[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 24, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3246-S3251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HELMS (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 693. A bill to assist in the enhancement of the security of 
Taiwan, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations


                    TAIWAN SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today on behalf of the distinguished 
Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, and myself, I am sending to 
the desk a bill entitled ``The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  This bill is to do the best we can to ensure that the United States 
is fulfilling its obligations to the Republic of China as specified by 
the Taiwan Relations Act.
  Mr. President, this has been done reasonably well for about 20 years, 
but recent trends disclose the need for efforts by the United States to 
be stepped up, hence the introduction of this bill by Senator 
Torricelli and

[[Page S3247]]

me. There will undoubtedly be further additions to the sponsorship of 
this bill. In any case, as you know, the Pentagon, last month, 
delivered to the Congress a report entitled ``The Security Situation in 
the Taiwan Straits.'' Frankly, I found this report exceedingly 
disturbing.
  For openers, the report stated that Red China has been and will 
continue to deploy a large number of missiles directly across the 
strait from Taiwan. In fact, according to media reports, China already 
has more than 150 such missiles aimed at Taiwan and plans to increase 
the number to 650 during the next few years.
  Taiwan has virtually no defenses against such missiles. In 1995 and 
1996, Red China proved beyond a shadow of a doubt a willingness to use 
these missiles, at a minimum to intimidate Taiwan.
  I think Americans should also be concerned about Chinese missiles. In 
late November, the Chinese People's Liberation Army conducted exercises 
consisting of mock missile attacks on United States forces in South 
Korea and in Japan. The Pentagon report, to which I just referred, also 
makes clear that mainland China's vast quantitative edge over Taiwan in 
naval and air power, coupled with China's ongoing modernization drive, 
will prove overwhelming in any sort of military confrontation. The 
Pentagon report concluded that Taiwan's future success in deterring 
Chinese aggression will be--and I quote from the report--``dependent on 
its continued acquisition of modern arms, technology and equipment and 
its ability to deal with a number of systemic problems'' such as 
logistics.
  This is precisely where the United States had better step in, Mr. 
President, because the United States is the only power in the world 
that can assure that Taiwan can continue to acquire the weapons it 
needs and deal with its systemic problems.
  The question is, Will we do it? Communist China has coupled its 
military buildup and threats against Taiwan with increased pressure on 
the United States to limit or to cease our arms sales to Taiwan. This 
is reminiscent of 1982 when the Reagan administration yielded to 
Chinese pressure and mistakenly agreed to limit and gradually reduce 
our arms sales to Taiwan in the regrettable August communique.
  President Clinton, similarly, last summer caved in to Beijing's three 
noes--no, no, no. Will arms sales to Taiwan be sacrificed next? I put a 
question mark after it because I hope the administration will recover 
from its lack of foresight of last summer.
  In any event, if one listens to administration officials, who somehow 
seem incapable of commenting on arms sales to Taiwan without mentioning 
the 1982 communique, or the administration's refusal to sell submarines 
to Taiwan on the flimsy pretext that those submarines are offensive, I 
think one will get some idea of where the United States arms sales to 
Taiwan will be if we do not now stand steadfast.

  Let me explain. Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Taiwan Relations Act 
compel us, oblige us, to provide defensive arms to Taiwan based solely 
upon the judgment of the United States regarding Taiwan's needs, 
meaning that Beijing's opinion doesn't count. Given China's threatening 
military buildup, it is unlikely that Taiwan's legitimate needs are 
going to go down soon. Nor should U.S. arms sales go down, Mr. 
President.
  Moreover, it is high time to begin a discussion of whether the United 
States ought to be doing more in the way of exchanges in training and 
planning with Taiwan's military. The Taiwan military has operated in 
virtual isolation for 20 years, and this has certainly contributed to 
some of the systemic problems alluded to in the Pentagon report, to 
which I referred just a moment ago.
  Taiwan's military does not exercise with us. They do not plan with 
us. When the Red Chinese missiles were flying over Taiwan in 1996 and 
our carriers went to the strait, the Taiwan military had no direct or 
secure way of communicating with the United States fleet, none 
whatsoever. The question is, Do we want to be stuck in that situation 
again? While the Secretary of Defense and other top officials can rub 
elbows in Beijing and possibly have champagne, the State Department 
prevents any other officer above the rank of colonel setting foot on 
Taiwan.
  In addition to being outrageous, this cannot help having a corrosive 
effect on our joint ability to deter conflict in the Taiwan Strait over 
time.
  All of this is why I have introduced, with Senator Torricelli, the 
Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which has three main thrusts. Let me 
briefly identify each of them.
  One, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act seeks to ensure that our 
friends in Taiwan will have the necessary equipment to maintain their 
self-defense capabilities as required by the Taiwan Relations Act. It 
does this by prohibiting any politically motivated reductions in arms 
sales to Taiwan pursuant to the 1982 communique and by authorizing the 
sale to Taiwan of a broad array of defense systems, including missile 
defense systems, satellite early warning data, diesel submarines, and 
advanced air-to-air missiles.
  Secondly, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which I have just 
introduced, seeks to bolster the process for defense sales to Taiwan. 
The bill does this in several ways. It requires an increase in staffing 
at the currently overworked technical section at the American Institute 
in Taiwan. It also requires the President to report to Congress 
annually on Taiwan's defense requests and to justify any rejection or 
postponement of arms sales to Taiwan.
  These actions are not currently taken and the President and the 
Congress need to get more involved in the process, precisely as the 
Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which I just introduced, will require.
  Third, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act will redress some of the 
deficiencies in readiness resulting in part from the 20-year isolation 
of Taiwan's military. This will be achieved by supporting Taiwan's 
increased participation at United States defense colleges, requiring 
the enhancement of our military exchanges and joint training, and 
establishing direct communication between our respective militaries.
  All of this will merely implement section 2(b)(6) of what? It will 
implement the Taiwan Relations Act, which calls for the United States--
not Taiwan, but the United States--to maintain a capacity to resist any 
resort to force or coercion that would jeopardize Taiwan.
  How can we maintain that capacity over the long run if we can't even 
communicate with Taiwan's military--obviously, we can't--or if we do 
not do joint planning and training with Taiwan's military?
  I can hear it now. Some are going to say this is provocative. They 
will claim that doing these things will upset the United States 
relationship with China. This is true. The Red Chinese won't like this 
bill. But I think we all know, Mr. President, that many of the things 
called for in this legislation must be done at the earliest possible 
time.
  China's behavior--let me be clear--mainland China's behavior is a 
clear warning that it is time for the United States to be much more 
serious about maintaining a posture of deterrence in the western 
Pacific and in protecting our loyal, long-time friends in the Republic 
of China on Taiwan.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMM (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 694. A bill to authorize the conveyance of the Naval Weapons 
Industrial Reserve Plant No. 387, Dallas, Texas; to the Committee on 
Armed Services.


   CONVEYANCE OF THE NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT NO. 387, 
                             DALLAS, TEXAS

   Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, along with Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison, I am introducing legislation today which will authorize the 
Secretary of the Navy to transfer ownership of the property known as 
the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant #387, located in Dallas, 
Texas, to the City of Dallas. This legislation allows the Navy to 
divest itself of property no longer needed to accomplish the Navy's 
mission, while enabling the City of Dallas to maintain and develop the 
facilities in the best interests of the citizens of the Metroplex.
  The Navy Weapons Plant in Dallas is adjacent to Naval Air Station 
Dallas, which was closed by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
of 1993. Years ago, the work performed at the plant directly supported 
the Navy and its missions, but today, the Navy no

[[Page S3248]]

longer needs the facility. With all of our military services struggling 
to meet today's unprecedented number of peacekeeping, humanitarian 
assistance, and sanctions enforcement operations, the Navy and the 
taxpayer cannot afford to maintain a facility that is no longer needed. 
The legislation I introduce today relieves the Navy of the costs of 
ownership while ensuring that the citizens of North Texas are allowed 
to use the facilities for public benefit.
  The bill will permit the City of Dallas to continue its special 
relationship with Northrop Grumman Corporation, the current contract 
tenant. Northrop Grumman utilizes the facility primarily to manufacture 
commercial aircraft components and systems. As one of America's premier 
aerospace and defense companies, Northrop Grumman's operations in 
Dallas are vital to our national economy and security, as evidenced by 
their annual economic impact of $840 million. Northrop Grumman's 
current operations at the plant provide direct employment for 5,600 
Texas workers, while another 16,800 indirect jobs are created in the 
metropolitan area. This bill gives the City of Dallas the opportunity 
to assure the continuation of jobs, growth, and opportunity at the 
plant when the Navy leaves the area. This is precisely the kind of 
public-private partnership that will be the foundation for prosperity 
in the future. I ask my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 694

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE 
                   PLANT NO. 387, DALLAS, TEXAS.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy 
     may convey to the City of Dallas, Texas (in this section 
     referred to as the ``City''), all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to parcels of real property 
     consisting of approximately 314 acres and comprising the 
     Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant No. 387, Dallas, 
     Texas.
       (2)(A) As part of the conveyance authorized by paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary may convey to the City such improvements, 
     equipment, fixtures, and other personal property located on 
     the parcels referred to in that paragraph as the Secretary 
     determines to be not required by the Navy for other purposes.
       (B) The Secretary may permit the City to review and inspect 
     the improvements, equipment, fixtures, and other personal 
     property located on the parcels referred to in paragraph (1) 
     for purposes of the conveyance authorized by this paragraph.
       (b) Authority To Convey Without Consideration.--The 
     conveyance authorized by subsection (a) may be made without 
     consideration if the Secretary determines that the conveyance 
     on that basis would be in the best interests of the United 
     States.
       (c) Exception from Screening Requirement.--The conveyance 
     authorized by subsection (a) shall be made without regard to 
     the requirement under section 2696 of title 10, United States 
     Code, that the property be screened for further Federal use 
     in accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
       (d) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized by 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the 
     City--
       (1) use the parcels, directly or through an agreement with 
     a public or private entity, for economic purposes or such 
     other public purposes as the City determines appropriate; or
       (2) convey the parcels to an appropriate public or private 
     entity for use for such purposes.
       (e) Reversion.--If, during the 5-year period beginning on 
     the date the Secretary makes the conveyance authorized by 
     subsection (a), the Secretary determines that the conveyed 
     real property is not being used for a purpose specified in 
     subsection (d), all right, title, and interest in and to the 
     property, including any improvements thereon, shall revert to 
     the United States, and the United States shall have the right 
     of immediate entry onto the property.
       (f) Interim Lease.--(1) Until such time as the real 
     property described in subsection (a) is conveyed by deed 
     under this section, the Secretary may continue to lease the 
     property, together with improvements thereon, to the current 
     tenant under the existing terms and conditions of the lease 
     for the property.
       (2) If good faith negotiations for the conveyance of the 
     property continue under this section beyond the end of the 
     third year of the term of the existing lease for the 
     property, the Secretary shall continue to lease the property 
     to the current tenant of the property under the terms and 
     conditions applicable to the first three years of the lease 
     of the property pursuant to the existing lease for the 
     property.
       (g) Maintenance of Property.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), 
     the Secretary shall be responsible for maintaining the real 
     property to be conveyed under this section in its condition 
     as of the date of the enactment of this Act until such time 
     as the property is conveyed by deed under this section.
       (2) The current tenant of the property shall be responsible 
     for any maintenance required under paragraph (1) to the 
     extent of the activities of that tenant at the property 
     during the period covered by that paragraph.
       (h) Environmental Remediation.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the City shall not be responsible for any 
     environmental restoration or remediation that is required 
     with respect to the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) as a result of activities of parties other 
     than the City at the property before its conveyance under 
     this section.
       (i) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by 
     the City.
       (j) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND (for himself and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 695. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
establish a national cemetery for Veterans in the Atlanta, Georgia, 
metropolitan area; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


 legislation to establish a national cemetery for veterans in Atlanta, 
                                Georgia

 Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today I am pleased to offer an 
important piece of legislation designed to address a critical need of 
Georgia's veterans and their families.
  One of the greatest honors our country provides for a veteran's 
service is the opportunity to be buried in a national cemetery. It is 
logical that a veteran's family would want to have the grave site of 
their loved one close by. They want to be able to place flowers or a 
folded American flag by the headstone of their father, mother, sister 
or brother. Georgia veterans' families deserve such consideration. The 
establishment of a new veterans national cemetery in the Atlanta 
metropolitan area is one of my highest legislative priorities.
  The current veterans population in Georgia is estimated to be nearly 
700,000, with over 400,000 residing in the Metro Atlanta area. One 
state currently has two cemeteries designated specifically for 
veterans, in Marietta and Andersonville. Marietta National Cemetery has 
been full since 1970, and Andersonville National Historic Cemetery is 
located in southwest Georgia, at a considerable distance from most of 
the states veterans population.
  The large population of veterans' families in Metro Atlanta and North 
Georgia is not being served, and we need to change that. Abraham 
Lincoln once said: `All that a man hath will he give for his life; and 
while all contribute of their substance the soldier puts his life at 
stake, and often yields it up in his country's cause. The highest 
merit, then, is due to the soldier.'
  We owe it to our veterans to provide a national veterans cemetery 
close to their home.
  I have been pursuing this matter for over 20 years, since I was head 
of the Veterans' Administration, now called the Department of Veterans' 
Affairs. Nationally, there are over 300,000 vacancies in national 
cemeteries for veterans, but in Georgia, there are no such vacancies. 
The only option these veterans have in Andersonville, a national 
historic cemetery which is operated by the National Parks Service, not 
the VA, and is more than 100 miles away from the Metro Atlanta area. 
This deeply concerns me, especially when one considers that Georgia has 
the highest rate of growth in terms of military retirees in the Nation, 
and that the majority of these veterans reside in Metro Atlanta. We 
really must do better for our veterans.
  In 1979, when I was head of the VA, our studies documented that the 
Atlanta metropolitan are was the area having the largest veterans 
population in the country without a national cemetery. Later that same 
year, I announced that Metro Atlanta had been chosen as the site for a 
new VA cemetery, which was to be opened in late 1983. The Atlanta 
location was chosen after an exhaustive review of many

[[Page S3249]]

sites, including consideration of environmental, access, and land use 
factors, and most importantly, the density of veterans population. 
Unfortunately, the Reagan Administration later withdrew approved of the 
Atlanta site. Over the years since then, Atlanta has repeatedly been 
one of the top areas in the United States most in need of an additional 
national cemetery.
  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today is simple. It requires 
the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery in 
the Atlanta metropolitan area. It also requires the VA to consult with 
appropriate federal, state, and local officials to determine the most 
suitable site.
  I believe this bill is a necessary first step toward the eventual 
establishment of a national cemetery to meet the needs of Atlanta's 
veterans and their families. Admittedly, several factors must be 
resolved before the cemetery can be established. A site must be found 
and funding must be made available. However, we must move swiftly to 
resolve this problem so that a critical element of our commitment to 
the Nation's veterans can be met.
  I am hopeful that the Senate will take favorable action on my bill 
during this Congress. I want to thank my colleague from Georgia, 
Senator Coverdell, for joining me in this important effort, and 
Representative Barr for sponsoring the companion bill in the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 695

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     establish, in accordance with chapter 24 of title 38, United 
     States Code, a national cemetery in the Atlanta, Georgia, 
     metropolitan area to serve the needs of veterans and their 
     families.
       (b) Consultation in Selection of Site.--Before selecting 
     the site for the national cemetery established under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with--
       (1) appropriate officials of the State of Georgia and local 
     officials of the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area; and
       (2) appropriate officials of the United States, including 
     the Administrator of General Services, with respect to land 
     belonging to the United States in that area that would be 
     suitable to establish the national cemetery under subsection 
     (a).
       (c) Report.--As soon as practicable after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the establishment of the national cemetery under 
     subsection (a). The report shall set forth a schedule for 
     such establishment and an estimate of the costs associated 
     with such establishment.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today I am proud to join my esteemed 
colleague from Georgia, Senator Cleland, to introduce once again a very 
important piece of legislation authorizing a new National Cemetery in 
the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area. For many years Georgia has had 
a pressing need for a new national cemetery for veterans. With the 
leadership of my friend from Georgia who, I might add, has been working 
to make this a reality for about twenty years, we hope to pass this 
bill this year for our nation's veterans.
  Mr. President, Georgia has one of the fastest growing veterans 
populations in the country. Currently, about 700,000 veterans call 
Georgia home with well over half, about 440,000, living in the Metro-
Atlanta region; the area where this new cemetery would be built. 
However, the only national cemetery in the area has been full since 
1970. Furthermore, the only other veterans cemetery in the state is 
operated by the National Parks Service, not the Department of Veterans' 
Affairs, and is in Andersonville, a town in southwest Georgia far from 
the concentration of Georgia veterans.
  Mr. President, I believe we clearly demonstrate the need for a new 
national cemetery in Georgia. VA studies have concurred the need for 
this cemetery and, in fact, Atlanta was chosen as a site for a new 
cemetery in 1983. It is now time to build this needed tribute.
  Burial in a national cemetery is a deserving honor for our nation's 
veterans, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to bestow upon 
them, especially in Georgia. This bipartisan legislation seeks to 
remedy this situation. Mr. President, by focusing on areas across the 
country with pressing needs for more burial slots, Congress can 
increase access to the honor of burial in a national cemetery. Georgia 
is such an area. By passing this measure, Congress would help veterans, 
and their families, find a burial place befitting their patriotic 
service to this great land.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 696. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to submit to Congress a plan to include as a benefit under the medicare 
program coverage of outpatient prescription drugs, and to provide for 
the funding of such benefit; to the Committee on Finance.


            medicare prescription drug coverage act of 1999

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare 
Prescription Drug Coverage Act of 1999, a bill that calls for a full 
prescription drug benefit for all of America's senior citizens within 
the Medicare program.
  This bill is the Senate companion to H.R. 886, which was introduced 
by Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts earlier this month and 
which already has 22 House cosponsors.
  One of the beauties of the Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Act of 
1999 is its simplicity. The Act does four things. First, it directs the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to study the establishment of an 
outpatient prescription drug benefit under Medicare that provides for 
full coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Second, the Secretary 
will determine the sufficiency of the estate tax to fund the costs of 
that outpatient drug benefit. Third, the Secretary must submit a report 
to Congress within six months that includes a legislative proposal to 
provide for full coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Finally, 
the bill transfers Federal estate tax revenues to the Medicare Hospital 
Insurance Trust Fund where those monies will be placed in a separate 
Outpatient Prescription Drug Account to pay for this coverage.
  Mr. President, now more than ever, a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit is needed. When Medicare was first adopted the program was 
designed to reflect typical private health insurance which often did 
not include outpatient prescription drugs. Then and since, the 
pharmaceutical industry has opposed a prescription drug benefit in 
order to protect its profits without regard to America's senior 
citizens. Even today, the industry is unwilling to shed some of its 
profits to allow all senior citizens access to needed prescription 
drugs. But the time has come for Congress to say ``no'' to the undue 
influence of drug companies in Washington and ``yes'' to Medicare 
prescription drug coverage.
  Why has the need for the Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Act of 
1999 because so acute? The reasons are well known. First, the cost of 
prescription drugs has skyrocketed in recent years. Last year alone, 
prices increased an estimated 17%. This increase in drug costs hits 
seniors disproportionately.
  A 1998 study by the minority staff of the House Government Reform 
Committee found that older Americans without prescription drug 
insurance pay on average twice as much as the discounted prices drug 
companies offer large scale purchasers like HMOs, pharmaceutical 
benefit managers and government agencies. Even more astounding are 
comparisons that show the price of some drugs are up to 15 times higher 
for seniors. Recalcitrance on the part of the pharmaceutical industry 
and the Congress has not only forced seniors to the pay for drugs out 
of their own pockets, but the price seniors pay is a national disgrace.
  The burden on seniors is hard for them to avoid. More than \3/4\ of 
Americans aged 65 and over are taking prescription drugs. The average 
senior citizen takes more than four prescription drugs daily and fills 
an average of 18 prescriptions a year. Older Americans take 
significantly more drugs on average than the under-65 population. One-
third of all drugs are prescribed for senior citizens even though 
seniors account for only 12% of the population.
  Not only do older Americans spend almost three times as much of their 
income (21%) on health care as do those under the age of 65 (8%), but 
prescription drugs are the largest single source

[[Page S3250]]

of out-of-pocket expenses for health services paid for by the elderly--
more than doctor visits or hospital admissions. The primary reason for 
this is that Medicare does not cover outpatient prescription drugs.
  It is totally unacceptable that 37% of seniors, nationally, have no 
prescription drug coverage and another 15-20% have totally inadequate 
coverage. In my state of Minnesota, where Medicare HMO drug coverage 
without additional cost is virtually nonexistent, close to 65% of 
seniors have no outpatient drug coverage at all.
  The result of this drug pricing inequity and excessive cost burden 
frequently leads seniors to discontinue their medications against 
medical advice, to lower the dose they take to make their prescriptions 
last longer, or to take their medicines as prescribed but then skimp on 
food and other necessities. Whichever path is taken results in a 
decrease in health and an increased likelihood of an expensive hospital 
intervention. That is why we need the Medicare Prescription Drug 
Coverage Act of 1999. Not to provide this benefit is being penny-wise 
and pound foolish.
  Minnesota seniors and others who live in states adjacent to Canada 
and Mexico often travel hundreds of miles and cross international 
borders to obtain drugs at prices only available in this country when 
negotiated by volume purchasers. Mildred Miller, a 78 year old 
constituent of mine from Minneapolis, found it necessary to travel to 
Canada and to send a friend to Mexico in order to afford the Tamoxifen 
her doctor in Minnesota had prescribed. And she is not alone.
  For some seniors the high price of outpatient prescription drugs has 
not yet been a burden. They are the lucky ones who are members of 
Medicare HMOs in counties where the Medicare reimbursement rate to HMOs 
has been high enough to allow a prescription drug benefit, or are 
fortunate to be wealthy and healthy enough to be able to purchase one 
of the three Medigap policies that include a prescription drug benefit, 
or have drug coverage under health insurance benefits provided by 
former employers.
  But for those for whom the high price of drugs has not yet been a 
burden, the future isn't particularly bright. Medicare HMO 
reimbursement rates are being reduced and many HMOs have cut back or 
completely cut out their drug benefit. Medigap policies that cover 
prescription drugs are expensive, have high $250 deductibles, 50% 
copays, and caps on benefits of $1250 or $300 per year. Health care 
benefits offered by former employers are becoming less and less common 
and less generous.
  The good alternatives today are out of reach of most senior citizens. 
For example, in Minnesota, a Medicare-Choice prescription drug coverage 
option with 20% copay, no deductible, and no cap costs $130 per month. 
It is no wonder that from Maine to Minnesota to the state of Washington 
and down to Texas, America's senior citizens are forced to leave the 
country so they can afford to take the medicines they need. What they 
find are essentially the same prescription drugs at half of price. With 
the Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Act of 1999, they won't have to 
flee their own country.
  What is needed is a comprehensive prescription drug benefit that 
includes outpatient drugs--the same sort of prescription drug benefit 
available to members of Congress--with no cap, reasonable deductibles 
and reasonable copays. That is what this legislation calls for.
  An important aspect of the Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Act of 
1999 is that it calls for a full prescription drug benefit--not one 
capped at a certain limit. Medicare today doesn't limit the number of 
necessary doctor visits or the number of needed operations--and it 
shouldn't. Prescription drugs now are as critical as those doctor 
visits or operations and it is unconscionable for necessary drugs not 
to be covered just as fully. If we limit the maximum benefit, we 
penalize the sickest and most frail elderly who have the greatest need 
and require the greatest number of prescription medications.
  I expect that other Medicare prescription drug bills will be offered 
in this Congress, but I fear they will not provide the full protection 
seniors really need. If you have a major life threatening illness or 
multiple chronic diseases (something that is hard to predict before it 
happens), your monthly drug bill will quickly exceed the oft cited 
figure of a $1500 annual maximum. With such coverage, the sickest and 
most needy seniors will quickly find themselves out of the benefit. As 
I travel about the state of Minnesota, I frequently hear stories of 
elderly citizens saddled with prescription drug costs in excess of $300 
per month who are trying to make ends meet on a monthly income of 
$1,000. That is why full drug coverage is so important.
  What is also important to know is that the cost of providing a full 
prescription drug benefit is affordable and not that much more than the 
cost of a limited benefit. In 1998, the Lewin Group estimated that a 
Medicare prescription drug benefit in 1999 with a $250 deductible, a 
20% copay and a $1500 annual cap would cost $13 billion. The same plan 
with no annual cap, providing full protection, would cost $17 billion. 
Revenues from the estate tax, which will fund the benefit, are 
estimated to be in the $19 billion to $23 billion range. That is more 
than enough to provide full coverage the full benefit.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me say a few words about why using the 
estate tax to pay for a Medicare prescription drug benefit makes a lot 
of sense. Many members of Congress have argued that the estate tax is 
no longer needed for general revenue. If so, there is a great deal of 
logic in using it for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. The 
estate tax today applies only to individual estates that are worth more 
than $650,000 and to estates of married couples worth more than $1 
million. Over the next seven years the amount exempt from the estate 
tax will rise to $1 million for individuals and $2 million for couples. 
Well over 90% of the estate tax comes from wealthy individuals who were 
65 or older at the time of their death. Most of these people were 
receiving medical care and benefiting from Medicare coverage. Thus, 
this bill recycles back into the Medicare program--for badly needed 
prescription drug coverage for all--money from people who benefited 
from their Medicare entitlement but were not in financial need of it. 
That only makes sense. For it is more important to preserve and expand 
the Medicare program than it is to provide tax cuts for the richest 
Americans.
  Mr. President, it is unconscionable that America's senior citizens 
have such difficulty obtaining the fruits of the scientific advances 
made by America's pharmaceutical industry. Every day we delay, millions 
of senior citizens struggle to determine how they will be able to 
afford their next prescription refill. The time to end that struggle is 
now. That is why I am introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug 
Coverage Act of 1999 today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 696

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Prescription Drug 
     Coverage Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. STUDY AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall conduct a study with respect to the establishment of an 
     outpatient prescription drug benefit under the medicare 
     program that provides for full coverage of outpatient 
     prescription drugs for medicare beneficiaries.
       (b) Additional Matters Studied.--In conducting the study 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall include a determination of whether Federal 
     estate tax revenues, transferred to the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund by reason of the amendments made by 
     section 3 of this Act, are sufficient, in excess of the 
     amount required, or insufficient to defray the costs of such 
     outpatient prescription drug benefit.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall submit to Congress a report 
     containing a detailed description of the results of the study 
     conducted pursuant to this section, and include in such 
     report a legislative proposal to provide for such outpatient 
     prescription drug benefit.

[[Page S3251]]

     SEC. 3. TRANSFER OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAX REVENUES TO MEDICARE 
                   PROGRAM TO OFFSET COSTS OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG 
                   BENEFIT.

       (a) Transfer to Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.--
     Section 1817(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395i(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and'', and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) the taxes imposed by chapter 11 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to estates of citizens or 
     residents reported to the Secretary of the Treasury or his 
     delegate on tax returns under subtitle F of such Code, as 
     determined by the Secretary of the Treasury by applying the 
     applicable rate of tax under such chapter to such estate.''.
       (b) Establishment of Separate Account for Outpatient 
     Prescription Drug Benefit.--Section 1817 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395i) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(l) Outpatient Prescription Drug Account.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established in the 
     Trust Fund an expenditure account to be known as the 
     `Outpatient Prescription Drug Account'.
       ``(2) Crediting of funds.--The Managing Trustee shall 
     credit to the Outpatient Prescription Drug Account such 
     amounts as may be deposited in the Trust Fund pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(3).
       ``(3) Use of funds.--Funds credited to the Outpatient 
     Prescription Drug Account may only be used to pay for 
     outpatient prescription drugs furnished under this title.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to payments received by the Secretary of the Treasury 
     on or after the date of the enactment of this Act for taxes 
     imposed by chapter 11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Ms. SNOWE):
  S. 697. A bill to ensure that a woman can designate an obstetrician 
or gynecologist as her primary care provider; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

                          ____________________