[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1478-1485]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             FOOD AND MEDICINE SANCTION RELIEF ACT OF 1999

 Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today Senator Dodd and I are 
introducing the Food and Medicine Sanctions Relief Act of 1999. Joining 
us as cosponsors are our colleagues Senators Dorgan, Grams, Harkin, 
Lugar, Roberts, and Warner.
  This bill makes the simple statement that we should not include food 
and medicine in any unilateral sanction or embargo we may place on 
another

[[Page 1479]]

country. Food and medicine are the most fundamental of human needs. 
Food and medicine should have no place in any sanctions we may impose 
on other countries because we do not like the policies of an aggressive 
or oppressive government.
  We have gone too far in imposing unilateral economic sanctions on 
other nations. Sanctions can be a tool of foreign policy, but too often 
then have become a substitute for foreign policy.
  From 1993 to 1996, the United States imposed 61 unilateral economic 
sanctions on 35 nations. We now have some form of sanctions on more 
than half of the world's population. It is time that we say ``no 
more.'' This legislation says that we will no longer use farm policy as 
a foreign policy weapon.
  The pace of change today is unprecedented in modern history, and 
maybe all of history. Trade, and particularly the trade in food and 
medicine, is the common denominator that ties together the nations of 
the world. American exports of food and medicine acts to build bridges 
around the world. It strengthens ties between people and demonstrates 
the basic humanitarian impulse of the American people.
  We live in a dynamic, interconnected world. Sanctions without the 
support of our allies only hurt us. And from a foreign policy 
perspective, unilateral sanctions rarely achieve their goal. Their real 
harm is on U.S. producers. It's estimated that sanctions cost the U.S. 
economy more than $20 billion each year. If a nation can't purchase 
products from the United States, particularly agricultural products, 
other nations are more than ready to fill the needs of those markets.
  American agriculture and the U.S. government must send a strong 
message to our customers and our competitors around the world--our 
agricultural producers are going to be consistent and reliable 
suppliers of quality and plentiful agricultural products.
  Once foreign agricultural markets are lost--for whatever reason--it 
can take decades to restore them. In 1973, the U.S. banned soybean 
exports to Japan. What did that accomplish? It turned Brazil into a 
significant soybean producer, and America has never fully recovered its 
soybean market share in Japan . . . and for good reasons, because it 
raised questions about the reliability of America as an agricultural 
supplier. Another example is that the Soviet grain embargo of 1979 cost 
the U.S. $2.3 billion in lost farm exports and USDA compensation to 
farmers. When the U.S. cut off sales of wheat to protest the Soviet 
invasion of Afghanistan, France, Canada, Australia and Argentina 
stepped in to claim this market and the former Soviet states have been 
timid buyers of U.S. farm products ever since.
  This is also the right thing to do. It's beneath this great nation to 
withhold medicine and food as a tool to implement its foreign policy. 
We are the most powerful nation on earth. Removing these items from the 
U.S. arsenal of economic sanctions will say to the poor and hungry of 
the world that they will not have to suffer the consequences of their 
government's actions.
  I am from a Midwestern state, a large agriculture exporting state. 
But there is not a farmer or rancher in Nebraska who would say, ``I 
would trade America's national or security interests just to sell more 
corn or beef.'' That is not the question. The question is whether we 
should place a humanitarian hardship on the people of other countries 
because of the actions of their governments. Doing this does not 
advance our country's interests. In fact, it hurts our national 
interest, just as it intensifies the hardship being faced today by 
America's agricultural producers.
  History has shown, Mr. President, that trade and commerce does more 
to change attitudes and alter behaviors over time than any one thing. 
Why? It improves diets; it improves standards of living; it opens 
societies; it exposes people who lived under totalitarian rule to the 
concepts of personal freedom, economic freedom, and individual choice.
  Ultimately, sanctions and embargoes mostly isolate ourselves. Trade 
embargoes isolate those who impose them. This bill is an important step 
forward, and is a part of the larger debate this Congress on the role 
of the U.S. in the world and how we intend to engage in the world. 
Trade is the keystone of our global engagement.
  Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, 
and to engage in the debate over the role of unilateral economic 
sanctions in American foreign policy.
  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. 327

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Food and Medicine Sanctions 
     Relief Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act to exempt agricultural 
     products, medicines and medical equipment from U.S. economic 
     sanctions.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       (1) Prohibiting or otherwise restricting the donations or 
     sales of food, other agricultural products, medicines or 
     medical equipment in order to sanction a foreign government 
     for actions or policies that the United States finds 
     objectionable unnecessarily harms innocent populations in the 
     targeted country and rarely causes the sanctioned government 
     to alter its actions or policies.
       (2) For the United States as a matter of U.S. policy to 
     deny access to United States food, other agricultural 
     products, medicines, and medical equipment by innocent men, 
     women and children in other countries weakens the 
     international leadership and moral authority of the United 
     States.
       (3) Sanctions on the sale or donations of American food, 
     other agricultural products, medicine or medical equipment 
     needlessly harm American farmers and workers employed in 
     these sectors by foreclosing markets for these United States 
     products.

     SEC. 4. EXCLUSION FROM SANCTIONS.

       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     President shall not restrict or otherwise prohibit any 
     exports (including financing) of food, other agricultural 
     products (including fertilizer), medicines or medical 
     equipment as part of nay policy of existing or future 
     unilateral economic sanctions imposed against a foreign 
     government.
       (2) Exceptions. Section 4(1) of this Act shall not apply to 
     any regulations or restrictions of such products for health 
     or safety purposes or during periods of domestic shortages of 
     such products.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (1) The provisions of this Act shall become effective upon 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. Smith of New Hampshire:
  S. 328. A bill to make permanent the moratorium on the imposition of 
taxes on the Internet; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                internet consumer protection legislation

 Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, last year, we 
enacted a three-year moratorium on new Internet sales taxes. Today, I 
am introducing a bill that would make this moratorium permanent.
  Internet commerce has exploded in recent years. For example, U.S. 
sales on the Internet last year totaled $8 billion. This last Christmas 
season was about three times as busy as the previous one, with 
consumers spending about $3 billion on goods purchased over the 
Internet. A recent survey of American adults by the Pew Research Center 
suggests that 41% of American adults now uses the Internet.
  For Americans who live in remote areas, such as residents of New 
Hampshire's North Country, the Internet offers major advantages. They 
now can shop by computer instead of driving several hours to the urban 
shopping malls or Main Street businesses. As noted by economist Larry 
Kudlow, other potential Internet shoppers include the elderly, busy 
executives, stay-at-home parents, the disabled and others.
  Despite all of its benefits for our economy and American consumers, 
Internet commerce is at risk from state and local politicians seeking 
ever more tax revenues. Already, a number of states have imposed taxes 
on Internet sales. But there are several reasons why we should refuse 
to transform the Internet into a pot of gold for state and local tax 
collectors.
  First, not only do all states and localities have other options for 
raising revenue--such as income taxes, use

[[Page 1480]]

taxes and property taxes--but most are running budget surpluses. I 
asked the Congressional Research Service to analyze what has happened 
to traditional sales tax revenues over the past five years, when 
Internet use exploded. CRS reported that the growth in sales tax 
revenues has outpaced inflation in this period.
  Second, a tax on Internet shopping is really just another tax on the 
American consumer. American consumers already pay taxes on their 
salaries, taxes on their capital gains, property taxes on their homes, 
taxes on the goods they purchase from instate vendors, and estate taxes 
on any property they have managed to save by the time of their death. 
Imposing yet another layer of taxes in cyberspace is simply unfair, 
especially because many Internet shoppers already pay shipping or 
handling costs in addition to the purchase price of the goods they buy.
  Furthermore, imposing new taxes on Internet-related revenues could 
stifle the development of Internet commerce in the U.S. As reported in 
yesterday's Wall Street Journal, a University of Chicago economist who 
studied the buying decisions of 25,000 Internet shoppers found that 
applying sales taxes to Internet commerce ``would reduce the number of 
online buyers by 25% and spending by more than 30%.''
  Some politicians would like to make each online business be a sales 
tax collector for every tax jurisdiction in the United States. Doing so 
simply would give Internet businesses--especially those whose profit 
margins are slim--a good incentive to move offshore. Geography is not 
important on the Internet, and many Internet vendors can relocate 
without disruption to their customers.
  Finally, many Internet transactions are really interstate commerce. 
The Founding Fathers recognized the danger that each state might impose 
taxes or tariffs on goods produced in other states, so they authorized 
the Federal government to prevent interstate trade wars. In 
interpreting the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme 
Court has held that commerce which crosses state boundaries should be 
subject to state sales taxes only when both seller and buyer are in the 
same state, or when the seller has a presence in the buyer's state.
  There is little reason to fear, as some have claimed, that Main 
Street businesses are at risk from Internet vendors. I can think of 
nothing that would prevent these businesses from offering their own on-
line shopping services. Some already have done so with great success. 
Moreover, the Internet likely will attract entirely new customers whose 
purchases will only increase total retail sales.
  The purpose of the bill I am introducing today is to allow Internet 
commerce to continue to prosper in this country, by making permanent 
the three-year moratorium that we enacted last year. Under my bill, 
state and local governments could not impose new Internet sales taxes.
  Mr. President, I hope that all of my colleagues will support this 
legislation, which is of great importance to the American consumer and 
our economy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB:
  S. 329. A bill to amend title, United States Code, to extend 
eligibility for hospital care and medical services under chapter 17 of 
that title to veterans who have been awarded the Purple Heart, and for 
other purposes.


               combat veterans medical equity act of 1999

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Combat 
Veterans Medical Equity Act of 1999, legislation which will serve to 
codify America's obligation to provide for the medical needs of our 
combat-wounded veterans.
  Although we have long recognized the combat-wounded vet to be among 
our most deserving veterans, and although we have long distinguished 
the sacrifices of these veterans by awarding the Purple Heart medal, 
remarkably, there is nothing in current law that stipulates an 
entitlement to health care based upon this physical sacrifice. In fact, 
I believe most Americans would be surprised to learn that a combat-
wounded Purple Heart recipient could be denied services for which a 
non-combat veteran, with a non-service-connected disability, would be 
eligible. This legislation would seek to remedy that situation.
  Specifically, this bill establishes for VA hospital care and medical 
services based upon the award of the Purple Heart Medal. It also gives 
Purple Heart recipients an enrollment priority on par with former 
Prisoners of War and veterans with service-connected disabilities rated 
between 10 and 20%.
  Mr. President, as a Vietnam Veteran who has been privileged to lead 
marines in combat, and as a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I have a keen appreciation for the sacrifices made by all of 
our men and women in uniform. At the same time, in the face of tighter 
budgets and greater competition for services, I believe strongly that 
Congress should ensure equity in disbursing of medical services for our 
most deserving veterans--the combat wounded. These veterans, who have 
shed their blood to keep our country safe and free, deserve no less.
  Mr. President, I salute them, and 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. 329

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

     SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR HOSPITAL CARE AND MEDICAL SERVICES 
                   BASED ON AWARD OF PURPLE HEART.

       (a) Eligibility.--Section 1710(a)(2) of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (F);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (H); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new 
     subparagraph (G):
       ``(G) who has been awarded the Purple Heart; or''.
       (b) Enrollment Priority.--Section 1705(a)(3) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and veterans'' and inserting 
     ``veterans''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, and veterans whose eligibility for 
     care and services under this chapter is based solely on the 
     award of the Purple Heart'' before the period at the end.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 1722(a) of such 
     title is amended by striking ``section 1710(a)(2)(G)'' and 
     inserting ``section 1710(a)(2)(H)''.
       (2) Section 5317(c)(3) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``subsections (a)(2)(G),'' and inserting ``subsections 
     (a)(2)(H),''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Roth, Mr. 
        Moynihan, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Murkowski, 
        Mr. Breaux, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Robb, Mr. Rockefeller, 
        Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cleland, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Daschle, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Enzi, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Grams, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Hutchinson, 
        Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
        Torricelli, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 331. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to expand the 
availability of health care coverage for working individuals with 
disabilities, to establish a Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency 
Program in the Social Security Administration to provide such 
individuals with meaningful opportunities to work, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                work incentives improvement act of 1999

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today Senators Kennedy, Roth, Moynihan, 
and I, joined by many of our colleagues are introducing the Work 
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. The reason for this broad 
bipartisan effort is both compelling and simple. Currently, individuals 
with disabilities must choose between working or getting health care. 
Such a choice is absurd. But, current federal law forces individuals 
with disabilities to make that choice. Our legislation addresses this 
fundamental flaw.
  The federal government helps individuals with significant 
disabilities, who earn under $500 a month. Individuals, who have less 
than $2,000 in assets

[[Page 1481]]

and have not paid into Social Security, receive Supplemental Security 
Income (SSI) cash payments and access to Medicaid. Individuals, who 
have worked and paid into Social Security, receive Social Security 
Disability Insurance (SSDI) cash payments and access to Medicare. Yet, 
the current system offers no incentive for SSI and SSDI recipients to 
work to their full potential, to be taxpayers, to contribute to their 
well-being and that of their families. The facts bear out this 
assertion. Less than one half of one percent of the 7.5 million 
individuals on the Social Security disability rolls leave them.
  Do these individuals really want to work? The answer is a resounding, 
``Yes.'' Over the last 10 years, national surveys consistently confirm 
that people with disabilities of working age want to work, but only 
about one-third are working.
  Are the numbers low because of discrimination or because of lack of 
skills? Congress has tackled these issues. We passed the Americans with 
Disabilities Act in 1990. It is against the law to discriminate against 
an individual on the basis of disability in employment as well as in 
all other contexts. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 
the Rehabilitation Act, and most recently the Workforce Investment Act 
of 1998 contribute to the access of individuals with disabilities to 
the education and training they need to become qualified workers.
  However, protection against discrimination is not enough. Access to 
education and training is not enough. Colleagues, the biggest remaining 
barrier is health insurance. Individuals with significant disabilities 
who meet the rigorous eligibility criteria of the Social Security 
disability programs cannot often get reasonably priced, appropriate 
health insurance coverage from the private sector. These individuals 
can only get health insurance from the government, and the government 
gives it to them only if they stay home, or at best, work a minimal 
amount.
  It is difficult to measure fully the effect of having a job on an 
individual's life. It has a positive impact on a person's identity and 
sense of self-worth. Having a job results in satisfaction associated 
with supporting oneself and one's family or at least not being a burden 
on it. If only one percent of the 7.5 million SSI and SSDI recipients 
go to work and forgo cash payments from the Social Security 
Administration (SSA), this would result in a cash savings of $3.5 
billion to the federal Treasury over the lifetimes of these 
individuals. If we factor in the income taxes these individuals would 
pay, their lack of need for food stamps, subsidized housing, and other 
forms of assistance, that $3.5 billion dollar figure would be even 
higher.
  Beyond the individual, there is another factor. Recently we learned 
that our unemployment rate, 4.3 percent, is the lowest it has been 
since 1956. Our economy, to stay vibrant and strong, needs access to a 
qualified and enthusiastic pool of potential workers from which to 
draw. SSI and SSDI recipients are an untapped resource. Many of the 
jobs that currently go unfilled, in the service sector and technology 
industry, are the very jobs that many SSI and SSDI recipients are ready 
and willing to fill, if only they could have access to health care.
  The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 is targeted, fiscally 
responsible legislation. It would enable individuals with significant 
disabilities to enter the work force for the first time, reenter the 
work force, or avoid leaving it in the first place. These individuals 
would need not worry about losing their health care if they choose to 
work a forty hour week, to put in overtime, to go for a career 
advancement or change with more income potential.
  Under current law, a poor individual with a disability who has not 
worked and not paid into Social Security, who meets rigorous criteria, 
receives monthly SSI payments. Once eligible for SSI cash payments, 
these individuals have access to Medicaid. In some states these 
individuals may have coverage of personal assistance services and 
prescription drugs through Medicaid. An SSI recipient who chooses to 
earn income, and then exceeds his or her state's threshold for earned 
income for an SSI beneficiary, loses SSI cash payments and access to 
Medicaid.
  Also under current law, an individual who has worked and paid into 
Social Security, has a disability, and meets rigorous criteria, 
receives SSDI payments. After 24 months, these individuals have access 
to Medicare. Medicare does not cover the cost of personal assistance 
services or prescription drugs, items an individual with a disability 
may need to work at all. To access coverage of these items, an 
individual must spend-down his or her resources until he or she has 
under $2,000. Then, the individual can become eligible for coverage of 
these items through Medicaid in states where they are offered. An SSDI 
recipient who chooses to work and earns $500 monthly in a 12 month 
period, loses SSDI cash payments. SSDI beneficiaries continue to 
receive Medicare coverage after returning to work throughout a 39-month 
extended period of eligibility, but afterwards must pay the full 
Medicare Part A premium, which is over $300 monthly.
  The bill would allow states to expand Medicaid coverage to workers 
with disabilities. These options build on previous reforms including a 
recent provision enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). The 
BBA provision permitted states to offer a Medicaid buy-in to those 
individuals with incomes below 250 percent of poverty who would be 
eligible for SSI disability benefits but for their income.
  The first option in our legislation would build on the BBA provision. 
States may elect to offer a Medicaid buy-in to people with disabilities 
who work and have earnings above 250 percent of poverty. Even so, 
participating States may also set limits on an individual's unearned 
income, assets, and resources and may require cost-sharing and premiums 
on a sliding scale up to a full premium.
  The second option in our legislation would allow states that elect to 
do so to cover individuals who continue to have a severe medically 
determinable impairment but lose eligibility for SSI or SSDI because of 
medical improvement. Although medical improvement for individuals with 
disabilities is inextricably linked to ongoing interventions made 
possible through insurance coverage, under current law improvement can 
jeopardize continued eligibility for that coverage.
  The legislation requires that states not supplant existing state-only 
spending with Medicaid funding under either of these options and 
maintain current spending levels on eligible populations.
  A state which elects to implement the first option or the first and 
second options would receive a grant to support the design, 
establishment and operation of infrastructures to support working 
individuals with disabilities. A total of $150 million would be 
available for five years, and annual amounts would be increased at the 
rate of inflation from 2004 through 2009. In 2009, the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services would recommend whether the program is still 
needed.
  The bill includes a ten-year trial program that would permit SSDI 
beneficiaries to continue to receive Medicare coverage when they return 
to work. This option in effect extends the current 39-month extended 
period of eligibility.
  The legislation includes a time-limited demonstration program that 
would allow states to extend Medicaid coverage to workers who have a 
disability which, without access to health care, would become severe 
enough to qualify them for SSI or SSDI. This demonstration would 
provide new information on the cost effectiveness of early health care 
intervention in keeping people with disabilities from becoming too 
disabled to work. Funding of $300 million would be available for the 
demonstration, which would sunset at the end of FY 2004.
  The legislation eliminates other programmatic disincentives. It would 
encourage SSDI and SSI beneficiaries to return to work by providing 
assurance that cash benefits remain available if employment proves 
unsuccessful. Specifically, the legislation would prohibit using 
employment as the sole basis for

[[Page 1482]]

scheduling a continuing disability review and would expedite 
eligibility determinations for those individuals that need to return to 
SSDI benefits after losing such benefits because of work.
  We estimate the total cost of these health care-related provisions to 
be a total of $1.2 billion over five years.
  Recognizing that some SSI and SSDI recipients will need training and 
job placement assistance and that they seek choices related to these 
activities, in our bill we include provisions modeled on Senator 
Bunning's legislation that passed the House last year. These ``ticket 
to work and self-sufficiency'' provisions would give SSI and SSDI 
beneficiaries more choices in where to obtain vocational rehabilitation 
and employment services and would increase incentives to public and 
participating private providers serving these individuals. The 
``ticket'' provisions would create a new payment system for employment 
services to SSI and SSDI beneficiaries that result in employment. For 
each beneficiary a provider assists, the provider would be reimbursed 
with a portion of benefits savings to the federal government that would 
occur when the beneficiary earns more than the current law Substantial 
Gainful Activity (SGA) standard of $500 per month. These ticket 
provisions have been estimated to cost a total of $17 million over five 
years.
  To assist individuals with disabilities to understand the myriad 
options available to them and their interrelationship, the legislation 
would create a community-based outreach program to provide accurate 
information on work incentives programs to individuals with 
disabilities, and a state grant program to help people cut red tape to 
access work incentives. For the community-based work incentives 
outreach program, up to $23 million per year would be provided for 
grants to states or private organizations. SSA would have the authority 
to provide state grants ($7 million annually) to provide help to 
beneficiaries in accessing the ``ticket to work'' and other work 
incentives programs.
  The legislation would reauthorize SSA's demonstration authority which 
expired June 10, 1996. In addition, through mandated demonstration 
projects SSA is to assess the effect of a gradual reduction in cash 
benefits and earnings increase. Under current law, SSI recipients have 
access to a gradual reduction in their cash payments, but SSDI 
recipients do not. SSDI recipients lose cash payments immediately after 
earning $500 monthly in a 12 month trial work period. SSDI recipients 
participating in the demonstration would lose one SSDI dollar for every 
$2 earned.
  Finally, the legislation directs the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
to study three issues: (1) tax credits and other disability-related 
employment incentives under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
1990; (2) the coordination of SSI and SSDI benefits; and (3) the 
effects of the Substantial Gainful Activity (currently $500 monthly) 
standard on work incentives.
  These provisions have been estimated to cost a total of $55 million 
over five years.
  This legislation represents two years of work. It reflects what 
individuals with disabilities say they need. It was shaped by input 
across the philosophical spectrum. It was endorsed by the President in 
his State of the Union Address. It is an opportunity to bring 
responsible change to federal policy and eliminate a perverse dilemma 
for many Americans with disabilities--if you don't work, you get health 
care; if you do work, you don't.
  This legislation is a vital link that will make the American dream a 
reality for many Americans with disabilities. Let's work together to 
make the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 the first significant 
legislation enacted by the 106th Congress.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Jeffords, 
Kennedy, Roth, and Moynihan in introducing this historic, bipartisan 
initiative that will help tear down the barriers that prevent Americans 
with disabilities who want to work from reaching their full potential 
and achieving economic independence.
  Eight million Americans receive more than $50 billion a year in cash 
disability benefits under the Supplemental Security Income and Social 
Security Disability programs. While surveys show that the overwhelming 
majority of adults with disabilities want to work, fewer than \1/2\ of 
1 percent of them actually do.
  Advances in medicine and technology coupled with tougher civil rights 
laws have made it possible for more and more people with physical and 
mental disabilities to enter the workforce. These are people who 
genuinely want to work. They have the skills and talents necessary to 
be productive members of the workforce. But they face a Catch-22. If 
they leave the disability rolls for a job, they risk losing the 
Medicare and Medicaid benefits that made it possible for them to enter 
the workforce in the first place. Moreover, many of these individuals' 
very lives depend on the prescription drugs, technology, personal 
assistance services, and medical care they receive.
  Mr. President, no one should have to make a choice between a job and 
health care. The legislation we are introducing today will create and 
fund new options for States to encourage them to allow people with 
disabilities who enter the workforce to buy into the Medicaid program, 
so they can continue to receive the prescription drugs, personal 
assistance services, and medical care upon which they depend. It will 
also allow workers leaving the social Security Disability Insurance 
program to extend their Medicare coverage for ten years. This is 
tremendously important since many people returning to work after having 
been on SSDI either work part time and are therefore not eligible for 
employer-based insurance, or they work in jobs that do not offer health 
insurance. Allowing these disabled individuals to maintain their 
Medicare coverage will serve as a tremendous incentive for them to 
return to the workforce.
  Other provisions of the legislation we are introducing today 
incorporate a more ``user-friendly'' approach in programs providing job 
training and placement assistance to individuals with disabilities who 
want to work. Our bill gives disabled SSI and SSDI beneficiaries 
greater consumer choice by creating a ``ticket'' that enables them to 
choose whether they want to go to a public or private provider of 
vocational rehabilitation services. The bill also provides grants to 
States and organizations to help connect people with disabilities with 
appropriate services, and funds demonstrations and studies to better 
understand policies that will encourage and enable work.
  Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today is an 
investment in human potential that promises tremendous return. By 
ensuring that Americans with disabilities have access to affordable 
health insurance, we are removing the major barrier between them and 
the workplace. The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 will both 
encourage and enable Americans with disabilities to be full 
participants in our nation's workforce and growing economy, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important 
legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues in 
introducing the Work Incentives Improvement Act to provide affordable 
and accessible health care for persons with disabilities so they can 
work and live independently.
  Despite the extraordinary growth and prosperity the country is now 
enjoying, people with disabilities continue to struggle to live 
independently and become fully contributing members of their 
communities. We have made significant progress through special 
education programs that open new horizons for excellence in learning, 
and through rehabilitation programs that develop practical independent 
living skills.
  Too often, however, the goal of independence is still out of reach. 
We need to do more to see that the benefits of our prosperous economy 
are truly available to all Americans, including those with 
disabilities. Disabled children and adults deserve access to the 
benefits and support they need to achieve their full potential.

[[Page 1483]]

  Large numbers of the 54 million disabled Americans have the capacity 
to work and become productive citizens. But they are unable to do so 
because of the unnecessary barriers they face. For too long, people 
with disabilities have suffered from unfair penalties if they go to 
work. They are in danger of losing their cash benefits if they accept a 
paying job. They are in danger of losing the medical coverage, which 
may well mean the difference between life and death. Too often, they 
face a harsh choice between eating a decent meal and buying their 
needed medication.
  The bipartisan legislation we are introducing today will help to 
remove these unfair barriers. It will make health insurance coverage 
more widely available, through opportunities to buy-in to Medicare and 
Medicaid at an affordable rate. It will phase out the loss of cash 
benefits as income rises--instead of the unfair sudden cut-off that so 
many workers with disabilities face today. It will bring greater access 
for people with disabilities to the services they need in order to 
become successfully employed.
  Our goal is to restructure and improve existing disability programs 
so that they do more to encourage and support every disabled person's 
dream to work and live independently, and be productive and 
contributing members of their community. That goal should be the 
birthright of all Americans--and when we say all, we mean all.
  This bill is the right thing to do, it is the cost effective thing to 
do, and now is the time to do it. For too long, our fellow disabled 
citizens have been left out and left behind. A new and brighter day is 
on the horizon for Americans with disabilities, and together we can 
make it a reality.
  I especially commend Senator Jeffords, Senator Roth and Senator 
Moynihan for their impressive leadership on this issue. We look forward 
to working with all members of Congress to pass this landmark 
legislation that will give disabled persons across the country a better 
opportunity to fulfill their dreams and participate fully in the social 
and economic mainstream of the nation.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, it is with pleasure that I join Senators 
Moynihan, Roth, Kennedy and Jeffords on their significant initiative to 
expand work opportunities for Americans with disabilities. As 
Americans, we value the opportunity to support ourselves and our 
families to the best of our abilities. In fact, we refer to this right 
and this responsibility as the American dream. But today, millions of 
Americans who want to work remain on various forms of public 
assistance, because they can't access the supports they need to begin 
and continue working.
  People with disabilities face unique barriers to self-sufficiency. 
Many of them need certain types of health services, such as home health 
care and personal care services, in order to work--yet these services 
are rarely available under employer-sponsored health insurance. Many of 
them find private health insurance unavailable or unaffordable. Some 
need vocational rehabilitation services and help finding employment. 
Others need assistive technology in order to do their job.
  Currently, health care coverage and other services are linked to two 
cash programs--Social Security Disability (SSDI) and Supplemental 
Security Income. So people with disabilities must choose whether they 
want to reach self-sufficiency and risk losing their health coverage 
and other supportive services, or retain their health insurance but 
remain dependent on these safety-net programs. At the same time, 
without personal attendants or other supportive services, they may not 
be able to work in the first place, or no longer be able to work if 
their health status is threatened by the loss of the services they can 
access through health coverage.
  I do not believe that people who wish to work and support themselves 
should face this kind of agonizing choice and take these types of 
risks. However, we can change this Catch-22. The Work Incentives 
Improvement Act will make several important changes. Most 
significantly, it will provide new options for Medicaid and Medicare 
coverage for disabled individuals who enter the workforce, and expand 
access to employment services for disabled individuals who are building 
their employment skills.
  By enabling workers with disabilities to buy-in to the Medicaid 
program, this legislation will permit Americans with disabilities to 
enter the workforce without worrying about losing the prescription drug 
coverage, personal care services, and other health care services they 
need to work in the first place. It also allows States to establish 
sliding-scale premiums for workers with higher incomes, therefore 
ensuring that as workers' income increases, they maintain their health 
coverage but are less financially dependent on public programs. This 
proposal will also allow States to continue covering people whose 
health condition has improved through treatment made possible through 
Medicaid coverage. Finally, through a ten-year demonstration, the Work 
Incentives Improvement Act will determine whether permitting SSDI 
beneficiaries to continue their Medicare coverage is a cost-effective 
strategy for providing health insurance to individuals who lose SSDI 
when they return to work.
  This legislation will also reduce barriers to employment for 
Americans with disabilities by providing new mechanisms for these 
individuals to receive the vocational rehabilitation and employment 
services they need from the providers they choose. In addition, it will 
encourage SSDI and SSI beneficiaries to develop their skills and 
venture into the workplace by providing a new assurance that their cash 
benefits will remain available, if necessary. These individuals may 
still lose their cash benefits, depending on their working income, but 
they can be assured that their SSDI and SSI eligibility application 
would be expedited if their work experience ultimately proves 
unsuccessful.
  As we look towards the next century, we know that America's economic 
strength and sense of national community are dependent on the 
contributions of each and every American. We need to take the necessary 
steps to ensure that all Americans will have a chance to enjoy the 
American dream. Americans with disabilities have the same dreams as the 
rest of us--including a productive and rewarding working life that 
enables them to support their families and achieve economic self-
sufficiency. We should do our best to help make these dreams a reality.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join today with my colleagues Senators 
Roth, Kennedy and Jeffords to introduce The Work Incentives Improvement 
Act of 1999. This bill would address some of the barriers and 
disincentives that individuals enrolled in Federal disability programs 
face in returning to work.
  Many persons with disabilities need the health coverage that 
accompanies their eligibility for cash benefits. (Social Security 
Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries are also covered under 
Medicare. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries receive 
Medicaid coverage). Disability is determined based on an inability to 
sustain gainful work activity, which is measured by an earned income 
threshold. Under current law, as they return to work and earn income, 
beneficiaries lose their cash benefits and, subsequently, their health 
coverage. The risk of losing health benefits may deter disabled 
individuals from returning to work and, instead, encourage them to 
continue to receive cash benefits despite their ability to work.
  Less than one percent of SSDI and SSI beneficiaries leave the 
programs and return to work each year. A survey released by the 
National Organization on Disability showed that, currently, only 29 
percent of all disabled adults are employed full-time or part-time, 
compared to 79 percent of the non-disabled adult population.


                            PAST INITIATIVES

  Our former Majority Leader and Finance Committee Chairman, Senator 
Bob Dole, should be commended for pioneering legislation to address 
work disincentives for people with disabilities. On March 19, 1986, 
Senator Dole introduced The Employment Opportunities for Disabled 
Americans Act to

[[Page 1484]]

permanently authorize an SSI demonstration that would allow SSI 
beneficiaries who return to work to continue to receive cash assistance 
and, most importantly, continue their Medicaid coverage. At a slightly 
higher income level, beneficiaries returning to work would have a 
phased down SSI benefit while maintaining their Medicaid coverage. I 
was an original cosponsor of that bill, which passed the Senate by a 
voice vote. On November 11, 1986, President Reagan signed the bill into 
law.
  Most recently, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, states were 
given the option to provide Medicaid coverage on a sliding premium 
scale for disabled workers with net incomes up to 250 percent of 
poverty. This provision gave workers with disabilities an opportunity 
to buy into Medicaid coverage without leaving their job to qualify for 
SSI and Medicaid.
  These initiatives were necessary first steps, yet several 
disincentives still exist.


              THE WORK INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

  The bill we introduce today would provide additional Medicare and 
Medicaid options for workers with disabilities, and would encourage SSI 
and SSDI beneficiaries to seek vocational rehabilitative services.
  With regard to health coverage, the bill would allow states to lift 
the income and asset limits for the Medicaid buy-in program established 
in BBA. States would also have the option to continue Medicaid coverage 
for workers with disabilities that lose SSI benefits due to a medical 
improvement criteria. This bill would establish state demonstrations to 
provide the Medicaid buy-in for workers with disabilities that are not 
yet severe enough to end work but would be if they did not have 
comprehensive Medicaid coverage. In addition, as a ten-year trial 
period, SSDI beneficiaries who return to work may continue to receive 
Medicare coverage, despite losing SSDI benefits.
  The bill would also create incentives for vocational rehabilitation 
providers to assist beneficiaries in finding work and achieving 
sufficient income. These providers would be paid a portion of the 
benefits saved by the beneficiaries returning to work. The bill would 
create several grant programs for outreach, advocacy, and planning and 
assistance for beneficiaries in work incentive programs.
  Again, Senator Dole has offered his support for this legislation to 
continue the initiatives he began. My colleagues and I developed this 
proposal last year and would like to see it pass this year. Chairman 
Roth and I are committed to marking up the bill in the Committee on 
Finance in early spring. At that time, the Chairman's mark will include 
offsets to the proposed spending. We urge all members to support this 
important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Lott, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Craig, and 
        Mr. Graham):
  S. 330. A bill to promote the research, identification, assessment, 
exploration, and development of methane hydrate resources, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          methane hydrate research and development act of 1999

 Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Lott, 
Landrieu, Craig, and Graham I am introducing the Methane Hydrate 
Research and Development Act of 1999.
  Methane hydrates are rigid, ice-like solids of water surrounding a 
gas molecule. They remain solid at high pressure and low temperature. 
Such conditions are found in Arctic permafrost and in deep sea 
sediments. Methane hydrate has tremendous gas storage capacity: one 
volume of methane hydrate will expand to more than 160 volumes of 
methane under normal temperature and pressure conditions.
  The data on this unlikely resource will surprise you. We are only 
beginning to quantify and characterize methane hydrate resources. 
Fundamental research on methane hydrates is urgently needed to serve 
our long-term energy supply needs, create short-term advances in 
conventional fuel extraction, and further the science of global climate 
change.
  Significant, widespread quantities of gas hydrates have been 
detected, but not characterized, all over the world. In the United 
States, on-shore Arctic deposits are found in Alaska. Deep sea methane 
hydrate deposits are perhaps the most abundant source of methane, 
occurring at depths greater than 300 meters. Marine geologists have 
identified large deposits off the coasts of most of the U.S., including 
Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, Oregon, and North and South 
Carolina. However, we know very little about the quantity and nature of 
these deposits.
  Worldwide, the estimated amount of methane trapped in gas hydrate 
form is 10,000 gigatons--twice the amount of carbon found in all other 
fossil fuels on Earth. This represents close to 3,000 times the amount 
of methane present in the atmosphere. Scientists estimate that 320,000 
trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas exists in hydrate form in the 
U.S.--a staggering resource. By comparison, we have an estimated 
reserve of 1,300 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of conventional natural gas.
  The potential of methane hydrates as an energy resource is best 
described in terms of consumption. The U.S. consumes 22 trillion cubic 
feet of natural gas per year; U.S. gas reserves will likely supply gas 
for approximately 60 years at current consumption rates. However, gas 
consumption is expected to rise dramatically in the future. If the 
hydrate resource can be harvested, the amount of natural gas found in 
one deposit off the Carolina coast would satisfy our natural gas needs 
for over 70 years.
  Can we produce natural gas from these vast reserves? Natural gas from 
methane hydrates will never be realized unless we undertake a serious 
methane hydrates research program. The U.S. is not doing enough to 
explore this exciting new energy source. Other nations, primarily Japan 
and India, have launched aggressive R&D programs to explore methane 
hydrates. Some believe that Japanese commercial production is only a 
decade away. Clearly we are falling behind in our efforts to understand 
this energy source. In the face of dwindling energy resources and 
increased reliance on energy imports, we can hardly afford to miss this 
important opportunity.
  In addition to potential use as an energy source, methane hydrate 
deposits also represent a challenge to conventional oil and gas 
extraction. Hydrates influence physical properties of ocean sediments, 
particularly strength and stability. Characterizing hydrate formation 
and breakdown is important for the safety of deep offshore drilling and 
other deep sea operations.
  Release of large quantities of methane to the atmosphere from hydrate 
deposits, and the sequestration methane in hydrate form, can also have 
significant effects on global climate change. The importance of the 
process in global climate regulation is relatively unknown, and demands 
investigation.
  Even though this resource accounts for more potential energy than all 
other conventional fuels combined, has attracted significant foreign 
investment, challenges conventional oil and gas production, and holds 
unknown secrets about global climate, the Department of Energy budget 
is limited to $500,000 in FY 1999.
  My bill establishes a small research and development program with the 
potential for major payback. It would direct the Department of Energy 
to conduct research and development in collaboration with the U.S. 
Geological Survey, National Science Foundation, and the Naval Research 
Laboratory. 
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Robb, and 
        Mr. Lugar):
  S. 332. A bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory 
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of 
Kyrgyzstan; to the Committee on Finance.


                 normal trade relations for kyrgyzstan

 Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
which would authorize ``normal trade relations'' treatment to the 
products of Kyrgyzstan.

[[Page 1485]]

  In 1998, Kyrgyzstan acceeded into the World Trade Organization, one 
of two republics of the former Soviet Union to be granted membership. 
Only Latvia can join Kyrgyzstan in boasting of that accomplishment.
  Admission to the World Trade Organization was an acknowledgement of 
the progress Kyrgyzstan has made in adopting and implementing economic 
and trade reforms since its independence from the Soviet Union. 
However, despite World Trade Organization membership, Kyrgyzstan 
remains subject to the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Title IV of the Trade 
Act of 1974.
  As you are aware, Title IV is the provision of law governing the 
normal trade relations status of nonmarket economy countries. Under the 
present arrangement, Kyrgyzstan's compliance with the requirements of 
the Jackson-Vanik amendment must be assessed semiannually. The 
legislation that I am introducing would eliminate the twice yearly 
review by granting Kyrgyzstan permanent ``normal trade relations'' 
treatment.
  Currently, the United States cannot extend unconditional and 
reciprocal treatment to Kyrgyzstan, nor can we apply the World Trade 
Organization agreements to Kyrgyzstan. Until granted ``normal trade 
relations'' treatment, transactions with Kyrgyzstan continue to be 
governed by the provisions of the bilateral trade agreement negotiated 
under Title IV.
  It is important that Kyrgyzstan be extended unconditional ``normal 
trade relations'' treatment. It is important not only because the 
Kyrgyz Republic has met the criteria required by that designation, but 
also because Kyrgyzstan is deserving of that designation. It is also 
important because until accorded that status, neither Kyrgyzstan nor 
the United States can realize fully the benefits of Kyrgyzstan's World 
Trade Organization membership. Kyrgyzstan has complied with both the 
freedom-of-emigration and the bilateral commercial agreement 
requirements of Jackson-Vanik and Title IV.
  Kyrgyzstan should graduate from Jackson-Vanik in recognition of the 
great strides the country has made in employing market-oriented 
reforms. The Kyrgyz Republic has served as a leader in economic and 
political reform in Central Asia and demonstrates the potential to 
serve as a model for other transforming economies.
  Passage of this legislation would send a powerful message not only to 
Kyrgyzstan, but to all of Central Asia that a free-market economy is 
the path to prosperity. Permanent ``normal trade relations'' status for 
Kyrgyzstan would help advance further reform not only in that country, 
but would also serve as incentive for other countries in the region.
  ``Normal trade relations'' is important for both Kyrgyzstan and the 
United States. I hope my colleagues will join me in acknowledging 
Kyrgyzstan's progress and support this bill.

                          ____________________