the unemployed are especially great. Since 1936, we have 
provided a temporary program of income maintenance to workers who lose 
their jobs. Because of the high cost of health care, temporary 
assistance for health insurance during periods of unemployment is 
essential for American workers in 1996. Unemployment insurance alone is 
no longer sufficient.
  Temporary health insurance assistance is especially critical as we 
face the economic changes associated with the new global economy and 
changing corporate behavior. Corporations used to reduce their work 
forces only when they were in trouble. But now, no worker can count on 
job security, since the trend is for profitable companies to lay off 
good workers to become even more profitable. Experts estimate that the 
average worker entering the work force today will change jobs seven to 
nine times in a typical career. Some of these workers will choose to 
change jobs, but others will be forced to. The Department of Labor 
estimates that in 1996 alone, 8.5 million workers will collect 
unemployment insurance for some period of time.
  The legislation we are proposing today will provide financial 
assistance to help maintain health insurance coverage for workers and 
their families who are no longer eligible for on-the-job coverage 
because they have lost their job. To qualify, an individual would have 
to be eligible for unemployment insurance, would have to have had 
employer-sponsored coverage for 6 months before becoming unemployed, 
and could not be eligible for employment-based coverage through a 
spouse or domestic partner or for Medicaid or Medicare.
  In the month for which assistance is provided, the family income 
would have to be 240 percent of poverty or less--about $37,440 for a 
family of four. Assistance would be limited to 6 months. The goal of 
this program is to help workers in transition between jobs--not to 
provide permanent coverage.
  The program will be administered through the states. Typically, an 
eligible individual will receive assistance in paying the cost of COBRA 
continuation coverage under current law. If the worker is not eligible 
for COBRA, assistance will be available for any other policy that is 
not more generous than the Blue Cross-Blue Shield standard option plan 
available to Federal employees and Members of Congress.
  There are a number of unanswered questions about the best way to 
structure the program, and I look forward to working with my colleagues 
in the next Congress, with the administration, and outside experts to 
improve it before it is passed. But the underlying principle is clear. 
No family should lose its health insurance coverage because a 
breadwinner is in transition between jobs.
  The administration estimates that the cost of the program will be 
approximately $2 billion a year over the next 6 years, that 
approximately 3 million workers and their families will be helped to 
maintain their coverage every year.
  The program can be paid for largely by closing two of the most 
notorious corporate tax loopholes--the title passage loophole and the 
runaway plant loophole. The first loophole involves bookkeeping 
transactions under which multinational corporations artificially shift 
income to overseas operations to avoid U.S. taxes. The second loophole 
allows corporations to move jobs abroad, accrue large in foreign bank 
accounts, and avoid U.S. taxes. Closing these loopholes to help 
unemployed workers keep their health insurance coverage is an 
appropriate use of the revenue.
  This program is a modest attempt to help American workers cope with 
the disclosures of modern industrial life and the new global economy. 
But it is also important to understand what it does not do:
  It does not add to the deficit. The program will be fully financed. 
In President Clinton's budget, it was paid for within his balanced 
budget plan.
  It does not impose additional burdens on employers or create an 
employer mandate.
  It is not an unfunded mandate on the States. The Federal Government 
pays 100 percent of the cost of the program. If a State chooses not to 
administer the program, it is not required to do so.
  The Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance reform bill passed the Senate 
by a strong bipartisan vote of 98 to 0, because it was clearly needed. 
This additional improvement is also needed--to help see that the 
promise of health insurance portability is fulfilled in practice.
  We have heard a great deal of talk about family values in this 
campaign year. One of the most important expressions of family values 
is to help families keep their health insurance coverage when a 
breadwinner is between jobs. For the millions of American workers who 
worry that their family will lose their health insurance if they lose 
they job, this bill can be a lifeline, and I look forward to its 
bipartisan passage next year.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Kennedy and I are introducing 
the Transitional Health Insurance Coverage for Workers Between Jobs 
Act. This bill would build on the recently passed Kennedy-Kassebaum 
health bill by providing funding to States in order to finance up to 6 
months of health coverage for unemployed workers and their families.
  The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill was an important step toward assuring 
portability of health insurance coverage. More than 20 million people 
will benefit from that legislation and the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts deserves our thanks for his tireless efforts to achieve 
its passage. Unfortunately, however, although more people are now 
allowed to purchase health care coverage, many workers are still unable 
to afford this coverage. Those workers who have been laid off are most 
likely not to be able to obtain coverage.
  The bill we are introducing today would help temporarily unemployed 
workers to afford health coverage for themselves and their families. It 
would do so by providing Federal assistance to pay the premium for 
health insurance. A worker would be eligible who had employer-based 
coverage in his or her prior job, is receiving unemployment benefits, 
and has income below certain levels. Families would have to earn no 
more than $37,440 for a family of four to qualify for the subsidy. 
People who are eligible for Medicaid or Medicare would not be able to 
receive this subsidy. Funds would be allocated to States based on the 
proportion of unemployed persons in the State who collected 
unemployment insurance [UI] benefits relative to all persons in the 
Nation who collected UI benefits.
  This bill is necessary because, in the real world, workers between 
jobs still face mortgage or rent payments, utility bills, and other 
expenses necessary to support themselves and their families in addition 
to health insurance costs. Many lack a source of income and have 
exhausted family savings and other resources during the period of 
unemployment. And unemployment insurance in most states barely pays

[[Page S11552]]

enough to cover rent and food--the average monthly UI benefit was only 
$692 in 1993. In today's increasingly turbulent economy, a secure job 
is difficult to find. This year in Massachusetts, for example, such 
major corporations as Digital, Raytheon, and Fleet Bank have laid off 
hundreds of workers. And over the last few years, most of the major 
hospitals in my State have significantly downsized their work force. 
This bill will help workers as they move to new jobs.
  I want to squarely address the issue of the cost of this program. The 
administration has estimated the annual cost to be approximately $2 
billion. But I want to make clear that we are committed to fully 
offsetting the cost with other budget components. I am heartened that 
President Clinton was able to support establishing such a program in 
the context of his fiscal year 1997 balanced budget request. Senator 
Kennedy has described two corporate loopholes we propose to close. I 
look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues to 
identifying a budget offset that is acceptable to my colleagues for 
this important program.
  As Senator Kennedy said, this plan will not add to the deficit, does 
not impose additional burdens on employers, and is not an unfunded 
mandate on States. I look forward to working with the administration 
and my colleagues to refine this bill and to pass it in the 105th 
Congress.
       By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
     Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. 
     Stevens):

  S. 2150. A bill to prohibit extension or establishment of any 
national monument on public land without full compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, and 
an express Act of Congress, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


                the public lands protection act of 1996

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
for myself, Senator Craig, Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett, Senator 
Grams, Senator Nickles, Senator Campbell, Senator Burns, and Senator 
Stevens to protect public lands from the type of assault visited upon 
the people of Utah last week, when our President created a new national 
monument containing 1.7 million acres. That was done without a process, 
without a process involving public hearings, without a process 
involving notification of the Utah delegation, and without courtesies 
extended in advance so the delegation could be responsive to the 
particular delineations of the area suggested.
  I think it is further important to point out the announcement of the 
President's action was not made in the State of Utah but in the State 
of Arizona. The withdrawal of land, 1.7 million acres, was in the State 
of Utah. One could curiously ask, for a Presidential proclamation, why 
go to another State? It was clear that this action was not welcome in 
Utah. There would have been many school children to protest that 
action.
  The legislation I introduce with my colleagues is called the Public 
Lands Protection Act of 1996. It provides that no extension or 
establishment of a national monument can be undertaken pursuant to the 
Antiquities Act without full compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act, NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act, and an affirmative 
act of Congress.
  Yet, by invoking the Antiquities Act, the President chose to ignore 
NEPA, ignore the Endangered Species Act, and take action almost as 
though it were simply a Presidential mandate that was necessary. Some 
of us might suggest it was political expediency suggested by some of 
the President's advisers that caused him to circumvent the process, the 
public process.
  We have had some tough conversations in the Congress. The California 
Desert Wilderness was an example, of contested legislation and 
contested hearings. But the process went forward. We got the job done. 
This action taken in Utah last week defies logic, defies principle, and 
defies all semblance of courtesy. In effect, the President declared 
himself to be above the law by unilaterally declaring that the action 
he took, which unquestionably is a ``major Federal action'' within the 
meaning of NEPA, did not require an analysis to determine its impact on 
the environment. By specifically using the authority of the Antiquities 
Act, a statute enacted in 1906 to enable President Theodore Roosevelt 
to take action to protect unique features of our public land, the 
President conveniently sidestepped NEPA and the requirement to consider 
the environmental consequences of his action.
  We know President Clinton is no President Theodore Roosevelt. 
Theodore Roosevelt allowed a tremendous public dialog to take place 
before he invoked the Antiquities Act. President Carter invoked the 
Antiquities Act in my State in a massive land withdrawal. But there was 
a long process. We didn't like it, but we participated. The people of 
Utah simply had the national monument dictated to them.
  Further, by creating a national monument in the manner the President 
chose, he circumvented the Endangered Species Act, a law that the elite 
environmental lobbyists invoke at every turn to strike fear in the 
hearts of the American people that public land use for timber 
harvesting, oil and gas development, livestock grazing, and mining is 
causing irreversible and intolerable damage to threatened and 
endangered species and their habitat and that such use of the public 
domain should be eliminated altogether.
  Finally, Mr. President, the Clinton administration kept the decision 
concerning the national monument cloaked in secrecy until it was sprung 
on the citizens of Utah by surprise. There was no consultation with the 
Governor, no consultation with the congressional delegation, no 
outreach effort to the citizens, no interactive process with the public 
land users, and no consideration of any of the benefits of the lands 
that have now been taken out of productive multiple use.
  The President didn't want the democratic process, or the hearing 
process to go forward. It would have gone into the 105th Congress. We 
would have resolved it.
  I dare say, President Clinton's action is probably the most arrogant, 
hypocritical, and blatantly political exercise of Federal power 
affecting public lands ever, and the media seems to have bought it. 
President Clinton's and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's war on the 
West, in this unprecedented action, has almost the feel of Pearl 
Harbor. The President chose the most politically expedient and least 
publicly interactive route possible. The fact that he announced his 
decision, as I stated, in Arizona speaks for itself.
  My bill and that of my colleagues would bring an end to the use of 
this old law to abuse Federal power and trample on States' rights. It 
is not needed anymore. We have the democratic process, we have NEPA, we 
have the Endangered Species Act, and we have the checks and balances so 
that a Presidential land grab is not in order.
  Our bill is very straightforward. It provides that no extension or 
establishment of a national monument can be undertaken pursuant to the 
Antiquities Act without full compliance with NEPA, full compliance with 
the Endangered Species Act and an expressed act of Congress. What is 
wrong with that? That is the process. That is the democratic way.
  This bill, when passed, would mean that there will be a public 
process and a deliberate, thoughtful analysis of the environmental 
consequences of the proposed action. There will also be consultation 
under the Endangered Species Act among the affected agencies on the 
potential effects on threatened and endangered species and their 
habitat.
  More important, Mr. President, by requiring an act of Congress before 
a monument can be extended or established, the American people, the 
affected citizenry of the State involved, and interested public land 
users will have an opportunity to voice their opinions during the 
process.
  This can occur during the NEPA process, during the endangered species 
consultation process and during legislative consideration of the act to 
extend or establish a national monument. No secret decision by the 
President's handlers and spin doctors and no campaign ploys, such as we 
have seen with the Utah monument.
  President Clinton's action in Utah ignored public sentiment. It 
ignored the wishes of the citizens of Utah, of the public land users, 
of those who hold valid existing property rights and

[[Page S11553]]

those who care deeply--deeply--about environmental stewardship. As our 
committee process continued, had it been allowed to continue, areas 
would have been identified and put into wilderness that were agreed 
upon by the State of Utah, the Governor, the legislature and the 
congressional delegation.
  My bill would restore the public's voice in these matters and give 
meaning to the concept of public participation.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Record be left open until the 
end of the session to allow additional sponsors to join me on this 
measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill being 
introduced that has been forced by recent events. I'm talking about 
President Clinton's proclamation unilaterally declaring nearly two 
million acres of southern Utah a National Monument.
  After the President's announcement, Senator Kempthorne and I 
introduced the Idaho Protection Act. The bill would require that the 
public and the Congress be included before a National Monument could be 
established in Idaho.
  When we introduced that bill, I was immediately approached by other 
Senators seeking the same protection. What we see unfolding before us 
in Utah ought to frighten all of us. Without including Utah's Governor, 
Senators, congressional delegation, the state legislature, county 
commissioners, or the people of Utah--President Clinton set off limits 
forever approximately 1.7 million acres of Utah.
  Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, President Clinton has the authority 
to create a National Monument where none existed before. And if he can 
do it in the State of Utah, he can do it in Idaho, or Montana, or 
California. In fact, since 1906, the law has been used some 66 times to 
set lands aside.
  Just as 64 percent of the land in Utah is owned by the Federal 
Government, 62 percent of Idaho is also owned by Uncle Sam. Even New 
Hampshire, on the East Coast, has 14 percent of its land owned by the 
Federal Government. What the President has done in Utah, without public 
input, he could also do in Idaho or any of the States where the Federal 
Government has a presence.
  The bill that is being introduced would simply require that the 
public and the Congress be fully involved and give approval before such 
a unilateral administrative act could take effect on our public lands.
  Unfortunately, for the people of Utah, what the President has done 
there, should be a wake up call to people across America. While we all 
want to preserve what is best in our States, people everywhere 
understand that much of their economic future is tied up in what 
happens on the public lands in our States.
  In the West, where public lands dominate the landscape, issues such 
as grazing, timber harvesting, water use, have all come under attack by 
an administration seemingly bent upon kowtowing to a segment of our 
population that wants other uses off our public lands.
  But in addition to those in the West, everyone wants the process to 
be open and inclusive. No one wants the President, acting alone, to 
unilaterally lock up enormous parts of any State. That is not what 
Idahoans, or Utah natives or others. We certainly don't work that way 
in the West. There is a recognition that with common sense, a balance 
can be struck that allows jobs to grow and families to put down roots 
while at the same time protecting America's great natural resources.
  In my view, the President's actions are beyond the pale and for that 
reason--to protect others from suffering a similar fate, I am 
cosponsoring this bill.
  Thank you and I yield the floor.
                                 ______