[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2615-S2631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATURAL DISASTERS AND OVERSEAS 
               PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2162

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to extend the term 
                     of marketing assistance loans)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), for himself and Mr. 
     Burns, proposes an amendment numbered 2162.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 59, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC.   . EXTENSION OF MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS.

       Section 133 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7233) is amended by striking subsection (c) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Extension.--The Secretary may extend the term of a 
     marketing assistance loan made to producers on a farm for any 
     loan commodity until September 30, 1998.''.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I inquire, is there a time agreement 
on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes evenly divided.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It is to give the 
Secretary of Agriculture the authority to extend the marketing 
assisting loans until September 30 of this year.
  Why are we doing this? Why am I offering this amendment? It is very 
simple. The northern tier U.S. farmers are suffering dire economic 
consequences for a lot of reasons. No. 1, the price of grain, 
particularly wheat and barley, is very low. We have had very depressed 
prices for a lot of years. Second, a lot of grain from Canada is 
shipped down to northern tier States. More grain trucks are coming, it 
is anticipated, and I believe, frankly, that Canada is beginning to 
fudge on an agreement it reached with the United States several years 
ago. Prior to that time, Canada shipped about 2.5 million metric tons 
of wheat to the United States. We brought the Canadians to the 
negotiating table, and Canada agreed to limit its shipment to the 
United States to 1.5 metric tons. That was several years ago. It is 
clear to me that Canada is at least fudging that agreement and is 
increasing shipments of grain to the United States.
  After that, with the problems we have in dealing with Canada with 
respect to trade in agriculture, we lost one of the main levers. We had 
section 22 to say to Canada, ``You are disrupting our markets.'' That 
was the purpose of section 22 of the Agriculture Price Stabilization 
Act, not too many years ago. But we negotiated that away in the last 
GATT round. In return, all countries promised to reduce their 
subsidies, particularly their export subsidies. But Canada still 
retained the Canadian Wheat Board. Not only Canada but other 
countries--Australia--have their wheat boards, which is a monopolistic 
control over that country's billing and selling of grain, particularly 
wheat.
  After that, Americans placed limits on exports that other countries 
don't have. For example, I cite the various countries. The total amount 
is about 10 percent. Our exports are limited by the sanctions that we 
imposed preventing exports to certain countries. Canada doesn't have 
those sanctions, Argentina doesn't, the European Community doesn't. We 
are limiting our farmers.

  A couple of years ago, we passed the Freedom to Farm Act. You recall 
under that act we basically decoupled agricultural price support 
payments from production. From that point on, farmers had more freedom 
in the production of their crops, the crops they could choose.
  At that time, too, the price of wheat was very high. As I recall, it 
was around $6 a bushel, almost as high as $7 a bushel. Now it is down, 
in many cases, below $3 a bushel. At that time, farmers realized that 
they had a bit of a Hobson's choice here: On the one hand, support 
Freedom to Farm--at that time, corn was high and the price support 
payments were decoupled but were quite high at the time even though 
they had been coming down gradually--so now it is not much less. 
Farmers could either vote for that--support Freedom to Farm--or keep 
the present program. Most farmers decided they would gamble on Freedom 
to Farm, basically because prices were good at the time.
  But in exchange, American farmers expected--in fact, they were 
promised--that the United States would fight vigorously to open up 
foreign markets--fight vigorously to open up foreign markets. I might 
say, I do not think anybody in this Chamber thinks the U.S. has fought 
very vigorously to open up foreign markets to the sale of wheat and 
other grains. We have talked about it. There has been a lot of talk 
about it but not a lot of action.
  So all I am saying is, in exchange for the U.S. Government's failure 
to fight to open up markets for American products, particularly wheat 
now--exports of wheat--at the very least, we can extend the loan 
provisions of the current law 5 months, to September 30, 1998.
  It just seems to me, because the farmers now are suffering so 
severely, bankers are starting to call in loans, bankers are not giving 
farmers additional operating capital--at the very least, we can extend 
the marketing assistance loan period for 5 more months to the end of 
1998, to give farmers a chance, a little longer into 1998, before their 
loan is called and they have to pay back their loan at the current loan 
rate.
  What you are going to hear is this. You are going to hear: ``Oh, 
gosh, there we go. We are opening up the Farm Act, Freedom to Farm.'' 
That is not true. In no way does this amendment open up or revisit the 
Freedom to Farm Act.
  We are also going to hear this sets a bad precedent--here we are, 
after passing Freedom to Farm, where the Government is coming in.
  But I say that, first, our goal here is not to be rigidly consistent 
and mechanically steel-trap logical and just rigidly sticking to 
something. Rather, our charge here, our obligation, is to do what is 
right. I think it is right just merely to extend marketing assistance 
loans to the end of the year. We are not going back from Freedom to 
Farm; not any other change.

[[Page S2616]]

  I might say, too, it has absolutely zero effect on the budget, and 
that is because it is not scored. It is not scored because the loan is 
extended only to the end of September of this year. So this has no 
budget effect. It helps farmers by letting them decide when they want 
to sell their grain. If they have held it so far, they can sell at a 
later date.
  In addition, we are handcuffing farmers because of the limitations we 
have placed on the export of a lot of our products; that is, 10 percent 
of our exports are sanctioned; we cannot go to various countries. And 
on top of that, our Government has not fought vigorously enough to open 
up markets in other countries.

  One example is China. China does not take any Pacific Northwest 
wheat--none, not one kernel--because they have come up with this phony 
argument that it has a fungus. It is a phony argument. Anybody who 
looks at the question knows it is phony, yet they do not buy any. How 
hard has our Government worked to say, ``Hey, you have to play fair. 
President Jiang Zemin came to the United States. The least you can do 
is open up your markets a little bit.'' Our Government has not worked 
nearly as hard as I think it should.
  Let me just finish by saying it is a very small matter in terms of 
what we are doing here on the supplemental appropriations bill. We are 
not opening up Freedom to Farm. It has zero budget effect. We are just 
saying give farmers, particularly northern tier farmers, a little bit 
of a break for the next several months. And the break is only a longer 
period within which they have to decide whether to sell their grain on 
the market or not. That is all it is.
  I think it is a very fair amendment and should be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are operating on a time agreement, I 
think, and it is 30 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 15 minutes is under the control of the 
manager of the bill, is it not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am prepared to yield such time as he may consume to 
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, who I know is on the floor, 
and he is here to discuss the amendment--such time as he may wish to 
the distinguished Senator from Indiana.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
of the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus. I do so because 2 years 
ago the Freedom to Farm legislation that the Senator mentioned was 
passed. That bill has offered, in my judgment, a great deal of 
opportunity to farmers manage their own land, to make their own 
marketing decisions.
  But the Senator is correct: There are rules of the game that were 
negotiated at that time. This amendment reopens the farm bill and is 
primarily aimed at helping one crop, wheat, and the various States in 
the country's northern tier.
  The issue before Senators is marketing assistance loans. They allow a 
farmer to use the year's crop of grain or cotton as collateral for a 
loan from the Federal Government. The term of the loan is 9 months. At 
the end of that period, the farmer can either repay the loan or, if the 
market price of the crop is less than the amount owed on the loan, he 
can repay the loan at the lower price or forfeit the commodity. Because 
the loan is a nonrecourse loan, the Government cannot seek any further 
payment on the loan.
  Simply stated, a wheat farmer at the time of harvest could have sold 
the grain for the market price at that time. He could have priced the 
grain before the time of harvest, and in this particular case, if the 
farmer in Montana had done so, he would have done well. The futures 
price was high. Even the price at the time of harvest was higher than 
it is presently.
  In any event, farmers could place the grain under loan--that is, they 
store it and they take out a loan. If they have good luck within that 
9-month period and the price goes up, they can take the higher price. 
If the price goes down or does not show any appreciation, they can 
simply take the loan money and the Government is out that money. That 
is the nature of this business. The loan is a marketing tool.
  I do not want to overemphasize the gravity of this particular 
instance. The Senator from Montana has pointed out correctly, this is 
not going to break the bank, and, as a matter of fact, scoring for the 
amendment shows its effect is estimated at zero. But, in fact, the 
amendment as I see it does not do a great deal for a wheat farmer in 
Montana or any other State at this point. Each one of us here can 
estimate what the price of wheat may be between now and the end of 
September, but as a new crop comes on, it is unlikely that that price 
is going to show great appreciation. In short, extending the period of 
difficulty by a few more months probably does not make a whole lot of 
difference in the price farmers will ultimately receive.
  It does make a difference, I believe, in setting a precedent with 
regard to the Freedom to Farm Act. The precedent is that, under other 
circumstances, other Senators from other States with other crops will 
come in and point out that things have not gone well for them. They may 
claim it was a foreign country, or the weather, or whatever, but, in 
any event, they will ask for a change in the loan or some other policy 
in the farm bill. In essence, they will attempt disaster relief under 
the guise of technical changes in the farm bill. In my judgment, that 
is not a good way to proceed.
  In fairness to Senators from all States, all crops have come together 
for some rules of the game that are working well. It seems to me very 
important we work together to make certain that they work better. In 
due course, we may discuss other remedies that may be more effective. I 
would like to suggest, for example, to the distinguished Senator from 
Montana that it is important to all Senators that wheat exports from 
this country grow. As a matter of fact, it is important that corn 
exports and soybean exports and rice and cotton and a number of other 
crops all increase.
  I suggest that we might work with the President on fast-track 
authority. That would be very, very helpful. I suggest we work with the 
President to think through our World Trade Organization stance for next 
year, when multilateral reductions in tariff and nontariff barriers 
might occur and should occur, and that the emphasis we place on 
agriculture in negotiations now with the European Union be enhanced 
substantially, and that the President's pledge in the Miami summit to 
move toward free trade in the hemisphere be given a boost as the 
President prepares to travel to the South American continent.
  In short, there are a lot of things we must do as a country to boost 
our exports. But specifically regarding the problem in wheat--and it is 
a substantial one for the States that have been stressed, as the 
Senator from Montana has pointed out--we could work with the President 
in terms of allocations for Public Law 480. That is an act which is on 
the books. We can work to increase export credit guarantees for 
overseas purchases of U.S. wheat. We can work together with the 
President, the Secretary of Agriculture, and Senators who are engaged 
in this, and I would like to be one of them, because I believe an 
increase in wheat exports is tremendously important and it is timely 
that we do it now as opposed to hereafter.
  I suggest USDA comply with the FAIR Act's requirements that high-
value U.S. products such as wheat flour be a higher proportion of 
export programs. We could be helpful in that respect.
  And, finally, as I have suggested already, we must work now on our 
export goals with the Trade Representative and the WTO, as well as for 
each of the bilateral negotiations we must engage in because we do not 
have fast-track authority. These efforts are likely to be much more 
powerful in raising the price of wheat without doing violence to the 
farm bill--as a matter of fact, utilizing the farm bill and all its 
resources.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield to 
others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page S2617]]

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on this 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 44 seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Six minutes 44 seconds. I have two strong supporters 
here. I see my colleague from Montana on the floor. I yield to my 
colleague, since I have only 6 minutes, 3 minutes.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I appreciate the 
courtesy. It won't take me very long to sum up why we think this is 
important.
  I agree with everything that the chairman of the Ag Committee has 
said. The problem is, we have not gotten the administration to 
implement those tools they have at hand to help us out. They have not 
confronted our Canadian neighbors to live within their quotas. When you 
start talking about putting together a farm bill--and I think the 
Senator from Indiana would agree--it is hard to write farm legislation 
that is not flawed. Because of the diversification in our agriculture, 
that is tough to do.
  Flexibility in crops in Montana has not come, for the simple reason 
that we have a short growing season and soil that is unlike that in 
Indiana or Missouri or Iowa or Nebraska or wherever.
  A fellow walked up to me a while ago and said, ``The President is in 
Africa, and he is making a lot of friends.''
  If I had his checkbook, I could be making a lot of friends. I think 
he ought to be offering food--wheat, principally--and those things that 
help people most in nations where they are suffering from malnutrition 
and hunger. I hope this doesn't set a precedent, that this stays with 
us this year.
  But I will tell you what it does. It allows a small group of farmers 
from North Dakota and from Montana to gain financing so they can get a 
crop in, because we have some who will not be refinanced on their 
operational loans. That is what it does. That is who we are speaking 
for today, those people who are caught between a Canadian situation and 
a total collapse of the financial situation in the Pacific rim, which 
takes most of our crops. I speak in favor of it. I appreciate the 
leadership of my colleague, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield time to the distinguished Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my chairman and thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment offered by my colleague, the distinguished Senator from 
Montana. In doing so, let me say I appreciate the efforts by those 
supporting this approach to provide their farmers appropriate risk 
management tools and to do what we can to encourage improved farm 
prices.
  And, I also appreciate the unique and difficult times that farmers 
face where there is great risk, great opportunity and productivity, but 
great risk as well. My colleagues who are privileged to serve the hard 
working and productive producers in our northern tier states are going 
through a difficult time--Asian economic problems have already resulted 
in at least a 3.5 percent reduction in agriculture trade. This is why 
we just considered and passed the bill funding the International 
Monetary Fund with appropriate reforms. Prices at the country elevator 
in Montana and, for that matter in Dodge City, Kansas, have declined as 
a result. Add in severe weather and unfair trading practices across the 
border and you can see the relevance of the effort by my colleagues.
  But, with all due respect to their intent, I feel compelled to remind 
colleagues of the law of unintended effects. Under the banner of 
providing a so called safety net by extending the loan program what 
will actually happen?
  Is the goal to see increased prices? Today, approximately 20 percent 
of the nation's wheat crop is under loan, about 191 million bushels. 
The loan program expires this spring. This amendment would extend that 
loan to September 30.
  Extending the loan rate will not create additional marketing 
opportunity. Rather it will eliminate to some degree, the incentive for 
farmers to market their wheat. Extending the loan is an incentive for 
farmers to hold on to the grain they have under loan for an additional 
six months. Now, this would not create a big problem except for the 
fact that we will harvest another wheat crop before September 30. And, 
all indications are we can expect another bumper crop. We will then 
have farmers holding a portion of last year's crop while adding a new 
crop to the market--grain from two crops--not one--on the market. We 
will have excess supply and my judgment is that will drive prices down 
even further and we will have just the opposite effect of what is 
intended.
  And, at the same time we are holding our grain under loan and off the 
world market, other countries such as the EU, Australia and Argentina 
will again return to the business of taking our market share. This is a 
repeat of the situation the current farm bill tried to correct. Our 
current share of the world wheat market is just over 30 percent, the EU 
15.4 percent, and Australia 14.8 percent. This amendment could well be 
called the EU and Australia Market Share Recovery Act.
  It is also the first step in putting the government back in the grain 
business in the form of a reserve and I can still hear the advice of 
the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Boage of Texas 
who warned repeatedly, grain reserves are nothing more than government 
price controls.
  The Senator's amendment really takes us back to the age old debate in 
farm program policy as to whether the loan rate should be a market 
clearing device or income protection. I don't think it can be both. 
Under the current farm bill, the loan rate is a marketing clearing 
device and hopefully a price floor. The transition payments now being 
paid to farmers represent income protection.
  What am I talking about? Well, the price of wheat today at the Dodge 
City elevator is about $3.10. If you add in the transition payment 
farmers in Kansas, North Dakota, Montana, Texas, North Carolina are now 
receiving, approximately 65 cents a bushel, that means the farmer is 
receiving around $3.75 a bushel. Now, I agree with my colleagues that 
is certainly not the $4.50 price we were getting months back or even 
higher on the futures market. We hope to see price improvement and 
soon.
  But, let me point out with 20-20 hindsight, that this loan extension 
is primarily aimed, at least I hope it is aimed at last year's crop, 
the grain that farmers have not sold and that farmers did have an 
opportunity to sell at those previous prices.
  Let me mention another possible unintended effect. Will not keeping 
grain under loan work at cross purposes to our goal of stating to the 
world and all of our customers that we will be a reliable supplier? 
Does not encouraging longer loan terms and keeping grain in storage 
tell our customers they should go elsewhere? Should that be the signal 
we send just hours after this body agreed the United States remain 
active and competitive in international trade by approving funding for 
the IMF with appropriate reforms?
  Should we not be pushing for lower trade barriers and conducting a 
full court press to export our grain, our commodities, to sell wheat? 
My predecessor in the House, the Honorable and respected Keith Sebelius 
put it in language every farmer understands: ``We need to sell it, not 
smell it.''
  What should we do? We should encourage the President, when he comes 
back from Africa, not to toss in the towel on fast track trading 
authority, to immediately sit down with Agriculture Secretary Dan 
Glickman to explore and aggressively seek bi-lateral trade agreements. 
There are 370 million hungry people in Latin and Central America alone 
eager to begin trade negotiations--well sell them bulk commodities, 
they move to sustainable agriculture and quit tearing up rain forests 
and its a win, win, win situation.
  We should continue the good work of Secretary Glickman and Assistant 
Secretary Schumacher to fully utilize the GSM export credit program in 
Asia. Restore the markets that have led to the price decline, don't 
drive them away. Secretary Glickman has committed $2 billion under the 
GSM program to assist South Korea and it has resulted in over $600 
million in sales of agriculture products. The $2 billion figure is not 
a ceiling, it is a floor we can

[[Page S2618]]

and must use more! We can use the Export Enhancement Program. The 
Administration recommended severe cuts in the very program that could 
not be of help.
  My colleagues, we need to sell the grain, we have the export tools to 
accomplish that. What happens when this loan extension results in lower 
prices, we have a bumper crop, our competitors seize the opportunity to 
steal our market share, and we are faced with this decision again in 
September? We may be buying time with this amendment but we are also 
buying into market distortion and problems down the road.
  Let us instead convince and support the Administration to 
aggressively use the export programs we have in place to answer this 
problem. Let us work on crop insurance reform. Let us recommit to the 
promises we made during the farm bill debate in regard to tax policy 
changes, a farmer IRA, regulatory reform, an aggressive and consistent 
export program.
  Again, I commend my colleagues for their concern, for their long 
record of support for our farmers and ranchers and I look forward to 
working with them in the future. But, in terms of this amendment, its 
just that the trail you are recommending leads right into a box canyon.
  With that, I reluctantly oppose the Senator's amendment and hope he 
can work with us and perhaps even withdraw the amendment. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the time.
  I am a little bit surprised, because I think this is the most modest 
of proposals. This clearly is a baby step in the right direction. In 
fact, it does not conflict at all with the Freedom to Farm bill. It 
complements it. Those who say that the farmers should get their price 
from the marketplace need to give the farmers the tools to hold that 
grain and access the marketplace when it is beneficial to farmers. That 
is what eventually will allow this farm law to succeed if ever it 
succeeds. So I think this complements the Freedom to Farm bill.
  I think this is the smallest, most modest of steps, but it is in the 
right direction. I wish that it would be accepted. It has no cost to 
the Treasury. It would be of some help to some producers at a very 
critical time.
  Let me say, we have heard some about trade here. You have heard me 
speak about this many times. Regrettably, this country is a 98-pound 
weakling when it comes to trade. We have sand kicked in our face every 
day on trade. I would like to fix all that.
  The Senator from Montana mentioned Canada. If durum wheat were blood, 
Canada would long ago have bled to death. With all of that grain coming 
here, we have an avalanche of Canadian grain glutting our markets. That 
situation, together with problems with Japan, China and Mexico and a 
range of other trade problems have undercut the market for our 
agricultural products. The Senator from Montana has proposed the most 
modest of steps. Let us extend these commodity loans. In my judgment, 
these loan rates are far too low in any event. Despite that, let us at 
least extend the term of these commodity loans to give individual 
farmers a better opportunity to market when it is in their interest to 
do so. That way they have some say as to when they go into this 
marketplace.
  As you know, this marketplace is full of big shots and little 
interests. And guess who wins in the marketplace? If the farmer is 
forced to market at the wrong time, just after harvest, they get the 
lowest price.
  Freedom to Farm can only work if we give farmers the capability of 
holding that grain with a decent loan for a long enough period so that 
when farmers go to the marketplace, it is on their time, it is when 
they find the market has some strength, when they find they can go to 
the market and get some reward for themselves, not just on the miller's 
time, not just on the grocery manufacturers' time, not just on the 
traders' time.
  If the Senator insists on a vote on this, I hope we win. I support 
fully what he is trying to do. If he does not, I hope we come back and 
try this again, because I think there needs to be a way for all of us, 
including the chairman of the committee, for whom I have great respect, 
to work together on this issue.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 46 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I can't but be bemused by this debate, because the 
Senator from North Dakota said this isn't just a trivial step. In fact, 
the Senator from Indiana, the very distinguished chairman of the 
committee, quietly admitted that he doesn't think it is going to do 
much, and if that is the case, I don't know why we don't just do it.
  It is also true one of the tenets of Freedom to Farm is more 
flexibility. I remind my colleagues that we in the North do not have a 
lot of flexibility, because of our weather and soil conditions, and so 
forth. There is not near the flexibility in planting different kinds of 
crops that farmers in other parts of the country might have.
  A major answer to this problem, obviously, is a greater effort to 
knock down trade barriers. That is clear. A greater answer to this 
problem, too, is much more executive branch and congressional effort to 
make sure that other countries are not taking unfair advantage of 
American producers.
  Mr. President, I will withdraw the amendment, but in so doing, I 
would like the assurance of the Senator from Kansas and the Senator 
from Indiana of efforts that we can undertake on a bipartisan basis to 
actually do something about this.
  We talk a lot about knocking down trade barriers; we talk a lot about 
GSM programs; we talk a lot about P.L.-480; we talk a lot about NAFTA; 
we talk a lot about fast track, and so forth. But it is time to do 
something about this.
  I will not press for a vote, but I do urge my friends and colleagues 
to make the effort, to be sure, again, on a bipartisan basis and with 
the White House, that we can finally stand up for our producers and 
work harder and more effectively together than we have thus far. One 
example is appropriations, whether it is EEP or whatever it is. We can 
authorize programs, but we also have to have appropriations. I would 
like to ask my friends if they could respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield such time as he may 
consume to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the spirit of the 
distinguished Senator from Montana, a distinguished member of the 
Agriculture Committee. I pledge for my part the resources of the 
committee to work with the Senator from this day hence to see if we can 
increase wheat exports specifically, and exports generally from our 
country.
  I have outlined a number of areas for work, and the distinguished 
Senator from Kansas has mentioned others, as has the Senator from 
Montana. There is urgency to our work. That ought to be clear from this 
debate.
  I pledge to work with the Senator. I hope that our committee will be 
successful, and we will try to establish benchmarks to see if we make 
headway. I look forward to working with the Senator on a report of how 
we did.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will the distinguished chairman yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy----
  Mr. LUGAR. Of course.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will either of the distinguished chairmen yield?
  I thank the Senator from Indiana for yielding. I would just like to 
pledge my full cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2162) was withdrawn.

[[Page S2619]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am not seeking recognition. What is the pending 
business, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2120, the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator 
from Indiana, the chairman of the Ag Committee. I remind folks that in 
the appropriations, and through the leadership of my friend from 
Mississippi, the EEP is funded.
  We have appropriated that money every year to be used as a tool in 
the market, so it is not that we have not done our work here in this 
Senate as far as the agriculture producers are concerned. I think the 
administration, both through the International Trade Representative and 
the Ag Department, has to start taking a look at the tools or the 
weapons they have in their arsenal in order to help these folks.
  This is not going to help our farmers who need money to get back in 
the field to plant their spring crops, but I will tell you that we are 
going to work very, very hard to make sure it is there next year and 
this administration uses the tools it has at its disposal.
  I appreciate the time, and I yield the floor. And noting no other 
Senator choosing to use time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2120

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I understand that the so-called amendment 
that has my name on it, the Nickles amendment, to delete $16 million 
that is in the bill right now to add an additional 65 HCFA employees, 
is the pending business.
  We debated that significantly yesterday. I am happy to vote on it. I 
am ready to vote on it. I know Senator Kennedy had a different idea. I 
do not know what his intentions are, but this Senator is ready to vote, 
ready to have a time limit, ready to move forward. I think it is 
important we do so, and do so rather quickly and move on to other 
business. I know we have the Mexican certification process. So I just 
make mention of that.
  I see my colleague from Massachusetts is here, so hopefully we will 
be able to vote on my amendment. If he has an alternative, we are happy 
to vote on that as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senate votes to deny the 
administration's request for additional funding to fulfill the 
responsibilities bestowed by Congress under the Kassebaum-Kennedy 
legislation, tens of millions of Americans will be denied the 
protection of a law we passed unanimously, not once but twice. 
Supporting the Nickles amendment is like saying, ``We'll give you a 
car, but not the keys.''
  What good does it do to pass a law that we are not willing to 
enforce? This amendment will effectively reduce, in a very important 
and significant way, the enforcement and the protections that were 
included in the legislation.
  Every Senator in the 104th Congress voted for the Kassebaum-Kennedy 
legislation--not a single vote against it on passage or on the 
conference bill. And every Senator went back to his or her State to 
take credit for the good work that they had done to hail the promise of 
accessible and portable health insurance.
  But now we have this proposal to effectively break the promise by 
denying the enforcement agency, in this instance HCFA, the staff and 
the resources they need to make that promise a reality.
  So let us be very clear. This really isn't about the budget. This is 
not about wasteful spending or an ever-expanding government. The HCFA 
request is fully paid for by a transfer from another HCFA budget, and 
it is a justified, targeted response to the situation before us, which 
has been outlined in the GAO report.
  Yesterday, questions were raised about whether this request affected 
more than the five States that have yet to act and whether the request 
affected HCFA's ability to enforce the legislation that created the 
mental health parity and the banned so-called drive-by deliveries.

  But HCFA Administrator Nancy-Ann Min DeParle answered these questions 
following our debate yesterday in a letter she sent to clarify the 
situation. She writes that this money is needed to implement not only 
Kassebaum-Kennedy, but also the mental health and drive-by delivery 
bills. The fact is that there are many gaps beyond just the five State 
references that were included in the GAO report.
  I have, Mr. President, in my hand, the National Association of 
Insurance Commissioners' report as of December 3, 1997, that indicates 
that 30 states have yet to enact the legislation to implement the law 
on the mental health parity. Thirty States have not implemented those 
particular protections on mental health.
  We had a strong vote here on the Domenici-Wellstone amendment. And we 
now see that there are effectively 30 States that have not implemented 
the mental health parity law. If HCFA is not given the resources to 
enforce it in those states that fail to act, then the persons with 
severe mental illness who live in those states will not benefit from 
the parity provisions we voted to give them.
  The Senator from Oklahoma continues to insist that this is a short-
term problem and that the only real problem that we are faced with in 
implementing HIPAA is just in five States. And this, as I mentioned, is 
wrong. The duration of the problem is not yet known. We have already 
mentioned that 30 states require federal enforcement for mental health 
parity. We know on the drive-by delivery issue, which we also passed in 
a bipartisan way in 1996, was to be implemented with the same kind of 
enforcement mechanisms--and there are eight States, according to the 
National Association of Insurance Commissioners--that have not enacted 
legislation to conform with or implement the federal bill to ban drive-
by deliveries.
  The request in the bill under consideration today will be used to 
make sure that women in these eight States are going to have the 
similar kind of protections as the women in 42 other States. It will be 
used to ensure that the mental health parity provisions are enforced in 
the 30 states that have not yet come into compliance. And there are 
many others. Oklahoma is one of 11 states that have not passed laws to 
guarantee renewability in the individual market, thereby needing 
federal enforcement of this key HIPAA provision. These are all in 
addition to the five States that have been referenced by the Senator 
from Oklahoma. And there are more.
  There are very, very important needs, Mr. President.
  Now, the supplemental request will simply allow HCFA to move forward 
with what Congress asked of them. Some of my colleagues have suggested 
that HCFA should have asked for this increase last year. But we all 
know that if they had asked last year, they would have been told that 
it was premature and to wait for State action. Some have suggested that 
they wait for the regular budget for next year, but such a delay is 
unnecessary and an insult to the American public.
  Each year, HCFA staffing levels are revisited during the 
appropriations process. If Congress finds in the future that the States 
are fully compliant and HCFA no longer needs to fulfill this function, 
I am confident that the Appropriations Committee will adjust 
accordingly. They do so.
  HCFA's duties have significantly increased in the past two years. 
Among other things, they have chief responsibility for providing 
guidance to states to implement the new Children's Health Insurance 
Program, for cracking down on fraud and abuse, and for implementing of 
the various and important changes in Medicare and Medicaid resulting 
from the Balanced Budget Act. All of those are being implemented 
virtually at the same time as the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill--including the 
provisions on mental

[[Page S2620]]

health and maternity protections--is being implemented. And the 
proposal that came to the floor of the Senate did not increase the 
budget but reallocated resources within the agency. They aren't asking 
for more money, just a transfer to allow them to hire people to do the 
jobs we asked of them. And the Nickles amendment seeks to gut these 
efforts by striking this proposal.

  Mr. President, it is unconscionable to deny the American public the 
rights we voted to give them almost 2 years ago. They have waited long 
enough. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill bans some of the worst abuses by 
health insurers, abuses that affect millions of people a year. Prior to 
its enactment, more than half of all insurance policies imposed 
unlimited exclusions for preexisting conditions. Prior to its 
enactment, insurance companies could refuse to insure--redline--entire 
small businesses because one employee was in poor health. Prior to its 
enactment, 25 percent of American workers were afraid to change jobs 
and to start new businesses for fear of losing health insurance 
coverage. Prior to its enactment, people could be dropped from coverage 
if they had the misfortune to become sick, even if they had faithfully 
paid their premiums for years.

  The General Accounting Office stated that as many as 25 million 
people would benefit from these protections. These are the protections 
that are in the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation. All we are saying is, 
let's make sure, now that we have passed them and told families that 
they will have those protections, let's make sure that we are making 
good on that promise. We have the personnel to be able to do that, and 
it has been included in this legislation.
  Reference is made: Why don't they shift around personnel? They have a 
lot of people in that agency; certainly they could shift around 
personnel. The fact is, in this particular area, as I mentioned, are 
specialists in a particular area in the insurance industry. This is not 
something that HCFA has a background and experience in. These are 
protections because of many of the abuses. Therefore, they need certain 
types of personnel and individuals that have some very specialized 
skills in this area to be able to do the job. That is what is being 
called for. That is the case that is being made. If they do not have 
it, what we will find is, people will be left confused, things will be 
uncertain, people who thought they had various rights will not have 
those rights guaranteed.
  Patchwork enforcement and concerted efforts by unscrupulous insurers 
to violate the law raised serious concerns during the earlier 
implementation period. While the provisions affecting the group market 
appear to be going well--that is about 80 percent of the legislation 
which is going well--the GAO has identified many concerns in the 
individual market provisions.
  Our legislation specifically deferred to the States in recognition of 
their longstanding and experienced role as regulators of health 
insurance. We gave States more than a year to design their own 
legislation based on the Federal law. Federal regulation was only a 
backup if States failed to act. Most States have passed implementing or 
conforming legislation. There are significant gaps. In every State that 
has failed to act in whole or in part, the responsibility for assuring 
compliance, responding to complaints, and informing the public has 
fallen on the Health Care Financing Administration. HCFA is just over 
20 people working on this issue in its headquarters, and a handful more 
spread across the regions. Most State insurance departments have 
hundreds of people. California, for example, has more than 1,000 people 
on staff to handle these issues; HCFA has 1 person in San Francisco.
  GAO explicitly and repeatedly expressed concerns that HCFA's current 
resources are inadequate to effectively enforce the bill. The NAIC--
which is the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the 
commissioners in each of the 50 States; this is their national 
organization--in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee last 
fall said, ``The Federal Government has new and significant 
responsibilities to protect consumers in these States. Fulfilling these 
responsibilities requires significant Federal resources.''
  The legislation that passed over 20 months ago was being implemented 
in January of this year, but the States were taking the steps in the 
previous 18 months to comply with the legislation, with it being 
implemented in January of this year. In February, we had the GAO report 
that pointed out the failure of some of the States to take the steps to 
provide the protections and said additional kinds of resources were 
going to be necessary. This is really a response to that particular 
reality.
  The GAO found that many companies were engaging in price gouging, 
with premiums being charged to consumers exercising their rights to buy 
individual policies when they lost their job-based coverage as much as 
600 percent above standard rates. They found other carriers continue to 
illegally impose preexisting condition exclusions. We cannot deal with 
that; nor do we intend to. That ought to be an issue for another time. 
It ought to be addressed in terms of that kind of abuse. We are not 
talking about that issue. But we are talking about the implementation 
of these other protections, to make sure, for example, if you are 
moving from a group to individual, that there is going to be available 
insurance in those States that are going to cover the individuals that 
have preexisting conditions, and also what they call renewability, to 
make sure that those individuals are going to be able to be renewed if 
they pay under the terms of their premiums--that it takes that kind of 
an action to ensure coverage or otherwise people are going to be 
outside of the coverage. That is an area where a number of States have 
not taken action.

  Some companies or agents illegally fail to disclose to consumers they 
have a right to buy a policy. Others have refused to pay commissions to 
agents who refer eligible individuals. Others tell agents not to refer 
any eligibles for coverage. Some carriers put all the eligibles with 
health problems in a single insurance product, driving up the rates to 
unaffordable levels, while selling regular policies to healthy 
eligibles.
  The Senate should not be voting for a free ride for failure to comply 
with these protections which most States have complied with. It should 
not be an accomplice to denying families the kind of protections for 
preexisting conditions that they were promised by unanimous votes just 
2 years ago. The need for the additional staff goes beyond enforcement. 
The GAO found wide gaps in consumer knowledge, gaps that prevented 
consumers from exercising their rights under the laws. HHS wants to 
launch a vigorous effort to address this problem, but according to the 
GAO, because of the resource constraints, the agency is unable to put 
much effort into consumer education.
  Now, the point that has been raised by the Senator from Oklahoma that 
this is not an emergency situation--for millions of Americans, the 
failure to enforce the legislation is an emergency. Every family who is 
illegally denied health insurance faces an emergency. Every child that 
goes without timely medical care because this bill is not enforced 
faces an emergency, and every family that is bankrupted by medical 
costs because this bill is not enforced faces an emergency. This may 
not be an emergency for abusive insurance companies, but it is an 
emergency for families all over this country. For some, it is a matter 
of life and death.
  But don't take my word for it. Since our debate yesterday, more than 
20 organizations have sent letters, which are at the desk, urging that 
we defeat the Nickles amendment. Leading organizations representing 
persons with disabilities, the mental health communities, women with 
breast cancer, and consumers generally have written asking opposition 
to this unwarranted attack on the law. More are coming. The Senate 
should reject this amendment. We need to toughen the Kassebaum bill, 
not weaken its enforcement. This is a test as to whether the Senate 
wants to really ensure that those provisions in the bill that will 
guarantee the protection on the preexisting condition will actually be 
protected.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's comments. I 
appreciate his coming to the floor. I think it is important that we 
have the discussion. We had a significant discussion on this amendment 
yesterday. I will make a few comments. I understand one other Senator 
wishes to speak on it, or if the Senator has any additional Senators.

[[Page S2621]]

  I mentioned yesterday that HCFA, the Health Care Finance 
Administration, has over 4,000 employees. That is a lot. Now, the 
Health and Human Services Department has 58,500 employees. Now, if they 
need to move a few employees around, they can do it if there is an 
emergency. There is not really an emergency. Frankly, compliance with 
HCFA, the so-called Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, which deals with 
portability, also deals with moving from group to individual plans. 
Most States have complied. The State of Massachusetts has not complied. 
But I don't think that we should presume the State of Massachusetts 
doesn't care about their employees or about their people in their 
State. The State of California hasn't, the State of Missouri hasn't, 
the State of Michigan hasn't, but every one of those States has pretty 
advanced policies dealing with health care.

  Now, some would presume because they haven't enacted legislation 
exactly as we told them to do, that we now need to have Federal 
regulators go in and run their insurance departments. I do not think 
that is the case. The Senator from Massachusetts says California has 
over 1,000 regulators. You cannot do this with 65. You could not do 
this with 650. You would have to hire thousands if we were going to 
have the Federal Government come in and regulate State insurance. So 
that is really something we should not be doing, it would be a serious 
mistake to do.
  Some people have a real tendency to say if we have any problem, let's 
go in and have Federal regulators come in and take over. I think that 
would be a mistake. As I mentioned before, there are over 4,000. Surely 
they can borrow a few if this is such a critical need.
  A couple people said, ``This is needed to enforce the mental parity 
issue that was passed also as part of the Kassebaum-Kennedy.'' It is 
not. I tell my colleagues, this GAO report that was alluded to by my 
friend from Massachusetts does not mention mental parity once--not 
once. I might mention, the request for the supplement from the director 
of HCFA did not mention mental parity. It was not in their request. 
What their request was: ``Hey, we want to help these five States.'' I 
am saying they can help those five States. They already have 26 
employees. They can use additional employees already in the system. We 
don't need to give them an additional $16 million or $6 million for 
these 65 employees that cost $93,000 each. That is a lot to pay for 
somebody in the State of Mississippi or Oklahoma. Our States are in 
compliance, I might mention; the State of Massachusetts is not in 
compliance.
  I might also mention two things. The way the Senator pays for this is 
robbing Medicare. All of us that have been dealing with the 
appropriations and so on, we know we have discretionary accounts and we 
have mandatory accounts. Medicare is one of the mandatory accounts. It 
is paid for. The HI Trust Fund--Hospital Insurance Trust Fund--is paid 
for by payroll tax; 2.9 percent of all payroll goes into the Hospital 
Insurance Trust Fund. That ought to be plenty of money. President 
Clinton had a big increase in 1993, and it is on all income now. It 
used to be just on the Social Security base up to $68,000. Now it is on 
all income.
  Guess what. It is still going broke. It is paying out more this year 
than is coming in. The fund is going broke. Does it make real sense for 
us to be taking money out of that fund that is dedicated for senior 
citizens--take money out of the fund to hire more bureaucrats at HCFA? 
They already have over 4,000, and this says let's hire another 65. The 
President's budget for next year says he wants another 215. Well, we 
will wrestle with that in next year's annual appropriations process and 
let the committees review and discuss it.
  This is an emergency supplemental. This is supposed to be helping 
communities that are devastated by floods and bad weather and to pay 
for our forces that had to be on call in Iraq and in Bosnia. What is 
urgent about this? This is a law that passed. This is a law that became 
effective--frankly, we passed the law 20 months ago; it only became 
effective January 1.
  The reason California has not passed a law--California passed a law, 
but Governor Wilson vetoed it because there are other things in the law 
he did not think were very good. In Missouri, the Missouri legislature 
passed a law to be in compliance, but the Governor vetoed it because he 
had a disagreement. In almost all cases, the five States are not 
saying, ``Federal Government, we want you to regulate us and take over 
our insurance.'' It is because they had a disagreement between the 
legislative bodies. It is not, they don't want to cover it. It is not, 
they don't want to give the benefits that we have provided. I think 
these States do. My guess is, the State of Massachusetts wants to. But 
for some reason legislatively it has not happened. It may be, again, 
because there is a different party as Governor, as in the legislative 
body.
  Sometimes you get some impasses. The solution is not to send an army 
of HCFA bureaucrats to go in and try to take over regulation of 
insurance within those five States. That would be a serious mistake.
  So I mention, Mr. President, let's pass this amendment, let's save 
$16 million, let's not raid the hospital insurance fund. That is the 
wrong thing to do, a serious mistake. So I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  I ask for the regular order.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? 
Are we on the Nickles amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we are following the regular order.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wanted to start out by reading from a 
letter to Senator Kennedy from Nancy-Ann Min DeParle:

       Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing to request your 
     assistance in securing funding for HCFA to implement the 
     insurance reform provisions of HIPAA. The $6 million and 65 
     FTEs that we have requested for this purpose will allow us to 
     implement the HIPAA provisions, as well as those enacted 
     subsequently in the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection 
     Act and the Mental Health Parity Act in those states that 
     have not fully implemented HIPAA.

  We had this discussion yesterday. But as we approach a possible vote 
on this amendment, let me say one more time--and I have a letter here 
from Laurie Flynn, executive director, which Senator Kennedy offered 
during other parts of this debate. I want to focus on the mental health 
parity. Laurie Flynn, executive director, a very strong advocate for 
people struggling with mental illness, concludes her letter by saying:

       Consequently, on behalf of NAMI's 172,000 members 
     nationwide, I am writing to express my strong appreciation of 
     your leadership in advocating for adequate funding to support 
     HCFA's enforcement responsibilities under HIPAA.

  Mr. President, there are still some 30 States, or thereabouts, that 
are not yet in compliance. Again, in the last Congress, we passed the 
Mental Health Parity Act. This was an enormous step forward. We said to 
a lot of women and men and to their families that we are going to rise 
above the stigma, we are going to make sure that there is coverage for 
you, at least when it comes to lifetime and annual caps; we are not 
going to have any discrimination, and we are going to treat your 
illness the way a physical illness is treated. We know that much of 
this is biochemical. We know that pharmacological treatment with family 
and community support can make all the difference in the world. Hopes 
were raised, expectations were built up.
  Now, what we are talking about is making sure--I say again to my 
colleague what I said yesterday--that this is enforced, that this is 
implemented. I am very worried that without this additional womanpower 
and manpower, we are not going to be able to actually enforce this law 
of the land; we are not going to be able to have this implemented 
around the country.
  My colleague from Oklahoma keeps talking about bureaucrats. I go back 
to what I said yesterday. We are always talking about bureaucrats. We 
can also be talking about men and women in public service who have a 
job to do. In this particular case, the job is to make sure that the 
law of the land is implemented. It is to make sure that there isn't 
discrimination against people struggling with mental illness, that 
there isn't discrimination against their families, and that we make 
sure that States or insurance companies or plans

[[Page S2622]]

are in compliance. I think that is what this debate is all about.
  Now, Senator Kennedy has letters from all sorts of organizations, 
consumer groups, people struggling with disabilities, and on and on and 
on--I am sure he read from them--which are basically saying the same 
thing.
  One more time, I simply want to say that the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill 
really was important to millions of people around the country, to 
millions of families. People now had every reason to believe that 
because they had a bout with cancer or with diabetes or other kinds of 
illnesses, they weren't going to be denied coverage because of a 
``preexisting condition''; they would be able to move from one company 
to another and not lose their plan. It was now the law of the land that 
insurance companies could not discriminate against them in that way. 
This additional request --yes, it is an emergency request because it is 
an emergency to these families--is to make sure that, in fact, people 
are able to have the assurance that they won't be able to be 
discriminated against and to make sure that families that are 
struggling with mental illness won't have to be faced with that 
discrimination. This is the right place to make sure that we put the 
funding into this. I say to colleagues, I think for all colleagues who 
supported this legislation, it would be a huge mistake and I think it 
is just wrong to turn around now and deny some of the necessary funding 
for the actual implementation of these laws.

  Either we are serious about ending this discrimination, either we are 
serious about making sure insurance companies can't deny people this 
coverage, or we are not. I think this vote on whether or not HCFA will 
have the resources, which means there will be women and men that will 
be able to enforce this around the country, is a vote on whether or not 
we are going to live up to the legislation that we passed. We can't 
give with one hand and take away with another. So I hope that my 
colleagues will vote against this Nickles amendment.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, let me make a couple of quick comments. 
The initial request that came from HCFA for the $16 million 
supplemental did not include anything dealing with mental parity; not a 
word, not a letter, nothing. It didn't include it. The GAO report 
didn't include it.
  A couple of reasons. Here are the mental parity regulations. If I may 
have the attention of my colleague from Minnesota for a second. This is 
a copy of the regs that came in on mental health. Guess when they were 
announced. December 16, 1997, which was about 3 months ago. How in the 
world can somebody know 30 States aren't complying? The regs just came 
out. I heard comments that some States aren't complying with the 
newborns regulations, the 48 hours. Guess what. Those regs aren't out. 
The law became effective January 1, and there are no regulations. Yet 
they want to hire an army of new federal employees. HCFA didn't ask for 
an army of people to go out and comply with these regulations.
  My colleague alluded to a letter that Senator Kennedy worked hard on, 
which he probably got late last night, from Nancy Ann Min DeParle, the 
Administrator of HCFA. I want to read what she says, if I can get my 
colleague's attention for just a second. I want to read the part of the 
letter he forgot to read. He left out just a little bit. In the second 
paragraph of the letter she sent to Senator Kennedy--not to the 
managers of the bill; she didn't send it to the authorizers of the 
committee--it might have been written by Senator Kennedy; I'm not sure. 
But this part certainly wasn't written by Senator Kennedy:

       Moreover, we understand that as many as 30 States may not 
     have standards that comply with Mental Health Parity Act and 
     as many of 10 States may not have standards that comply with 
     the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act.

  This is what I want you to pay attention to:

       We don't have precise numbers because States are not 
     required to notify HCFA about their intention to implement 
     these two laws.

  HCFA doesn't have control over these two laws. These States aren't 
told to tell HCFA about compliance with these two laws. Those laws are 
going to be managed by the Department of Labor. That is not in HCFA's 
jurisdiction. These 65 people will not spend 1 minute of time on mental 
parity or the 24 hours or 48 hours for newborns. Some people are trying 
to create an issue that is not real.

  The issue is, very frankly, are we going to spend $16 million to 
expand the bureaucracy of HCFA? They already have over 4,000 employees 
and 58,500 at HHS. I have said time and time again, if they need to 
borrow some of those employees, they can do so. People say, no, we want 
to expand the base, hire more people, have more intrusion. I have a 
final comment----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. Not just yet. I will make a final comment, because this 
is of interest. Yesterday and today, we have spent several hours 
debating $16 million. I am trying to save for taxpayers, and basically 
save it for Medicare, that $16 million that should stay in Medicare. We 
should not be raiding the Medicare trust funds to pay for an expansion 
to hire more Federal employees. We are spending several hours on that. 
I tell my colleague from Texas and my other colleagues, I spent an hour 
opposing an expansion of $1.9 billion, and I lost. So this Senate 
expanded the cost of this bill from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion, and 
we did it in an hour. Maybe some people are kind of proud of that. I am 
not proud of it. Yet, to try to cut $16 million, we have spent several 
hours.
  Some people fight very, very hard to expand Government. I think that 
is a mistake. I think it is a mistake in this bill. It should not be in 
this bill. When my colleague read the letters, he didn't read all of 
the letters. It says that HCFA doesn't have enforcement authority over 
these two bills, and it doesn't have anything to do with the 
legislation that is before us. I happen to have enough confidence in 
the State of Massachusetts, the State of California, the State of 
Michigan, the State of Missouri, and Rhode Island. They care about 
their people just as much as we do in Washington, DC. Hiring another 
army of bureaucrats to go in and tell them what to do will not, in my 
opinion, improve the quality of health care in those States.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, does the Senator understand that the 
National Association of Insurance Commissioners lists the following 30 
States: Alabama, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, 
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, 
New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South 
Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, as States 
that are not in compliance and have not yet enacted the Mental Health 
Parity law? Is the Senator aware of that from the National Association 
of Insurance Commissioners?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to answer the Senator's question. The 
regulations I was waving around a moment ago--this thing--came out on 
December 16, 3 months ago. I doubt that all the States have had time to 
review these regulations. Maybe some of them have, and maybe some of 
them haven't. So how would anyone know whether all the States are in 
compliance with that? On the newborns law my colleague alluded to, 
which is not enforced by HCFA, the regs aren't out yet. So how could 
anyone know whether or not there is compliance?
  Now, the 65 people that HCFA was requesting in the supplemental were 
not to enforce either the mental parity or the 48 hours for newborns. 
It was not in the request, not in their letter, not in the GAO study.
  I think my colleague makes an interesting diversion in trying to say 
that they should be doing this, too. But frankly, that is not their 
responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Department of Labor. It 
is not in this bill and it would not be helped by passing this 
supplemental, even as originally requested.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

[[Page S2623]]

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think we are having an interesting and 
enlightening conversation. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma. But 
I want to go back one more level below this to talk about the real 
issue here.
  Our dear colleague from Minnesota talks about how much he and the 
administration care about this program and about how they want to try 
to see this done, provide this $16 million. But they didn't care enough 
about it to cut $16 million out of another discretionary program to pay 
for it. They didn't care enough about it to reduce discretionary 
spending in the Federal budget by 0.003 percent to pay for it. They 
cared so much about it that they weren't willing to take 65 bureaucrats 
from the 4,000 people they already have working in the Health Care 
Finance Administration to do this work. They didn't do any of those 
things.
  What they did is they cut Medicare and they reduced peer review, 
which is looking at the practice of doctors who are providing medical 
care to my mother and to other people's parents. We take money from 
peer review and the oversight of doctors practicing medicine under 
Medicare--we take money away from Medicare to fund more bureaucrats at 
HCFA. That is what this amendment is about. This is robbing Medicare to 
pay for bureaucrats at HCFA.
  Now, first of all, I know the public doesn't care about these things, 
but I don't understand how the Appropriations Committee is cutting 
Medicare. The last time I looked, Medicare was under the jurisdiction 
of the Finance Committee. I am chairman of the subcommittee that has 
jurisdiction over Medicare. What we have here is an extraordinary shell 
game, which the President started and which this committee has 
continued to perpetuate.
  Here is the shell game in English that anybody can understand. The 
President wants to hire 65 more bureaucrats. He already has 4,000 
bureaucrats working for HCFA. They want 65 more bureaucrats to do work 
that has absolutely nothing to do with Medicare in shape, form, or 
fashion. And they want 65 more bureaucrats. But they are unwilling to 
cut another discretionary program to pay for it. They want these 65 
bureaucrats, but they are unwilling to take them away from the current 
work that the 4,000 are doing. It is not important enough to move 65 of 
them to do it. It is not important enough to cut any other 
discretionary program of the Government to do it. But it is apparently 
important enough to reduce physician oversight of the practice of 
medicine on 39 million elderly and disabled Americans who qualify for 
Medicare.
  This is another blatant effort to rob Medicare, a program that is 
going broke, a program that will be a $1.1 trillion drain on the 
Federal Treasury over the next 10 years, a program where we are going 
to have to raise the payroll tax from 2.9 cents for every dollar you 
make to 13 cents for every dollar you make to pay for it over the next 
30 years.
  So what they are doing is using Medicare as a piggy bank to hire 
bureaucrats. Let me say that this is outrageous, and I believe that if 
the American people knew about this, they would be outraged.
  Our colleague from Minnesota said, but we need these 65 bureaucrats 
for this important function. Look, I am not going to argue whether it 
is important or not. Our dear colleague here has pointed out that the 
issues raised wouldn't even be dealt with by those 65 bureaucrats. But 
that is not the point here. If it is all that important, cut a program 
to pay for it. If it is all that important, do what every American 
working family does every day: They decide that buying medicine, or 
buying a book, or sending their child to special training is important, 
so they cut spending they would have spent on vacation, or something 
less important, to pay for it.
  My argument is not against the spending of this money. It is not even 
against these 65 bureaucrats, although I do not believe the world will 
come to an end if we do not have them. My point is, if they are all 
that important, cut money from a program, another discretionary 
account, that is of less importance.
  Is there nothing in the $550 billion every year spent by the Federal 
Government on discretionary spending that is less important than this? 
If there isn't, we probably ought not to be doing it. If there are 
programs that are less important, I suggest you find them and cut them. 
But this is a rotten shell game, to be cutting Medicare and reducing 
peer review oversight over the treatment of 39 million senior and 
disabled citizens in order to fund more bureaucrats.
  What are we doing, cutting Medicare to fund discretionary programs? 
Whoever heard of cutting Medicare to fund HCFA bureaucrats? I think it 
is an absolute outrage. What all this shows is, despite all of our 
flowery rhetoric--put Social Security first, put Medicare first--we are 
all for doing that, but when it gets right down to it, this provision 
that Senator Nickles is trying to strike is a provision that says, put 
bureaucrats before Medicare, cut oversight of patient treatment for 39 
million senior and disabled citizens in this country so that we can 
fund the hiring of 65 more bureaucrats.
  That is a position that you can take. I happen to say that the answer 
to it is no--clear-cut, unequivocally, no. We ought not to be cutting 
Medicare to increase the number of bureaucrats working at HCFA. And 
that is exactly what this proposal does.
  If somebody can make the case that we don't need as much oversight of 
physicians who are treating my mother and everybody else's mother, then 
we ought to take the savings and we ought to use it to save Medicare. 
But there are two problems here: No. 1, nobody has made that case; I am 
not convinced of it. And, No. 2, if we are going to save the money, it 
ought to go to Medicare, where the money is coming from; it ought not 
to be used to hire bureaucrats.

  So we are going to vote at some point on the Nickles amendment. I 
know our colleagues are threatening to hold up this bill. But let me 
say, this is not my bill. This is a bill that spends $5 billion that we 
do not have. This is a bill that raises the deficit by $5 billion. This 
is a bill that puts Social Security last. This is a bill that takes $5 
billion away from our efforts to save Social Security. And if we are 
going to hold this bill up so that we can steal money from Medicare, 
let it be held up. If this bill never passes under those circumstances, 
that will suit me just fine. I am not going to have to explain why it 
does not pass, because I am not holding it up.
  But if somebody is going to threaten me that I am not going to raise 
the deficit by $5 billion unless you let me steal $16 million from 
Medicare, I am not imperiled by that threat. No. 1, I think it is 
outrageous that we are not offsetting this $5 billion so that it is not 
being added to the deficit. I think that is fundamentally wrong.
  So I am not hot for this bill, to begin with. But secondly, your 
ransom is simply too high. It is absolutely unacceptable to say we are 
not going to spend the $5 billion and raise the deficit by $5 billion 
and steal the money from Social Security unless you let us steal $16 
million from Medicare. That ransom is too high.
  And maybe our colleagues can look people in the face and say, ``We 
had to cut oversight of medical practice for senior citizens in 
Medicare so that we can hire 65 bureaucrats at HCFA.'' Maybe they feel 
comfortable doing it. I would like them to try to explain it to my 85-
year-old mother. I don't think she would be convinced.
  But, in any case, we every once in a while have acts of piracy. 
People say, ``If you do not give me this money, or you do not do this, 
I am not going to let you do what you want to do.'' But what our 
colleagues are saying is, ``We won't raise the deficit by $5 billion 
unless we can take $16 million away from Medicare.'' A, I am not for 
raising the deficit by $5 billion; B, I am not for taking the $16 
million away from Medicare. So I don't feel threatened.
  Finally, let me say to our dear colleague from Oklahoma, who 
yesterday tried to prevent us from raising the deficit by $1.8 
billion--and it was an hour well spent, but I don't think we have to 
apologize for spending hours trying to save $16 million--there are a 
lot of people in Oklahoma and Texas who work a lifetime, and their 
children work a lifetime, and their grandchildren work a lifetime, 
never to make $16 million.
  So I think this is time well spent. Do not take this money out of 
Medicare.

[[Page S2624]]

 Do not take this money out of Medicare to hire 65 new bureaucrats. 
That, I think, is a clear issue. And if our colleagues want to debate 
forever, I would love for the American people to hear this debate. I 
don't believe they can sustain that case.
  This was a slick idea by the President, to do it when nobody knew it 
was in here. I didn't know this was in this bill, and I am on the 
Finance Committee, and I am chairman of the subcommittee that oversees 
Medicare. I didn't know it was in this bill until we discovered it.
  So it was a slick idea until people discovered it. Piracy normally 
works until somebody discovers it is occurring. And then they send out 
the sheriff, and the sheriff stops it. We are the sheriff.
  So if you want to stop, if you do not want to raise the deficit by $5 
billion, if you do not get the $16 million, it doesn't break my heart. 
Go right ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have seen many smokescreens on the 
Senate floor before. But I just heard one of the largest smokescreens 
ever from those who just tried to cut Medicare by some $270 billion in 
order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals and 
corporations. We defended that position here on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate not long ago. Now what we are talking about at this time is an 
administrative cost. This isn't going to affect one single dollar in 
terms of benefits or in terms of health care costs for senior citizens.

  So before we all cry crocodile tears at the suggestions of my good 
friend from Texas, maybe he would spend an equal amount of time 
discussing his justification for his proposal to seek major cuts in the 
Medicare program to fund tax breaks for wealthy individuals. That may 
be suitable for another time.
  I do not suggest that the Republicans who are Members of the 
Appropriations Committee that supported and reported out the provision 
that is in the current bill are Republicans that have a distaste for 
Medicare or want to ignore our nation's senior citizens. This proposal 
was reported out of the Republican Appropriations Committee. That is 
how it got here on the floor. And you have not heard the Senator from 
Massachusetts charging that they have hurt the Medicare system.
  Mr. President, fortunately, our good colleagues in the Senate know 
the facts on this situation. Basically, what you are talking about is 
transferring $16 million in administrative costs to enforce a law to 
protect millions of American citizens. We are talking about women with 
breast cancer or others with preexisting conditions who are turned down 
for insurance every single day; we are talking about children with 
disabilities who are locked out of the private health insurance system; 
we are talking about small businesses who are refused health insurance 
because one employee is in poor health. And many others. Without 
enforcement, the stick to ensure compliance by the insurance companies, 
these protections are simply not there. They are not there.
  We have a GAO report that says HCFA needs help, and we have the 
insurance commissioners of the States that say HCFA needs the help--
Republicans and Democrats alike--as do the various organizations that 
speak for the elderly, and the disabled, and the mentally ill, and the 
cancer patients, and the consumers. Are they all wrong? Are all 30 of 
these organizations all wrong? They don't want to throw out the 
Medicare system, as the Senator from Texas says. Of course, not. They 
understand what this is all about. These are organizations that have 
been fighting for Medicare since they were formed. They have 
unimpeachable credentials in terms of protecting Medicare.
  So, Mr. President, we are back to where we were in this debate and 
discussion. These funds are needed. HCFA asked in their request of the 
Appropriations Committee, which was approved, and later in the letter 
that they sent up to the Congress, to me following my inquiry after 
yesterday's debate, reiterating the request and clarifying that the 
requested funds were also needed to enforce the mental health parity 
and drive-by delivery provisions. And this $6 million of appropriated 
funds that otherwise would be used administratively is going to be used 
to ensure that the promises made in the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill and in 
the Mothers Health Protection Act and the Mental Health Parity Act are 
not merely illusory.
  The Senator from Oklahoma says that states have not complied because 
the regulations came out in December. The irony is not lost on me--
blame HCFA for not issuing regulations and then deny them the necessary 
resources to fulfill their responsibilities. But states have had more 
than a year to comply with this relatively straightforward law. They 
didn't need to wait for regulations to act. And many of the States did 
act prior to the regulations. Nonetheless, 30 States did not.
  This request is needed to prevent the kind of discrimination that is 
being committed against millions of Americans that have preexisting 
conditions. It is needed to ensure that mothers that live in the eight 
States that still allow drive-by deliveries, and that those who are 
afflicted with mental health problems have the same level of protection 
as those in their neighboring states.
  Mr. President, this is really what this debate is all about. We have 
had a GAO report that made recommendations that we take this action. 
The States have been, over the period of the last 18 months, getting 
themselves effectively in shape for the implementation of this 
legislation, which started in January. But the GAO report said there 
are a number of very important areas that need attention if this bill 
is really going to do what the Congress has said is going to be done.
  We are responding to that particular need, and that is what the 
committee responded to, Republicans and Democrats alike. The idea of 
suggesting that the members of the Appropriations Committee that 
reported this out are somehow less interested in the protection of 
Medicare is preposterous. It is preposterous on its face and the 
Senator knows that.
  I am prepared to take some parliamentary action, but I see others 
here on the floor who want to address this, so therefore I withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall be brief. I appreciate the 
remarks of my colleague from Texas. I was going to respond in a similar 
fashion. I will not go over what my colleague from Massachusetts has 
said. I do not always agree with what the Senator from Texas says, but 
I like the way he says it. He makes his points in a kind of hard-
hitting way, but also with some humor. I think they connect well with 
people.
  But I look at this in a very different way. I would like to thank the 
appropriators for responding to a very real problem. I do not think the 
appropriators in any way, shape, or form, Democrats or Republicans, are 
attempting to raid the Medicare trust fund. I think the appropriators, 
both Democrats and Republicans, understood that the legislation we 
passed last year was very important. It was very important in making 
sure people were not denied coverage because of preexisting 
conditions--many people. That is why my colleague from Massachusetts 
could read letters from organizations representing people who have 
struggled with cancer, senior citizen organizations, people struggling 
with mental illness, the disabilities community.
  People, I say to my colleagues, have to live with this fear. It is 
horrible. It is bad enough to be ill. It is another thing to have to 
worry that you are not going to be able to even get any coverage. We 
have passed legislation to say the insurance companies are not going to 
be able to discriminate against you, but we have not been able to 
implement it as fully as we want to.
  And on the mental health parity again, I would just say, this is from 
the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. I heard my 
colleague from Oklahoma speak about it several times. He heard me speak 
about it several times. I am sure HCFA wishes they mentioned the Mental 
Health Parity Act. On the regulations, I wish they got them out 
earlier. I don't think they

[[Page S2625]]

have enough people to get regulations out. They have a huge, mammoth 
mandate. But the fact of the matter is, one more time, colleagues, the 
National Association of Insurance Commissioners reports that 30 States 
have not yet enacted the mental health parity legislation. Minnesota, I 
am proud to say, is a State that has enacted this legislation.
  So ultimately this is about whether or not the U.S. Senate supports 
the appropriators. The appropriators came up with something that was 
balanced and reasonable. The appropriators understand, and I think what 
they have proposed represents this understanding, that we have a 
contract with people in the country. People believe they are going to 
have some protection. You know, it is hard going against these 
insurance companies. Can't we make sure there are a few more women and 
men--I don't just use the word ``bureaucrats'' with a sneer--who are 
out there to enforce this law? Can't we make sure there is protection 
for people? Can't we side with the citizens in this country?
  I know the insurance companies would love for HCFA not to be able to 
have the womanpower and manpower to enforce this legislation. But I 
think we should be on the side of the vast majority of people in this 
country and not on the side of large insurance companies. I think that 
is what this vote is about, and I urge my colleagues to vote against 
the Nickles amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I will try to be brief. I hope we are 
getting ready to vote on this. I want to go back, since so much has 
been said, and review exactly where we are. Here is where we are:
  The President wanted $16 million to, in part, hire 65 new bureaucrats 
at HCFA. Here are the choices the President had: He could have cut 
another program in HCFA and used it to pay to hire the 65 new 
bureaucrats. We have $550 billion of discretionary programs in the 
Federal budget and he could have cut $16 million out of any one or 
combination of those. Or he could have cut each one of them by 0.003 
percent. But the President could not find in a discretionary budget of 
$550 billion a single program that could be cut. He could not find 
anything that was less important than hiring these new 65 bureaucrats. 
So what he did is he cut Medicare and slipped the provision into the 
supplemental and it is now before us.
  Where did he cut Medicare? We have a program where we hire doctors 
who go in, on a selective sample basis, and look at procedures that are 
being provided to Medicare patients. Someone goes in and does a 
procedure on my mother, where they insert a balloon and open her artery 
and save her life and save a lot of money. And then we have Medicare 
that goes in to look and see, did they do it well? Did they do it in 
the most efficient way? Are they practicing good medicine which the 
Government is paying for?
  What the President said is, let's cut the amount of money that we are 
spending for this oversight of medical practice where 39 million people 
who qualify for Medicare under the President's provision will have less 
oversight of their medical treatment they receive. That is what the 
President proposed to do, cut Medicare by reducing the oversight of the 
medical practice that we are paying for and take that money from 
Medicare and hire 65 bureaucrats in HCFA to perform functions that have 
absolutely nothing to do with Medicare.
  There are two debates going on. To some extent the Senator from 
Oklahoma and the Senator from Minnesota are arguing about whether we 
need to hire these 65 bureaucrats at all. We already have 4,000 of them 
in the same agency but not a one of them is doing something less 
important than this. I am not getting involved in that debate. Maybe 
the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Massachusetts are 
right. Maybe we just have to have 65 new bureaucrats at HCFA.
  But my point is, if you really need them that badly, take money away 
from another HCFA program. Don't cut Medicare, don't take oversight of 
medical practice on our senior citizens, don't take that money to spend 
it on a program that has nothing to do with Medicare.
  Our colleague from Massachusetts is still chafing that at one time we 
actually debated cutting taxes around here. I long to get those days 
back, myself, and I am not the least bit shy about them. I don't 
remember anybody ever proposing cutting Medicare to pay for them, but I 
guess if you are against tax cuts they have to be evil; and wherever, 
whatever is being done to get them, that in itself must be evil.
  But here is my point. We are getting ready to go into a series of 
issues this year where our Democrat colleagues are going to be taking 
money away from Medicare. So, if they don't like being criticized for 
it, they better get used to it. We are going to have a tobacco 
settlement on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and we are going to have it 
on the floor of the Senate this spring or summer. There is going to be 
a debate about what to use that money for.
  We are providing money for education. We are going to raise the price 
of cigarettes, which everybody says is the most effective way to get 
teenagers not to smoke. But the question is going to come down to where 
should the money be used? We are going to hear this same debate again. 
I say the Senate Budget Committee says that 14 percent of the cost of 
Medicare comes from people smoking; $30 billion a year in costs are 
imposed on Medicare by people smoking, and the whole logic of the 
tobacco settlement, the reason that the tobacco companies have agreed 
to pay the States and to pay the Federal Government, is to compensate 
the taxpayer for costs imposed on the taxpayer by people smoking.
  In the Federal Government, those costs have been imposed on Medicare. 
So the Budget Committee has said, and I hope the Senate says, take the 
money from the tobacco settlement and use it to pay for Medicare to 
save Medicare and, in fact, if people were not smoking we would have 
$30 billion a year less in costs, and compensating Medicare for that is 
what the whole settlement is about.
  Many of our colleagues on the other side see the settlement as this 
giant piggy bank which can be used to fund seven or eight different 
Government programs. So we are going to have this debate again, only 
then they are going to take the money away from Medicare to fund 
building schools and hiring teachers--the list goes on and on. I am not 
saying any of those are bad things, just as I am not saying that hiring 
65 new bureaucrats is a bad thing. I suspect it is, but I am not saying 
that. All I am saying is, don't take the money away from Medicare to do 
it. This provision should have never been put in this bill. It 
desperately needs to be taken out, and I believe when we do vote we 
will take it out. And I appreciate the Senator from Oklahoma offering 
the amendment, and I enjoyed getting an opportunity to come over and 
talk about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 2163

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will just defer for a 
moment, I have an amendment that has been cleared on both sides. It has 
just been cleared as part of the managers' package. I ask unanimous 
consent it be in order to send it to the desk and have its immediate 
consideration at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. D'Amato, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2163.

  The amendment follows:

       On page 38, after line 18, add the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . The Secretary of Transportation and the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall report to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Senate Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure not later than 
     April 20, 1998, on the proposed use by the New York City 
     Police Department for air and sea rescue and public safety 
     purposes of the facility that is to be vacated by the U.S. 
     Coast Guard at Floyd Bennett Field located in the City of New 
     York.''

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for offering this amendment 
on my behalf.
  My amendment is simple. It asks the Secretary of Transportation and 
the Secretary of Interior to report to the

[[Page S2626]]

House and Senate on the proposed use by the New York City Police 
Department of the U.S. Coast Guard's facility at Floyd Bennett Field.
  Between early May and early June, the Coast Guard will be moving its 
air-sea rescue helicopter operation from Floyd Bennett Field in 
Brooklyn to Atlantic City. An auxiliary helicopter contingent will be 
established at Gabreski Airport in Westhampton, New York for the peak 
summer months to guarantee a maximum Coast Guard coverage for the 
shores of Long Island and New York City.
  The New York City Police Department wants to move their own search 
and rescue helicopters into the facility that the Coast Guard is 
leaving. The Police Department currently uses another hangar for its 
search and rescue operations at Floyd Bennett Field, but that hangar is 
old and run-down. For the Police Department to stay in that facility 
would require some $5.7 million worth of upgrades at their own cost.
  When the Coast Guard leaves, there is a genuine concern that their 
hangar will go unused for search and rescue operations. It is a larger, 
more modern facility, well-suited for the purposes of air-sea rescue 
and emergency response activities. The Police Department merely wants 
to adequately fill the gap in coverage when the Coast Guard moves on.
  When the Coast Guard leaves, it is likely that the brunt of emergency 
response calls will fall upon the Police Department. I believe it is a 
natural fit for the New York City Police Department to take over the 
Coast Guard's facility so that they may be able to continue and even 
expand their crucial life-saving and protection role.
  Before the City can even utilize this facility, though, plans to 
allow this to happen will need to be worked out between the parent 
agency of the Coast Guard--the Department of Transportation--and the 
Department of Interior, which will likely take over the land once the 
Coast Guard leaves. However, action must occur quickly; the Coast Guard 
will be leaving in less than two months.
  Protecting people's lives must be paramount. My amendment is a public 
safety issue that will help address that purpose. I thank my colleagues 
on both sides for recognizing the timeliness and importance of this 
matter and for accepting this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment of the Senator from New 
York requires a report on an area that is being vacated by the Coast 
Guard in New York. The report is coming to relevant committees of 
Congress. I urge its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2163) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 2120

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the Nickles amendment, 
No. 2120.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we will have a good opportunity to 
debate. I am glad to hear my friend from Texas indicate his support for 
effective tobacco legislation. We will have, hopefully, a good 
opportunity to debate that.
  I was listening to the Senator speak so eloquently. I was remembering 
that in checking my facts, the Republican Contract With America 
provided a $270 billion cut in Medicare, with a $250 billion tax break 
for the wealthiest individuals. So we have debated this at other times, 
if we want to discuss who truly cares about Medicare. That is not what 
we are about here today. We have explained what the issue is before us.
  Mr. President, I want to mention the various groups and organizations 
that strongly oppose the Nickles amendment. The National Breast Cancer 
Coalition urges support of funding to implement the Kassebaum-Kennedy 
law and is opposed to the Nickles proposal; the National Alliance for 
the Mentally Ill also opposes the Nickles proposal; they are joined by 
Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities, a group that includes The 
ARC, the National Association for Protection and Advocacy, Easter 
Seals, the Paralyzed Veterans of America--and a long list of additional 
organizations. I will have that printed in the Record.
  The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund opposes the Nickles 
amendment; Families USA Foundation, the voice for health care for 
consumers; the Consumers Union; the National Mental Health Association; 
the American Psychological Association; the American Psychiatric 
Association; and the American Managed Behavioral Healthcare 
Association. They are very powerful statements about the importance of 
assuring that the Kassebaum-Kennedy protections are going to be 
implemented, and they understand that the reallocation of these funds 
to do so is the way to go.
  I ask unanimous consent that all these letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             National Breast Cancer Coalition,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 1998.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the National Breast 
     Cancer Coalition, I am writing to urge you defeat the 
     Nickles' amendment. The implementation of the Kennedy/
     Kassenbaum law is critical to members of the breast cancer 
     community who are among the most vulnerable to abuses in the 
     current health insurance system. The Kennedy/Kassenbaum law 
     is meaningless without adequate resources for implementation 
     and enforcement.
       The National Breast Cancer Coalition, a grassroots advocacy 
     organization made up of over 400 organizations and hundreds 
     of thousands of individuals, has been working since 1991 
     toward the eradication of this disease through advocacy and 
     action. In addition to increasing the federal funds available 
     for research into breast cancer, NBCC is dedicated to making 
     certain that all women have access to the quality care and 
     treatment they need, regardless of their economic 
     circumstances. Adequate implementation of the Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act is critical 
     toward this end.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fran Visco,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                 National Alliance


                                         for the Mentally Ill,

                                    Arlington, VA, March 25, 1998.
     Sen. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: As you know, the National Alliance 
     for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) has been a leading voice in 
     advocating for parity coverage in health insurance policies 
     for people who suffer from schizophrenia, manic-depressive 
     illness or other severe mental illnesses. Enactment of the 
     Domenici-Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 was a 
     significant but incomplete step towards ending pervasive 
     discrimination against people with these severe brain 
     disorders in health insurance and other aspects of their 
     lives.
       Because of the importance we attach to parity and other 
     protections for vulnerable consumers in health care, we have 
     been concerned that the Health Care Financing Administration 
     (HCFA) may not have sufficient resources to carry out 
     adequately its important role in enforcing mental health 
     parity and other consumer protections embedded in the Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). 
     Consequently, on behalf of NAMI's 172,000 members nationwide, 
     I am writing to express my strong appreciation of your 
     leadership in advocating for adequate funding to support 
     HCFA's enforcement responsibilities under HIPAA. We stand 
     ready to work with you and HCFA to ensure that the mental 
     health parity provisions and other consumer protections 
     contained in HIPAA are aggressively and effectively enforced.
       Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we can provide 
     further assistance to you on this important effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Laurie M. Flynn,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                    Consortium for


                                    Citizens With Disabilities

                                                   March 25, 1998.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The Consortium for Citizens with 
     Disabilities, which represents almost 100 national disability 
     organizations, strongly opposes the Nickles' Amendment which 
     would deprive the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) 
     of sufficient funds to enforce the Health Insurance 
     Portability and Accountability Act (P.L. 104-191). The HIPAA 
     legislation--also known as the Kassebaum-Kennedy Act--is a 
     stellar example of bipartisan legislation that would benefit 
     individuals of all ages, including people with disabilities.
       The provisions in HIPAA related to pre-existing condition 
     exclusions and portability of health insurance are working to 
     open the doors to many individuals with disabilities and 
     their families who could not previously access appropriate 
     health insurance or who were imprisoned by ``job lock''.

[[Page S2627]]

       We urge all Senators to oppose the Nickles' Amendment.
           Sincerely,
         The Arc, National Association of Protection and Advocacy 
           System, National Easter Seal Society, American 
           Association on Mental Retardation, Association for 
           Persons in Supported Employment, LDA, the Learning 
           Disabilities Association of America, RESNA, the 
           Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology 
           Society of North America, National Alliance for the 
           Mentally Ill, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
         NISH, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inter-National 
           Association of Business, Industry & Rehabilitation, 
           Council for Exceptional Children, National Association 
           of Developmental Disabilities Councils, United Cerebral 
           Palsy Association, American Congress of Community 
           Supports and Employment Services, American Network of 
           Community Options and Resources, National Association 
           of People with AIDS, Center for Disability and Health.
                                  ____

                                       Disability Rights Education


                                       and Defense Fund, Inc.,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 1998.
     Sen. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Russell Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The Disability Rights Education and 
     Defense Fund (DREDF) strongly opposes the Nickles Amendment 
     to S. 1716, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill.
       Passage of the Nickles Amendment would stop the civil 
     rights protections guaranteed by the Health Insurance 
     Portability and Accountability Act (PL 105-191) and the only 
     accountability left would be the fox guarding the chickens.
       Without these provisions in HIPAA, the doors to health 
     insurance for millions of people with disabilities will be 
     forever locked.
       Please, as you have done so many times before, oppose the 
     Nickles Amendment and open the doors to employment, vote not 
     on the Nickles Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Patrisha Wright,
     Director of Governmental Affairs.
                                  ____



                                      Families USA Foundation,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 1998.
     Senator Kennedy,
     Russell Senate Building,
     Washington, DC 20510-2101.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: Families USA supports the 
     Administration's request for supplemental enforcement money 
     for the ``Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 
     of 1996.''
       HIPAA provides needed protection to Americans who otherwise 
     could not purchase health insurance when they change or lose 
     jobs. Approximately one in four Americans are caught in ``job 
     lock,'' afraid to change jobs or start their own businesses 
     because of preexisting conditions that could prevent them 
     from obtaining new health insurance coverage. Americans like 
     these who lose their jobs involuntarily often find themselves 
     in an even more serious predicament: They join the growing 
     number of individuals without health insurance coverage.
       Implementing HIPAA requires the Health Care Financing 
     Administration to assume new responsibilities. If HCFA lacks 
     the resources to carry out its duties, HIPAA is meaningless. 
     Without the funds to enforce HIPAA, millions of Americans 
     will be deprived of these important protections. Therefore, 
     we urge the defeat of the Nickles Amendment to strike the 
     President's request for HIPAA enforcement funds.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                      Ron Pollack,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                              Consumers Union,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 1998.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     Committee on Labor & Human Resources,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: We are writing in opposition to the 
     Nickles' amendment which would strip $16 million allocated to 
     enforcement efforts by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services of the Health Insurance Portability and 
     Accountability Act (HIPAA).
       As you know, HIPAA was enacted in 1996 to help make health 
     insurance more accessible to people who lose their 
     employment-based coverage. Implementation is still at its 
     early stages. The legislation spells out important functions 
     for the Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, 
     several states (including California) have opted for federal 
     enforcement instead of state enforcement. This necessitates 
     federal funding level to ensure that consumers in these 
     states are protected by the legislation.
       Only through adequate funding, will people with pre-
     existing health conditions be assured they can change jobs 
     without facing new pre-existing condition exclusions from 
     coverage. Only through adequate funding, will people who 
     leave group coverage for the individual market be assured 
     that health insurance will be accessible to them.
       Consumers Union urges the Senate to oppose the Nickles' 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Gail Shearer,
       Director, Health Policy Analysis.
     Adrienne Mitchem,
       Legislative Counsel.
                                  ____

                                                   March 26, 1998.
     Sen. Edward Kennedy,
     Labor & Human Resources Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The undersigned organizations are 
     writing to express our support for your effort to defeat the 
     floor amendment offered by Senator Don Nickles that would 
     delete $16 million additional funding for enforcement of the 
     Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
       Enforcement of consumer rights and employer 
     responsibilities under HIPAA is vital. Much of the effort 
     expended by the mental health community in 1996 to win 
     passage of insurance reform will be thwarted without 
     effective enforcement. As the Mental Health Parity Act of 
     1996 was enacted as an amendment to HIPAA, the same personnel 
     at the Health Care Financing Administration are expected to 
     enforce that statute as well.
       As the source for the $16 million is from elsewhere in the 
     budget, passage of the Nickles amendment would not save 
     taxpayers any money, and would mean the Senate missed an 
     opportunity to better ensure relief from discriminatory 
     insurance treatment to many thousands of American families. 
     Thank you for your leadership in opposing this amendment.
      American Psychiatric Association.
      American Psychological Association.
      American Managed Behavioral Healthcare Association.
      National Mental Health Association.


                Amendment No. 2164 to Amendment No. 2120

          (Purpose: To provide amounts for HIPAA enforcement.)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Bond and 
Senator Wellstone, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, parliamentary inquiry. I 
think it requires unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside, 
is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Nickles amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is an amendment to the bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. I did not hear the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. This is an amendment to the language proposed to be 
stricken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Bond and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2164 to amendment No. 2120.

  The amendment follows:
       On page 39, in lieu of the matter proposed to be striken, 
     insert the following:

                  Health Care Financing Administration


                           program management

       For an additional amount for Health Care Financing 
     Administration, ``Program Management'', $8,000,000.
       On page 50, in lieu of the matter proposed to be striken, 
     insert the following:

                     GENERAL PROVISION, CHAPTER 11

       Sec. 1101. Not to exceed $75,400,000 may be obligated in 
     fiscal year 1998 for contracts with Utilization and Quality 
     Control Peer Review Organizations pursuant to part B of title 
     XI of the Social Security Act.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senators are now ready to 
enter into a time agreement so we might vote, if we have to, on both. I 
have just been informed by the majority leader that he will come to the 
floor and move to go to cloture on the education bill at 5:10.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to vote. I would like to make 4 or 5 
minutes of comments, and then I will be prepared to move ahead with the 
vote. I would like to get the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Before the Senator does that, can I get an understanding 
that the Senator also includes voting on the Nickles amendment 
following the Kennedy amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. As amended, hopefully.
  Mr. STEVENS. Hopefully.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. We can have a vote on the Nickles amendment following a 
vote on the Kennedy amendment to the Nickles amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Can we divide the time and tell the membership that 
there will be a vote at 4:30?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine. The Senator understands, if we are 
successful, then there is not a Nickles amendment, obviously.

[[Page S2628]]

  Mr. STEVENS. I understand that. The Nickles amendment, as amended, 
which we would adopt by voice vote. If the amendment is not adopted, we 
will then vote on the Nickles amendment immediately, is that correct? 
Can we divide the time somehow so we have some fairness in the time--
equally divided and vote at 4:30? I ask unanimous consent that be the 
case. Is that acceptable?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is acceptable. Can we get the yeas and nays?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. There are 6 minutes to a side, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, 12 minutes divided 
equally--6 minutes per side.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator give me some time? Senator Smith has 
told me that he is not going to call up his amendment. So these two are 
the last amendments I know of offered to this bill, and we will then 
proceed to a unanimous consent request following the final vote here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 6 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's concern about 
the excessive spending. I am offering a compromise to his amendment. 
The Senator from Oklahoma proposes an amendment to eliminate the HCFA 
request by striking the entire $16 million. We have cut that amount in 
half to $8 million as a way of trying to find common ground on this 
issue. It cuts the amount given to HCFA in half. This is less than I 
want, but it will still make a substantial contribution to enforcing 
the insurance reform.
  The issue is clear: Will the Senate stand with families, with 
children, with persons suffering severe mental illness, with persons 
with disabilities, and with expectant mothers to make sure that the 
protections that were included in the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation 
will actually be implemented?
  Did we really mean it when we passed those important reforms about 2 
years ago? I believe that we did mean it. I think those reforms are 
enormously important protections for millions of our fellow citizens. 
The States have done a good job. But there are still some areas where 
those protections are not there.
  With these resources, we can guarantee that the law fulfills its 
promise of protecting our fellow citizens. It will allow us to nip in 
the bud some of the egregious situations that have been outlined in the 
GAO report.

  This bipartisan amendment provides $8 million, half of the 
Administration's request--$3 million for implementation and enforcement 
of Kassebaum-Kennedy and $5 million for the other purposes outlined in 
the Administration's original $16 million proposal that was advanced by 
Senator Bond and others in the Appropriations Committee. I hope that 
our colleagues will feel that this is a good-faith effort to try to 
find common ground.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would ask my colleague from 
Massachusetts, if I can have the attention of the sponsor of the 
amendment for a second. Will Senator Kennedy answer my question: Did 
you cut both halves? The amendment had two pieces to it, $10 million 
and $6 million. You cut both in half?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment because we are 
still raiding Medicare, we are still taking money out of Medicare. I 
will take a little issue.
  My colleagues said, ``Oh, those Republicans, just a couple years ago, 
they were trying to cut $276 billion out of Medicare to pay for the tax 
cuts.'' In the budget deal that passed that the President signed, we 
had exactly--exactly--the same savings in Medicare over the same number 
of years that the President signed that he vetoed 2 years before.
  One year, last year, he said, ``Oh, yes, we saved Medicare for 10 
years''--we didn't, in my opinion--but it is the exact same savings in 
dollars that he vetoed 2 years before. I just make that comment.
  What we are doing now is raiding Medicare, raiding the HI fund, 
taking money from the peer review organizations that are supposed to 
make the fund work better, make sure it is not abused, get some of the 
fraud out of the system. We are taking that out so we can hire more 
bureaucrats.
  Now we are only going to hire half as many. Instead of hiring 65, I 
guess we are going to hire maybe 32 or 33 for an agency that already 
has over 4,000.
  Senator Gramm mentioned, hey, if they want to, they can borrow some 
of those 4,000. This administration has been pretty good about 
borrowing attorneys. They have attorneys from every agency coming in to 
help with the President's legal defense fund. They do that a lot.
  The previous administration had six people in legal counsel. Now they 
have 24, and one report is 48. So, surely, they could borrow a few 
people from HCFA with 4,000 employees to help meet this so-called 
``urgent need.''
  So, whether we are talking about $16 million or whether we are 
talking about $8 million, I think it is a mistake to expand this 
bureaucracy, and that is exactly what we would be doing, intruding and 
basically telling the State of Massachusetts--the State of 
Massachusetts has not complied yet. I don't know why they have not. 
There may be a good reason.
  The State of California has not because the Governor vetoed the bill. 
I don't know how many armies of bureaucrats we need from the Federal 
Government to go in and tell the Governor of California he should sign 
this bill or veto the bill, or the Governor in Missouri or the Governor 
in Massachusetts. I just don't think that is really what we need.
  I will tell my colleagues, if it is ready to regulate these plans, 
you don't need 65; you need hundreds--you need hundreds--and that 
wasn't what we passed in Kassebaum-Kennedy. We said we were going to 
keep State jurisdiction and State control and regulation of health 
care.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this second-degree amendment 
that will add, basically, to my amendment $8 million for a new 
bureaucracy of HCFA. I don't think we need it, I don't think we can 
afford it, and I don't think we should be raiding Medicare to pay for 
it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, this is not an add-on. This 
is an administrative judgment made by HCFA that there was a greater 
need and priority to use additional resources to implement the 
Kassebaum bill. We are not adding on the funds. The Senator is right in 
recognizing that we are trying to accommodate the concerns raised about 
the number of people and trying to move this process forward, so we 
have cut out half of the request.
  Mr. President, I want to reserve the last 45 seconds.
  I want to read a few words of a letter from the National Breast 
Cancer Coalition:

       The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill is meaningless without adequate 
     resources for implementation and enforcement. The National 
     Breast Cancer Coalition is a grassroots advocacy organization 
     made up of over 400 organizations and hundreds of thousands 
     of individuals. Adequate implementation of the Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act is critical to 
     this end.

  Critical to this end. Those are the words of the National Cancer 
Breast Coalition, which represents some 400 different grassroots 
organizations. We have the same kind of statements made by all of the 
various groups affecting the disability community, all supporting the 
position which we have taken and which we have advocated.
  Mr. President, I believe that it is important to make sure that those 
protections for individuals who have preexisting conditions or 
disabilities should be protected.

[[Page S2629]]

  This amendment, which pares down the original request, goes halfway 
on this issue, but is still able to provide some of the necessary 
protections we have debated today. I hope that the Kennedy-Bond-
Wellstone amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, how much time do we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma controls 3 minutes 
48 seconds.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me first say that what we have before 
us is an effort to take $8 million out of Medicare, money that is now 
being spent to monitor the quality of health care provided to 39 
million Medicare beneficiaries.
  This amendment will cut Medicare in order to hire, it was initially 
65 bureaucrats, now I guess it is 32\1/2\ at $92,000 a year to 
implement programs that have absolutely nothing to do with Medicare.
  My argument is not with the program that the Senator is for. I don't 
have any doubt that all those groups who wrote those letters are for 
this program, but I don't believe they want to cut Medicare to pay for 
it.
  The problem the Senator has is that HCFA and the Department of Health 
and Human Services, which has one of the biggest budgets in the Federal 
Government, cannot come up with $8 million to hire these 32\1/2\ 
bureaucrats, despite the fact that it is so important. So they have 
said, ``We won't take any one of our 4,000 people doing other things to 
do this work; it is not that important; we won't cut any program 
anywhere else to do it; it is not that important; but we will take it 
out of Medicare and reduce the oversight of physician practice on 39 
million senior citizens in America to pay for it.''
  I don't think we should take the money away from Medicare to hire 
32\1/2\ bureaucrats. I think it is wrong, and I think if they don't 
want it enough to take the money away from other programs in HCFA, it 
suggests to me they don't want it very much.
  So I hope our colleagues will not start raiding Medicare to pay for 
the ongoing programs of HCFA and to hire bureaucrats at the expense of 
Medicare. I think it is fundamentally wrong.
  I think if you put the question before the American people, that 90 
percent of the American people would agree with Senator Nickles' 
argument. I am not saying that hiring the bureaucrats is bad or what 
they would do is bad. I am just simply saying take the money away from 
something other than Medicare, and in order for us to guarantee that is 
the case, we have to defeat this amendment, and I am hopeful that we 
will.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 1 
minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself that time.
  This does not take one dime out of Medicare--not one dime. The 
disabled have a greater dependency on Medicare than any other group in 
our society. They are more dependent upon it than anyone else, and they 
support our position. That ought to speak to where the priorities are. 
They understand the importance--the importance--of implementing the 
Kassebaum-Kennedy bill and providing the protections for families in 
this country. That is what our amendment will do.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in a moment I am going to move to table 
the amendment. But let me make a couple comments.
  My colleague from Massachusetts is entitled to his own opinion but 
not entitled to his own facts. And the facts are that to pay for this, 
it takes money out of the HI Trust Fund that is used to pay for peer 
review organizations. So it is cutting money out of Medicare to pay for 
this.
  I read the letters by some of the support groups--some of which I 
consider supporters of mine--that have said, ``Let's oppose this 
amendment. We want more money for HCFA bureaucrats or HCFA 
enforcement.'' But they did not know the money was coming out of 
Medicare. I read almost every one of them. Not one said, ``Let's 
transfer the money from the HI Trust Fund to pay for more employees at 
the Health Care Financing Administration.'' And so it is coming from 
Medicare. It is coming from oversight on peer review organizations. We 
should not do that.
  So, Mr. President, I move to table the Kennedy amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table Kennedy amendment No. 2164, which is a substitute 
amendment to language proposed to be stricken by the Nickles amendment 
No. 2120. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 45 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2164) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Nickles 
amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the Nickles amendment No. 2120.
  The amendment (No. 2120) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                cdbg emergency funds for disaster areas

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate approved an amendment 
to S. 1768 that would provide $260 million for emergency Community 
Development Block Grant funding for disaster relief, long-term 
recovery, and mitigation in communities affected by Presidentially-
declared disasters in FY 1998.
  This funding is designed to complement the funding currently provided 
through the traditional emergency disaster programs under the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, the Small Business Administration and the 
Army Corps of Engineers. Contrary to the apparent belief or desire of 
some Members and constituents, CDBG funding is not intended or designed 
to be the primary source of federal funding for natural disasters.
  In particular, the emergency CDBG program has become a catch-all 
program and a slush fund for natural disasters that is seen by some as 
an entitlement. This is wrong. We need to change how we view and 
respond to disasters--we need to develop policies that are based on 
state/federal partnerships and are designed to prevent and prepare for 
disasters.
  I say this because it is good policy, but also because we cannot keep 
dipping into the different funds which support the many important 
programs

[[Page S2630]]

under the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. For example, over the 
last 3 and one-half years, the Congress has offset the cost of 
emergencies out of HUD section 8 housing assistance at a cost of some 
$10 billion. Last year alone, the Congress used $3.6 billion in excess 
section 8 reserves to pay for disaster relief. Well, the bill has come 
due. For this year, all available section 8 reserve funds are already 
committed as part of the FY 1999 Budget to renew expiring section 8 
housing contracts. Without these funds, many elderly and disabled 
persons and families will be without housing.
  In addition, natural disasters are not going to go away and the cost 
of disasters likely will continue to escalate. In the last 5 years, we 
have appropriated a staggering $18 billion to FEMA for disaster relief, 
compared to $6.7 billion in the prior 5-year period.
  As I have already noted, I have many concerns about using CDBG funds 
for emergency disaster purposes, especially since the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development has failed to provide adequate data and 
accountability concerning the use of these emergency CDBG funds in the 
past.
  Nevertheless, while I continue to have reservations, the emergency 
CDBG legislation in the emergency supplement is intended to ensure that 
emergency CDBG funds are used appropriately and where needed. In 
particular, this legislation is designed to ensure that the funds go to 
disaster relief activities that are identified by the Director of FEMA 
as unmet needs that have not or will not be addressed by other federal 
disaster assistance programs.
  In addition, to ensure accountability, states must provide a 25 
percent match for these emergency CDBG funds and HUD must publish a 
notice of program requirements and provide an accounting of the CDBG 
funds by the type of activity, the amount of funding, an identification 
of the ultimate recipient, and the use of any waivers. I also want to 
make it clear that I intend to monitor fully the use of these emergency 
CDBG funds.
  I expect these emergency CDBG funds to be used fairly, equitably and 
to the benefit of the American taxpayer, especially, as required by the 
CDBG program, to the benefit of low- and moderate-income Americans.
  I also want to make clear that these emergency CDBG funds are not 
intended as a substitute for the state/local cost-share for dams and 
levees. The purposes of a state/local cost-share are to ensure 
accountability, local investment and to underline the importance of the 
federal/state partnership. Using CDBG funds as a state/local cost share 
in levee and dam projects defeats these purposes and undermines state 
and local responsibility. As a result, the VA/HUD FY 1998 
appropriations bill limited the amount of CDBG funds to $100,000 for 
the state/local cost-share of the Corps of Engineers projects, 
including levees. That standard still applies.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, 2 months ago I informed the Senate about 
an ice storm that hit sections of the northeast in early January with 
such force and destruction it was named the ice storm of the century. I 
am pleased to support S.1768, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
of 1998, to help bring much needed relief to citizens in not only the 
Northeast, but other areas of the country who have suffered from 
natural disaster.
  Mr. President, for two days straight, freezing rain, snow and sleet 
battered the Champlain Valley of Vermont, upstate New York, parts of 
New Hampshire and Maine and the Province of Quebec. Tens of thousands 
of trees buckled and shattered under the stress and weight of several 
inches of ice that coated their branches. Power lines were ripped down 
by falling branches and the weight of the ice--leaving hundreds of 
thousands of people without electricity for days and even weeks. Roads 
were covered with ice and rivers swelled and overflowed from heavy 
rain. The crippling ice storm brought activity in the area to a 
grinding halt.
  Just a few days after the storm, Senator Leahy and I visited the 
hardest hit areas of Vermont. The storm's damage was the worst I have 
ever seen. In the Burlington area twenty to twenty-five percent of the 
trees were toppled or must be chopped down. Another twenty-five percent 
were damaged. The storm also destroyed sugarbushes and dropped trees 
across hiking trails and snowmobile trails.
  Mr. President, local and State emergency officials acted quickly to 
help their fellow Vermonters and assess the damage. Vermonters rallied, 
with the help of the National Guard, to help themselves and their 
neighbors. As the temperatures dropped below zero, days after the 
storm, with thousands still without power, volunteer firefighters, 
police officers, national guard troops and every able bodied citizen 
came together working day and night to help feed, heat, and care for 
the people in their community. The organized and volunteer responses to 
this disaster were incredible. Stories of Vermonters helping Vermonters 
were commonly told throughout the disaster counties and state.
  Hardest hit were dairy farmers. Already struggling to make ends meet 
due to low milk prices, the ice storm left farms without power to milk 
their cows. During the first few days of the storm the majority of the 
milk had to be dumped. Milk became non-marketable because it could not 
be sufficiently cooled or it could not be transported to the processing 
plants. Farms without generators missed milkings all together or 
significantly altered the milking schedules. As a result, cows became 
infected with mastitis and reduced production. In addition, cows became 
infected with respiratory illnesses due to poor air circulation in the 
barns. Even farms with generators were affected. Since the power was 
out for such a long duration the generators could not provide adequate 
wattage to precisely run the milking systems, resulting in mastitis and 
loss production.
  The major impact on dairy farms as a result of the ice storm was non-
marketable milk and production loss. The loss of even one milk check 
for many of the farms will have an adverse impact on their business. 
Current milk prices are not sufficient to offset such losses.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee have worked with me and others in the disaster areas to 
recognize and respond to the needs of the affected regions. The 1998 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations will bring much needed relief to 
Vermont's most severely affected areas. Dairy farmers will be 
compensated for production loss and loss of livestock. Maple producers 
will be helped by replacing taps and tubing. Land owners will be aided 
in clearing debris and replanting trees destroyed by the storm.
  Mr. President, the citizens and trees of Vermont, as well as upstate 
New York, Maine and New Hampshire have suffered from this storm. Local 
and State assistance will help communities and individuals get back on 
their feet, but Federal relief will ensure that the disaster areas are 
not overwhelmed by the recovery.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 
disaster supplemental bill. I want to thank Chairman Stevens, Ranking 
Member Byrd and the Committee for their efforts to provide funding to 
fill the gaps in federal disaster assistance that are essential to 
ensuring that Maine and the other Northeast states fully recover from 
the January, 1998 Ice Storm.
  Maine is no stranger to the cruelness of winter. But the Ice Storm 
that swept across the State in early January was like nothing anyone 
had ever seen before. It left the state covered with three inches of 
ice, closing schools, businesses and roads and leaving more then 80 
percent of the state in darkness.
  For the last two months I have worked with my colleague Senator 
Collins, my friends from Vermont, Senators Jeffords and Leahy and the 
two gentlemen from New York, Senators D'Amato and Moynihan, in an 
effort to ensure that the unmet needs of our states are addressed.
  Working in conjunction with our states, we identified areas where 
FEMA was unable to provide the assistance needed, and we have worked 
with the Administration and the Committee to fill those gaps. I am 
pleased that the bill before us today provides funding to ensure that 
Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York will have money available to 
help ensure a full recovery from the devastation of the Great Ice Storm 
of 1998.
  Our forests were left in shambles as the weight of the ice broke off 
entire

[[Page S2631]]

limbs and felled mature trees, leaving the forest floor in a mass of 
confusion. This bill will provide $48 million to the US Forest Service 
in order to help the states and private land owners assess the damage 
and develop plans for clean up and for ensuring a healthy future for 
the forests. In addition to general clean up, some of the trees which 
were felled must be harvested as soon as possible in order to retain 
any value, others may sit on the forest floor for a while. Maine's 
forest products industry is vital to the economy, and this supplemental 
funding will help ensure as quick a recovery as possible from the havoc 
wrecked by the Ice Storm.
  In addition, funding is provided to help Maine's maple syrup 
producers. Not only did the storm do immense damage to the trees, but 
it also tore out the tubes which were waiting to catch the flow of sap. 
There is approximately $4 million, which requires a cost share, to 
assist this industry in recovery efforts that will be hampered for a 
number of several years by the severe damage done to the trees.
  The supplemental also provides assistance to Maine's dairy farmers. 
The ice knocked out power to more than 80 percent of the state and 
thousands of people were without power for up to two weeks. The lack of 
electricity made it impossible for many dairy farmers to milk their 
cows--and for those that could, the lack of electricity meant they had 
to dump their milk because it could not be stored at the proper 
temperature.
  Maine's dairy farmers are family farmers. It is as much a way of life 
as it is a business, and the storm put a big dent in their finances. 
This bill provides $4 million to help take care of livestock losses. I 
also supported an amendment offered by my good friends from New York, 
Senator D'Amato and from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, that added $10 
million for milk production loss. Not only were farmers forced to dump 
milk, but their inability to milk impacts the production level of milk. 
It will take several months for these cows to return to their full 
production level.
  I wish to reiterate my appreciation for the support that the 
Appropriations Committee, lead by Chairman Stevens, has shown for the 
needs of the northeast states hit by the Ice Storm. His leadership has 
been instrumental in ensuring that Maine will be able to make a quick 
and full recovery from the devastation of the Ice Storm of 1998. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am authorized to state that the 
minority leader, Mr. Daschle, the leader, and I will not call up 
relevant amendments.
  And I announce we have completed the list. There are no more 
amendments in order on the supplemental appropriations.
  The bill is ready for third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now have a unanimous consent request. I 
ask unanimous consent that the bill now be placed back on the calendar 
until such time as the Senate receives from the House the House 
companion bill. I further ask unanimous consent that once the Senate 
receives the House companion bill, the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration, and all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text 
of S. 1768, as amended, be inserted, and the bill be read for the third 
time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and 
S. 1768 be placed back on the calendar.
  I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives the 
House companion bill to the IMF supplemental appropriations bill, the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and all after the 
enacting clause be stricken, and the text of the IMF title in this bill 
be inserted, and the bill be advanced to third reading and passed, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without further 
action or debate.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that in both cases the Senate insist 
on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on 
the part of the Senate, all occurring without further action or debate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. We are going to have a final rollcall vote on the 
bill; is that correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. We do not have the bill here. And this enables us to go 
to conference on either bill immediately. The final vote on this bill 
will occur in a conference report in each instance.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, I shall not object as long as we 
will have a rollcall vote on----
  Mr. STEVENS. A rollcall vote on the conference report. That is the 
commitment we have made.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let me thank all Members for their cooperation and 
assistance in connection with this bill. I, again, say that these are 
vital subjects to our democracy, and it is imperative that we proceed 
as rapidly as possible. And I appreciate the Senate giving us the 
authority to move immediately, when we receive either bill from the 
House, to go to conference with the House.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. I do.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the very high degree 
of leadership that he has demonstrated in managing this bill. It was a 
difficult bill with a great number of amendments. And he has remained 
on the floor, worked hard, and demonstrated his characteristic fairness 
and objectivity throughout the work on the bill.
  I thank him on behalf of the Senators and express our collective 
appreciation and, may I say, our admiration.
  Mr. STEVENS. That comment, coming from the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia, is an honor. I want to assure the Senate we would not 
have been able to move on this bill without the cooperation of Senator 
Byrd and the minority staff.
  I will come back later with the thanks to all concerned on this 
matter, but I am grateful to my good friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from the great State 
of Mississippi, Senator Thurmond.
  Mr. THURMOND. I wish to commend the able Senator from Alaska for the 
magnificent manner in which he handled this bill. It was a complex 
bill, and he did a wonderful job. I congratulate him.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________