Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk a little bit about the health care bill we are debating in this Chamber. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have day after day asserted that their Patients' Bill of Rights legislation is better than the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor. If we are to believe that raising the cost of every insured individual's premiums by 6.1 percent and increasing the number of uninsured by roughly 1.8 million people is what is good for America, then, yes, this could be called a better bill. I, however, don't think those statistics suggest it's a better bill. Most Americans who know that this legislation increases costs and increases the number of uninsured do not think it is a better bill at all. I firmly believe that the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus, S. 300, is a much more productive solution to problems facing Americans in the health care market today. Mr. President, eight to ten percent of Minnesotans are uninsured today. Now, we in Minnesota enjoy a lower uninsured rate than the national average and we have historically had one of the lowest uninsured populations in the country. However, if S. 6 is adopted into law, I could expect to see about 36,000 more Minnesotans become uninsured. Nationally, about 15 percent of our population today is without insurance. They may be uninsured for a number of reasons, but I bet the biggest obstacle for most people is access, and access is determined by costs. They simply cannot afford the costs of insurance. These uninsured Americans would be left even further behind if we adopt the Kennedy-Daschle health care bill. Our colleagues make no effort whatsoever to address the problems of the uninsured. I do not think this is good policy, I do not think it is good for the Nation, and it certainly is not good for those already uninsured or those who will be forced to drop health care insurance because of increased costs. Thankfully, we have an alternative, and it is called the Health Care Access and Equity Act of 1999, or S. 1274. I was pleased to introduce this legislation along with my colleagues Chairman Roth and also Senator Abraham of Michigan. When we introduced this bill on June 24, we did so with the support of 15 of our colleagues. The Health Care Access and Equity Act does several things to increase access to health insurance, but one of the most important components is the full deductibility of health insurance costs for those without access to health insurance coverage through their employer. The Health Care Access and Equity Act of 1999 presents us with the opportunity to create the most comprehensive tax deductible coverage system in our Nation's history. It achieves this by eliminating one of the most discriminatory portions of the Tax Code: the disparate treatment between an employer purchasing a health plan as opposed to an individual purchasing health insurance on their own. When employers purchase a health care plan for their employees, he or she can fully deduct the cost of providing that insurance, effectively lowering the actual cost of providing that coverage. However, when an employee purchases an individual policy on their own, they must do so with after-tax dollars and cannot fully deduct the cost of that plan. They do not have the ability or the advantage offered to employers to reduce the actual costs of their policy by deducting the premiums from their taxes every year. Therefore, health insurance is too costly and, for many, they usually wind up without health coverage. The Health Care Access and Equity Act will end this discrimination within the Tax Code and make health care available for many more Americans. Let's make the same tax incentives for purchasing health insurance now available to employers apply to everybody. Let's level the playing field, and we will have taken the next logical step in the evolution of our health care system. I believe Congress should be doing what it can to lower the cost of health insurance, making it more affordable--not by proposing legislation that will raise the costs and will make health insurance more and more difficult to afford. I have a chart with me that shows the impact my legislation would have for my constituents. As you can see, it would reduce health insurance costs by anywhere from $796 to $1,384 for a family of four living in Mankato, MN, and also $887 to about $1,542 for a family of four living in St. Paul, or the Twin Cities. This is because they could deduct their premiums on their taxes, and this is what they would save off their tax bills which they could use then to pay for health insurance policies, thus making health care more affordable. These are very significant costs which could make health insurance coverage available for many more people in my State, as well as across the country, who are currently in the individual health insurance market, and that is more than my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can say about their bill. It seems most proposals before the Senate are just out there forcing some Federal definition of quality health plans onto the consumers and then sticks them with the bill, the increased cost for those mandates. It is not good policy, it does nothing for those who are uninsured, and it will not help those who will be forced to drop their health insurance because they can no longer afford the increase in those health care premiums. Even without the increased costs associated with the so-called Patients' Bill of Rights legislation, employers are already anticipating premium increases of between 7 to 10 percent over and above the costs that would be forced to go up under the plan by Senator Kennedy. Add on to that the costs of the Patients' Bill of Rights and you get higher numbers across the board, you get higher premiums, higher uninsured and higher frustration because any raise in pay that a middle-class worker might expect will now go toward even higher health care premium costs. It is estimated that benefit mandates comprise over 20 percent of the price of health plan premiums already in the State of Minnesota, and if you add on top of that the 5- to 6-percent tax on health plans and we are getting close to one-third of that premium being attributed to taxes or mandates. You might say: Employers can cover the premium increases. Some may, but some may not. Regardless, the money employers use to cover higher health insurance premiums could be used to increase the employee's salary. By increasing the employers' costs, Congress will force employees to forego a pay increase. My colleagues across the aisle may believe this is a good direction for the country to go in, but I do not, and I know that most Minnesotans do not agree. If all this were not bad enough, 57 percent of small businesses say they will stop providing health insurance for their employees if they are exposed to the Kennedy-Daschle bill's liability provisions. This is not just a threat. Most small businesses are not able to absorb higher operating expenses without cutting back or eliminating some costs, and that could mean as well some jobs that would be lost. Let's talk about the liability issue a little bit. Under Senator Kennedy's legislation, employees will be able to sue their employers for something the employer is not obligated to provide. That sounds a little strange to me, so I have to say it again. People will be able to sue their employer if they are unhappy with something their employer is not in any way obligated to provide. Proponents of increasing costs through liability will say: We have carved out employers from the liability provisions so only insurers, HMOs, and third-party plan administrators would be liable. This may be true in theory, but what they will not tell you is that there is already no way to separate the two under recent guidance from the Department of Labor. The guidance clarifies that employers have a fiduciary obligation to monitor plan quality. This responsibility renders so-called carve-outs ineffective because there is no way employers can completely absolve themselves of benefit decisions under their health plan which is required under the Democrats' illusionary carve-outs. As I have mentioned before, the Kennedy-Daschle approach will increase costs, and even if employers could meet the guidelines for that liability exemption, the costs are still passed on to the employers and, of course, those costs are then passed on to their employees. Essentially, the Kennedy-Daschle liability provision does not guarantee quality health care. What it does guarantee is increased health premium costs for every American. What fork in the road is this country taking when a notion such as this is given any serious discussion? Isn't it apparent to supporters of the Kennedy bill that if companies are exposed to this type of liability they would just drop insurance coverage for their employees? I have never believed we need more litigation in this country, and this is certainly not an exception. We all want patients to have protection as much as anyone else. Yet how do we ensure patients are receiving the health care they need in a timely fashion? I believe a strong, independent, quick, and easily accessible appeals process for those who have been denied health care services they and their physicians believe is necessary is what is needed and appropriate means to resolve coverage disputes. Again, as an original cosponsor of the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus legislation, I support an idea for this strong, independent, external appeals process to ensure people receive the health care they need and to make sure they get it when they need it. Perhaps the best part of the appeals process is the fact that the external appeal is binding on the health plan but not binding on the person who is appealing. What does that exactly mean? It means if you were denied care you and your physician believe is necessary, go through the appeals process and the appeals board agrees with you, the health plan then is legally bound to pay for that care. However, if you are unsatisfied with the outcome of the appeals process, you can then sue the health plan under current law, which allows the collection of attorney's fees, the cost benefit, court costs, injunctive relief, and other equitable relief. No one can sue their way to good health, but we can give them the tools they need to get the care they need when they need it, and the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus gives consumers those tools. The Kennedy-Daschle bill also includes a provision which, on the surface, also sounds very reasonable. It allows physicians and patients to determine what is medically necessary. Who could be against that? But what they do not tell you is creating such a standard could, under some circumstances, work against the patient's best interest. I will give an example of how this could happen. Under Senator Kennedy's bill, health plans would be required to cover the costs of whatever setting or duration of care a physician decides is ``medically necessary.'' The bill goes on to define medical necessity as whatever is consistent with generally accepted principles of professional medical practice. This effectively prohibits health plans from intervening in situations when it is clearly in the patient's best interest. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control figures indicate that approximately 349,000 unnecessary caesarean sections were performed in 1991. While decisions regarding these individual procedures were based on generally accepted principles, a large number of women were needlessly subjected to major surgery and risk of infection. Another shortcoming of the generally accepted principles of medical practice is the variance in treatments from region to region. Let's take a look at what the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1998 says about treatments for breast cancer; Once diagnosed, surgery is universally recommended for the treatment of breast cancer. There are two principle surgical approaches: breast sparing surgery (lumpectomy, which is followed by radiation therapy) and mastectomy (complete removal of the breast). Randomized clinical trials have shown that these two approaches have nearly identical rates of cancer cure. . . . Despite scientific evidence that the survival rate is the same for breast sparing surgery and for mastectomy, and in spite of wide consensus that patient preferences should determine which treatment is chosen, the wide variations in surgical rates suggest that physician, rather than patient, preferences are the deciding factor on most cases. That's what the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1998 has to say about the choice between lumpectomies and mastectomies. Let me tell you about a related incident which actually happened in my state of Minnesota. Several years ago, one of the major health plans in Minnesota received a telephone call from a Minnesota physician seeking authorization to perform an outpatient mastectomy on a woman suffering from breast cancer. This physician wanted to admit a woman to a same- day surgical center, remove her breast and then send her home later that day. The health plan's medical director had never heard of an outpatient mastectomy being done before. In answer to questioning by the health plan, the physician admitted he had done the procedure only one time before. When asked why he wanted to do this procedure on an outpatient basis, he told the plan it was at the request of the patient. The plan's representative told the physician to wait and make no plans to do the procedure outpatient. The health plan then went to the patient and asked why she would want to procedure done as an outpatient. She told the plan's representative that the physician told her the plan was ordering him to do the procedure on an outpatient basis. ``You know how insurance companies are,'' she said he told her. When the plan told her they hadn't ordered the physician to do the procedure outpatient, she began to cry. She did not want the procedure done outpatient. The health plan called the physician back and told him that due to the lack of medical necessity, they were denying his request for authorization to do the mastectomy on an outpatient basis. The patient had the mastectomy as an inpatient, and because of complications, she ended up staying in the hospital for several days. Mr. President, this women was a single-mother of three who would have been totally incapable of caring for herself, much less her three children, if the physician had done the procedure outpatient as he originally requested. This example demonstrates how health plans can and do contribute to quality in our health care system. Are there problems in some areas? Have mistakes been made? Yes. But, let's think about the consequences of what we do here today. Will the Kennedy bill really make health care better? More quality oriented? I don't think it will. New breakthroughs in pharmaceuticals and medical devices are unveiled almost daily. Many of these breakthroughs come from Minnesota companies and research facilities. These breakthroughs represent opportunities for individuals to live longer, healthier, more productive lives. I believe it would be difficult for physicians, or anyone, to be able to keep up with all the latest technology and treatments by themselves. Yet, that's what we're forcing them to do if the medical necessity provision included in the Kennedy bill passes as written. Further, if plans are required to pay for whatever procedure, treatment, drug or device providers offer, we could be putting patient's health, and perhaps their lives, at stake. To show the inconsistency of President Clinton and Senator Kennedy display by insisting the medical necessity provision be part of the Patients' Bill of Rights, they directly contradict a report issued in February by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. The report found that the majority of all Medicare fee-for-service fraud cases is a lack of medical necessity. You may recall Secretary Shalala holding a press conference in response to this report calling on America's seniors to be more vigilant when receiving health care services to assure that fraud is not being committed. If the administration is urging consumers and health plans to take action in order to reduce fraud in the Medicare program, why is it proposing to bar health plans from using the very same tools to prevent fraud in their programs? While I'm thinking about Medicare and the Patients' Bill of Rights, it was President Clinton who insisted, under the threat of a veto, a provision be included in the Balanced Budget Act which denies seniors one of the most basic patient's rights--the ability to use their own money to pay for the health care services they believe are necessary. Our Democratic colleagues agreed with the President and have stalled reconsideration of this egregious violation of a basic right. I am hopeful we can get to that patient's right later this year. The problems our health care system faces are not just the result of managed care. If it were, Minnesota, where 90 percent of health care consumers are in managed care organizations, would not have the longest life expectancy in the United States. The Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul would not have the lowest health care costs of the top 20 metropolitan areas in the United States, and we wouldn't have an uninsured rate half the national average. Minnesota has found a way to live and thrive with managed care. It's not without problem, but for the vast majority of Minnesotans, it works well. With all due respect to my colleague from Massachusetts, Minnesotans don't want his definition of a quality health plan and we don't want him to tell us what protections we need or don't need. During my first term in Congress, President Clinton introduced the Health Security Act, which is now commonly referred to as ``Clinton Care.'' I was opposed to the President's legislation because it was nothing short of a government take-over of the best health care system in the world. I remain opposed to this type of legislation because it is too prescriptive, too centralized and limits health care choices. Over the past two years, we've seen bill after bill introduced which propose, in the name of quality health care, to allow federal bureaucrats, Congress and lawyers to practice medicine without a license. Benefit mandates are thrown around Congress as if there were no consequences. I've heard it referred to as legislating by body part. We are told by those on the other side of the aisle, ``we need to have benefit mandates so Americans can receive quality health care,'' and ``let's preempt the states because they don't know what they're doing.'' I disagree, and the very individuals who regulate HMOs and every other type of health plan for the respective states--the insurance commissioners--also strongly disagree. In fact, State insurance commissioners have already spoken to Congress on this issue. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners wrote this to Chairman Jeffords in March of this year. It is our belief that states should and will continue the efforts to develop creative, flexible, market-sensitive protections for health consumers in fully insured plans, and Congress should focus attention on those consumers who have no protections in self-funded ERISA plans. The letter goes on to explain very precisely their view of pending legislation: The states have already adopted statutory and regulatory protections for consumers in fully insured plans and have tailored these protections to fit the needs of their states' consumers and health care marketplaces. In addition, many states are supplementing their existing protections during the current legislative session based upon particular circumstances within their own states. We do not want states to be preempted by Congressional or administrative actions. There has been a lot of smoke blown around here about how many health-based organizations have endorsed this bill or that bill, but when it comes to regulating health insurance policies, I believe we need to put more stock in the option of those who are currently responsible for regulating health insurance--our state insurance commissioners. They know best what the people in their states need-- they know best how to achieve their goals, and Congress should know better than to question their ability or willingness to meet those challenges. As we get deeper and deeper into the details of the Kennedy-Daschle bill, I am reminded of something Minority Leader Daschle said in the opening hours of this debate. He claimed that the reason insurance companies call them HMOs ``is that H-M-O stands for their patient philosophy: Having Minimal Options.'' Mr. President, I suggest that it is the Kennedy-Daschle bill that would take away options and our colleagues should be willing to admit it. We have seen our colleagues' true motives when they backed President Clinton's Health Security Act, when they backed President Clinton taking away a senior's right to use their own earnings to pay for medical services without the government and now we see it with the Kennedy-Daschle Patients' Bill of Rights. Consumer's options are becoming minimal and we have government to thank for that. To suggest that our bill--the only one expanding options for the American people by eliminating restrictions on medical savings accounts, allowing the self-employed to fully deduct the cost of purchasing health insurance, and permitting the carryover of unused funds in flexible spending accounts--limits Americans choices, ignores the contents of our bill and ignores the reality of the Kennedy-Daschle bill. Another issue I would like to talk about is something I have taken great interest in over the past three years--emergency medical services. This is perhaps one area in our debate which Republicans and Democrats have agreed is important enough to ensure access for Americans in need of immediate care. Every proposal in Congress contains some form of the prudent layperson standard for emergency services. That is with good reason. The Federal Government has some precedence in dealing with access to emergency care through a law enacted in the 1980s called EMTALA, or The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This act requires hospitals to treat everyone and anyone who enters their emergency department regardless of ability to pay as a precondition to participation in the Medicare program. All the proposals before Congress with the prudent layperson standard include some reference to EMTALA. Where I have concern is the lack of any mention of ambulance services in any Patients' Bill of Rights legislation. While there has been some mention of ambulance services being included as part of the ancillary services clause under EMTALA, this simply will not work. I will remind my colleagues that EMTALA only affects what happens once an individual arrives at a hospital's emergency room door. It covers none of the pre-hospital care people receive from courageous EMS personnel all over the Nation whose sole function is to get the sickest among us to the emergency room quickly, efficiently and safely so emergency physicians can tend to our condition. Contrary to what most people think, EMS personnel do not make diagnoses. They do not make decisions about whether a patient should or should not be transported to an emergency room based on their medical condition. Ambulance personnel respond to calls initiated in any number of ways, arrive at the location, assess the patient's condition, stabilize them and ready them for transportation to a facility with the personnel trained to make a diagnosis. The reason I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention is because I believe many of us have not taken the time to fully understand the function ambulance services performs in the health care delivery system. We cannot afford to continue ignoring the important role EMS plays in health care. For the past 3 years, I have introduced legislation which would address some of the problems ambulance services faces every day. My most recent iteration is S. 911, the Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act. I invite any and all of my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this important legislation. I am hopeful we can include several of its provisions in the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation before us today. For every 1 percent increase in premiums, there are an additional two to four thousand uninsured in Minnesota. Whether it's a family of four in Ada, Minnesota or a single mother of two in Zumbrota, I don't want to be responsible for any Minnesotan losing their health insurance coverage. I believe if I were to vote for the Kennedy-Daschle bill, I would be doing just that--ensuring that 36,000 Minnesotans will be forced to drop their coverage because they can no longer afford it. That is something I, along with 97 of my colleagues in the Senate, voted not to do in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution last year. I urge my colleagues to honor the promise they made in that vote and defeat the government-centered, one-size-fits-all vision of health care illustrated by the Kennedy-Daschle Patients' Bill of Rights. Patients will get a bill all right--one taken out of their paychecks every month. I urge my colleagues to say yes to creating choices, yes to protecting consumers who aren't currently protected, yes to being mindful of costs, and yes to increasing the number of insured--they can do all that with one vote for the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. It will not come out of the Superfund money, I assure you of that.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I rise to lend my voice in support of Senator Collins' amendment regarding deductibility for long-term care insurance. I know some of those on the other side call this a sham-type proposal. But to the minority, a lot of times a sham, or empty vessel, or a shell game, if the Government doesn't do it, or buy it, or provide it somehow, if you encourage personal responsibility, if you encourage individuals to buy in the private sector, that doesn't count. The Government is left out. I think by offering this amendment--by offering the tax incentives-- to try to level the playing field between big employers, self-employed, and employees who do not have coverage, and giving them this incentive, many will take the option to buy this long-term insurance because they will have more access and because it will be more affordable. That is the heart and basis of this amendment. As Senator Collins mentioned, the long-term care provision of this amendment was contained within the Health Care Access and Equity Act which I introduced last month. I am pleased the Senate will get a chance to vote on this issue because it is such an important issue for today's seniors and tomorrow's retirees. Mr. President, it is estimated that, in the history of the world, half of the people who have ever reached age 65 are alive today. As the baby boom generation ages, the population of those over age 65 will increase quicker than at any time in history. The increase in the aged population brings with it a number of complex and vexing issues, one of which is long-term care. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act tinkered slightly with the issue of long-term care insurance, but we need to meet the issue head on rather than skirt the edges. I have believed we should encourage individuals to save for their retirement needs and, for a number of reasons, usually cost, long-term care insurance is often overlooked during retirement planning. Unfortunately, I think this often leads to individuals spending themselves down to poverty and relying on Medicaid in order to pay for long-term care. Again, the heart of this amendment is to encourage people when they are planning for those years to also include long-term care to protect their estate, to protect their heirs. By allowing individuals to deduct the costs of long-term care insurance, we can prevent many of our elderly from impoverishing themselves in order to receive long-term care. I also wanted to express my appreciation to Senator Hutchinson for his work on the prudent layperson language which is so important to all of our constituents. As many of my colleagues know, I have been working on emergency medical services issues for the past 3 years and believe this provision will not only help patients in their time of emergency, but it will help our EMS providers continue to offer the most advanced emergency care in the world. This will help do that. Finally, Mr. President, I'd like to express my appreciation to the physician Senator from Tennessee for not only his work on the access to specialists provision, but also his work throughout this debate providing a voice of experience and reason. Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote for this much needed tax relief for long-term care insurance.

Mr. GRAMS. We have discussed that. I believe Senator Nickles has today talked about that. We do have provisions that will be offered. The plan is there. Don't think Republicans would offer this without a plan to go along with it.

Mr. GRAMS. As Senator Nickles said, it will be offered.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a Minnesota radio station from Bemidji, KBHP-FM, for geing honored with the 1999 Crystal Radio Award given by the National Association of Broadcasters. The Crystal Radio Award recognizes stations for their year-round commitment to community service. KBHP-FM was one of ten stations chosen to receive Crystals, making this their third award since 1987. Since the Award's inception in 1987, eight other stations in Minnesota have joined the ranks receiving the Crystal. These stations are WJON-AM in St Cloud, KSJN-FM in St. Paul, WWTC-AM, WCCO- AM, KQRS-FM/AM in Minneapolis (twice), KCUE-AM in Red Wing, KWOA-AM in Worthington, and WLTE-FM in Minneapolis. I congratulate KBHP-FM for this great achievement and enter into the Record a brief description of the Station's work from the Cyrystal Radio Award program.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, over the last several months, I have also worked to focus attention on the value of the HIDTA program to communities throughout Minnesota. This past Spring, I presented the need for a ``Minnesota HIDTA'' to Office of National Drug Control Policy Director Barry McCaffrey during the May edition of my monthly cable television program. As the administrator of the HIDTA program, General McCaffrey clearly understands that although law enforcement is primarily a local responsibility, the federal government can support the ability of local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute serious drug offenders. I am pleased to have included a provision within S. 899, ``The 21st Century Justice Act'' that underscores the need for additional federal antidrug resources in Minnesota. This provision directs the Office of National Drug Control Policy to establish a ``Northern Border High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area'' that would include the State of Minnesota. It also authorizes $2.7 million in Fiscal Year 2000 to improving coordination of antidrug efforts currently underway by local prosecutors, sheriffs, police chiefs, and state law enforcement officials. Again, I commend the Senate for its support for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program. I will continue to work with law enforcement officials, my colleagues in the Senate, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy to ensure that localities have the assistance they need to protect our communities from crime and drug abuse. Exhibit No. 1 United States Attorney's Office-District of Minnesota Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Drug Enforcement Administration Federal Bureau of Investigation Hennepin County Sheriffs Office Internal Revenue Service/CID Minnesota Department of Criminal Apprehension Minnesota Attorney General's Office Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association Minnesota Department of Public Safety Minnesota Sheriffs Association Minnesota State Patrol St. Paul Police Department United States Customs, Office of Enforcement United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 1282, the Fiscal Year 2000 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations bill. In particular, I commend the Senate Appropriations Committee for its support of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program within this legislation. The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program was established in 1988 to assist state and local governments to investigate, prosecute and prevent illegal drug production and trafficking. Since 1990, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has designated twenty-six regions of the nation as High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. Most recently, the States of Ohio, Oregon, and Hawaii were among those areas granted HIDTA status to help improve coordination of drug control efforts. Unfortunately, communities in my home state of Minnesota continue to be threatened by drug abuse and illegal drug trafficking, particularly methamphetamine. In recent years, methamphetamine has become the drug of choice throughout Minnesota, and is closely associated with increased violent crime. In my recent meeting with Office of National Drug Control Policy Director General Barry McCaffrey, he referred to methamphetamine as ``the worst drug that ever hit America.'' The alarming rate of meth production and trafficking has been caused by small, independent organizations that run clandestine laboratories in apartment complexes, farms, motel rooms and residences with inexpensive, over-the-counter-materials. The secretive nature of the manufacturing process involves toxic chemicals, and frequently results in fires, damaging explosions, and destruction to our environment. A constituent from Benson, Minnesota underscored the devastating effects of illegal meth production when he wrote, ``The resultant crime and addition problems are destroying small and mid-sized rural communities.'' The high volume of meth trafficking in Minnesota has also placed enormous strain on the resources of those federal and state law enforcement agencies investigating abuse of this deadly substance. In 1998, for example, task forces from Freeborn County, Hennepin County, and Washington County seized a total of fourteen meth labs, an increase from five seizures in 1997. In 1998, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Resident Office of the Drug Enforcement Agency seized more than 200 pounds of meth, compared to 67 pounds seized in 1997. Mr. President, Minnesota's local law enforcement community has begun to strengthen its strategy for combating illegal drug use. By September 1, a committee that includes representatives from the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, the Minnesota Attorney General's Office, and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety will submit its proposed HIDTA initiative to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. When this designation is granted, Minnesota will receive federal assistance to improve antidrug efforts currently underway by local prosecutors, sheriffs, police chiefs and state law enforcement officials. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, a complete list of the federal and state agencies developing this proposal be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his remarks this morning. Also, I thank him for all his hard work during this and previous Congresses to make sure that American families will be allowed to keep a little bit more of their hard-earned money, that less of it will come to Washington, and that they will have a little bit more control over how they spend it and what they spend it on. I appreciate it and thank him for all his efforts and work. I also recognize this morning the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, who also has been a leader in the fight against higher taxes and is working very hard for tax relief. I yield 7 minutes to Senator Ashcroft.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator from Missouri for those words and, again, thank him for all his efforts on tax relief. I now recognize the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, who also wanted to talk about it, for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we wanted to take a little time this morning to again talk about what I consider the overtaxation of the average working family in the United States. The tax burden is getting larger and larger every day and every year. In fact, under this administration it has grown by about 50 percent in just the last 6 years. To sum up some of these things we do have a number of other speakers who will come down this morning and join us and lay out some of the facts and figures on the current tax status in the United States. Next Sunday our Nation will celebrate the Fourth of July. Millions of Americans and their families and friends will gather to raise the national flag, parade in their hometown, grill in their backyard, or drive to the beach for a relaxing vacation. The Fourth of July is always a truly great American holiday. As we observe this special occasion, I rise to remind the American people of why we celebrate the Fourth of July, Independence Day, and to call upon Congress and the President to take immediate action to provide meaningful tax relief for all overtaxed Americans. This great Nation was born out of a tax revolt. The revolt was not because of Founding Fathers were selfish but because they did not want to be shackled under more government regulations, bureaucracy, taxing powers, and unjust legislation of their homeland. They did not want to send their hard-earned money to the Parliament in England that furthered their own special interests in order to keep themselves in power. This tax revolt was about freedom and liberty, about a person being able to own himself, his labor, and the fruits of his labor. This is the simple moral origin of our Nation. Our Founding Fathers understood well that low taxes and freedom were directly related. They did their best to ensure that the American people continued to enjoy their freedom. Unfortunately, this freedom that our Founding Fathers treasured so much and that triggered our Nation's independence has been eroded. Today, Americans are overtaxed. The tax burden on working Americans is more crushing than ever. In 1913, less than 1 percent of all Americans paid income tax. Only 5 percent of Americans paid any income tax as late as 1939, before World War II. Today, the Federal tax burden is at a historic high. Federal taxes consume nearly 21 percent of national income. A typical American family pays $9,450 in Federal income tax per year. A median-income family can expect to pay nearly 40 percent of its income in Federal, State, and local taxes--more than it spends on food, clothing, and housing combined. But our Democratic colleagues and President Clinton do not believe this rapidly growing tax burden is excessive and have preferred new spending to tax cuts. One of the best indicators of how exhausting the tax burden has become is the annual arrival of Tax Freedom Day, the day on which Americans stop working just to pay their State, Federal, and local taxes and actually begin keeping their earnings for themselves. This year, Americans had to wait until May 11 before they marked Tax Freedom Day. At 132 days into the year, it's the latest arrival of Tax Freedom Day ever. As a sign of just how far and fast taxes have escalated, in 1950, Americans marked Tax Freedom Day on April 3. Cost of Government Day, a day calculated by Americans for Tax Reform, goes further by including taxes, regulations, and total government spending. This year Cost of Government Day arrived on June 22. The total cost of government in 1999 is estimated at $3.72 trillion, that is up from $3.56 trillion in 1998. This is a 4.5-percent increase overall, and that is almost double the rate of inflation. The cost of Government regulation alone will cost taxpayers over $1.06 trillion in 1999. Again, our Democratic colleagues and President Clinton do not believe this rapidly growing tax burden is excessive, and they have repeatedly denied tax cuts to Americans. Let's take a look at another indicator. Over the course of President Clinton's administration, Washington's income has grown faster than our economy and has grown twice as fast than the income of the average American. In fact, Federal taxes have grown by over 54 percent during this administration. That is nearly $4,000 per year more per person. The income tax rates also indicate Americans are overtaxed. The average tax rate for the 437,036 individual returns filed for 1916 was 2.75 percent. Again, the average tax rate for nearly the half million Americans who filed returns in 1916 was just 2.75 percent of income. Under President Reagan, we had only two income tax rates: 15 percent and 28 percent. But today, there are now five tax rates, and Americans can be taxed as high as 40 percent in Federal taxes. In the past few years, over 20 million American workers earning between $30,000 to $50,000 have been pushed from the 15-percent income tax bracket to the 28-percent income tax bracket due to the unfair tax systems we have. On top of that, they have to also pay a 15.3-percent payroll tax. Federal taxes alone account for the loss of 43 percent of the income for those middle-income Americans who have worked hard just to try to get ahead. The President and the Democrats always like to tell middle-income Americans that, of course, they are only out there taxing the rich while they stick their hands deeper and deeper into the pockets of average Americans. They use class warfare as a cover to tax all Americans at a higher and higher rate. The rapidly growing tax burdens hurt low-income and minimum wage workers as well. They may not pay income tax, but they still have to pay the payroll tax. As low-income and minimum wage workers work harder and earn more, their payroll tax increases, again taking a huge bite into hard-earned dollars that are most needed to keep those families above the poverty line. Once again, our Democratic colleagues and the President do not believe this rapidly growing tax burden is excessive and have repeatedly refused to support any tax cuts. Let's ask the American people if they are overtaxed and want a tax refund on their overpaid taxes. Let's ask a full-time mom and former schoolteacher, Susie Dutcher, about the overall tax burden. According to her: Taxes are far and away the biggest portion of our family budget. Susie would love to put more dollars into their retirement account, would love to buy more books for their three children, or put more money in their college fund or spend more money for other family priorities, but she cannot because much of the fruit of their labor is again taken by the Government. Ask John Batey of Tennessee about the death tax. John runs a 500-acre family farm that has been part of the Batey family for 192 years. John has spent all of his life on his family farm and, like most other farmers, he plans to be a good steward of the land, save and build his assets, and someday try to leave his farm to his children. After the death of his father 5 years ago and the death of his mother last June, John began to settle his parents' estate. As he was about to take over the family farm, the IRS sent a death tax bill for a quarter of a million dollars. The land value of the farm increased significantly, but the death tax has never been indexed. John had no choice but to sell some of his assets, dip into their lifelong savings, and even borrow some money to pay Uncle Sam. The Federal death tax was originally levied to pay for the war in 1916 to help fund the efforts of World War I, and estates under $9 million were not taxed at that time. But it later evolved into a mechanism, of course, with a redistribution of private income. Just like the Batey family, millions of American farmers and small businessowners are faced with paying high taxes or, in fact, losing their farms and businesses to pay the death tax. Unfortunately, again, my Democratic colleagues insist that a cut in the death tax is a tax cut for the rich, and they can hardly justify a costly tax cut that benefits some of the wealthiest taxpayers. Ask janitor Joe of Virginia about the capital gains tax. Over the last 30 years, Joe saved every penny of his income he could possibly save after paying Federal, State, and local taxes. He took the risk, and he invested his savings smartly in the market. He was excited as he watched his savings grow into $1/2 million in assets. That excitement soon turned into torment upon retirement when he began to withdraw the funds. The Government took nearly one-third of those hard-earned savings for capital gains taxes. Or you could ask newly wedded Alicia Jones of my home State of Minnesota about the marriage penalty. Alicia and her husband graduated from college and had just begun working full time 2 years ago. In 1998, Alicia and her husband worked full time in professional careers. They had no children and were renting an apartment and trying to save to buy their first house. They had to pay at least an additional $1,400 under the marriage penalty tax in our Tax Code for simply being married. As a result, on top of the over $10,000 they already had deducted from their checks to pay Federal taxes, they had to take an additional $700 out of their limited savings account to pay for Federal taxes, taxes that they would not have had to pay, by the way, if they had not been married. She wrote and said: I'm frustrated by this. I'm frustrated for the future. How do we get ahead when each year we have to take money out of our savings to pay more and more for our taxes? I hope that you will remember my concern. Alicia's story is not uncommon. There are 21 million American families in this same situation. If these individual stories are not convincing, let's take another look at the polls. A recent Gallup-CNN-USA Today poll shows that over 65 percent of Americans believe taxes are too high. Half of the American population think the tax system itself is not fair. A Fox News poll indicates that 65 percent of Americans believe that no more than 20 percent of their income should go to Federal, State, and local taxes. As I said, about an average of 40 percent today is collected from Americans across the country. An Associated Press poll also shows that the majority of Americans want to use the non-Social Security surplus that we are hearing so much about this week for tax relief, not for more pet spending programs by this administration. The list goes on. There are a lot of people around Congress, and especially in the White House, who talk about tax relief, but I believe it is all show. The message from the American people is loud and clear: We are overtaxed, we want meaningful tax relief, and we want and need tax reform. I ask my fellow colleagues and the President to ponder a very fundamental question about taxation over this holiday: Should our Government tax working Americans' income when they first earn it? Should the Government be able to tax it again when they save it, tax it again when they spend it, tax it again when they invest it, and tax it yet again when they die? They talk about redoing taxes for low income people because it takes a larger portion of disposable income. I agree, but there is no excuse to tax others even more to support larger and larger spending plans. To my fellow Americans, I invite you to think about our country's origin over this Independence Day holiday. Take a closer look at your payroll stubs to see how much in taxes is taken from your income, or just take a few moments to examine the hidden taxes on your holiday spending. You will be shocked to find out how much tax you are actually paying. Let me give a few examples. If you drive the family car on vacation on the holiday, remember that 45 percent of the cost of your car goes to taxes. Over half of what you pay for a gallon of gasoline ends up going for taxes. Thirty-six percent of the cost of the tires on your car goes to taxes. And if you choose to fly, 40 percent of that cost also will go to the Government. Staying at a hotel is not cheap either, but did you know about 40 percent of your bill goes to the Government in the form of taxes? If you decide to stay at home and have a simple barbecue to celebrate Independence Day, the Government will stay there as an uninvited guest, and 43 percent of the cost of beer and 35 percent of the cost of soda will go to taxes. The Government's slice of your pizza is about 38 percent, and taxes account for 72 percent if you want to have a drink. Even 31 percent of what you pay for a loaf of bread is taxed. I think you get the idea of how much of the price of the average products you will buy over this holiday weekend is going to go to the Government in taxes. So in closing, I am encouraged by President Clinton's announcement that the budget surplus will grow by an estimated $1 trillion over the next 15 years. This additional budget surplus, I believe, makes tax relief even more necessary and even more feasible. Even President Clinton is talking about new possible tax relief for the American people this year. I welcome the opportunity to work with the President to try to provide tax relief for all Americans--not to talk about it, not to be all show, but to make sure that some tax reform is passed in tax relief. Saving Social Security, reducing the national debt, cutting taxes are imperative for our economic security and our economic growth. Our strong economy has offered us a historic opportunity to achieve this three-pronged goal. Republicans are committed to returning the non-Social Security surplus to overtaxed Americans who are out there working hard and generating it in the first place. We have reserved nearly $800 billion of the non-Social Security money for tax relief in our budget, and we will provide meaningful tax relief for all Americans this year. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I now yield the floor to my colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. I appreciate the words and all of the efforts of the Senator from Alabama. He is talking about the President announcing that a tax cut is possible. He is agreeing with us that tax cuts are important. I think we have to be very careful because I think it would be a bad deal for the American people if we got a little bit of a tax cut but it came at the cost of huge increases in spending. We don't want that type of a tradeoff. We want to make sure that tax relief means tax relief and not just some token tax relief while we increase spending over in the other side. I recognize for up to 5 minutes this morning the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, and I also want to compliment him for all of his hard work and efforts in the area of taxes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his efforts in discussing the importance of continued work in reducing the tax burden for average Americans. The bottom line is that we are overtaxed today. The average family today spends about 40 percent of everything they make on taxes. Compare that to 1916 when the taxes began; it was less than a 3-percent tax burden on those paying taxes at that time, which was only about 5 percent of the American people. Today over 40 percent of a family's income goes into taxes. When we talk about tax relief, we are talking about giving back money that has been overcharged--in other words, the excess money, the surplus. We are not talking about cutting any Government spending. We are not talking about reducing even the size and scope of the Government under these plans. That we need to do. If we were going to actually cut taxes, we would be giving back the surplus and then looking for ways to reduce the amount of money the Federal Government spends. A couple of brief facts on the tax burden and how it has grown. Under the Clinton administration, individual income tax relief for income tax receipts has far outstripped our economic output. The tax collections have more than doubled this country's gross domestic product growth in the last 6 years. It is almost double what personal income growth has been. In other words, Washington spending is growing twice as fast as the growth in the entire economy and twice as fast as a person's personal income. I think that is what we are talking about today. We all need to pay taxes. We need to support Government. There are many good things the Government does. We need to review the excessive spending and Washington's belief that it can do everything for everybody. In a bipartisan effort and mood, I yield the reminder of my time to the Senator from South Carolina to sneak in some remarks this morning. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the recent passage by the Senate of S. 254, the ``Violent and Repeat Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999.'' One of the most complex issues facing our society is how communities confront the troubling trends in violent crime committed by young people. In particular, the recent tragedy in Littleton, Colorado underscores that all elements of our society, including parents, faith- based organizations, local officials, educators, students, and law enforcement officials should be encouraged to work together to develop innovative and effective solutions to reducing and preventing violent acts committed by our nation's youth. In 1997, young people under the age of eighteen represented 17 percent of all violent arrests; 50 percent of all arson arrests; 37 percent of burglary arrests; and 14 percent of murder arrests. Overall in 1997, law enforcement agencies made approximately 2.8 million arrests of persons under the age of eighteen. These sobering statistics indicate the need to combat youth violence in America to ensure that the young offenders of today do not become the career criminals of tomorrow. For these reasons, I am pleased to have voted for passage of S. 254, the ``Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act.'' I believe that many of the provisions within this legislation will hold violent juvenile offenders accountable for their actions and also integrate many young offenders back into their communities. We should all recognize that federal legislation is not a ``silver bullet'' solution to the problem of youth violence, and that our response to this epidemic is only one aspect of nationwide efforts to reduce and prevent violent juvenile crime. Among its most significant provisions, this bipartisan legislation will provide assistance to Minnesota and other states to help develop local programs that hold young criminal offenders accountable for their actions, including such reforms as drug testing offenders upon arrest; implementing graduated sanction programs for repeat offenders; and building detention facilities for juvenile offenders. Equally important, states will also be empowered to prevent juvenile delinquency through initiatives such as one-on-one mentoring programs aimed toward at-risk juveniles and providing treatment for juveniles who suffer from substance abuse. Mr. President, this measure also addresses an area of increasing concern to communities in my home state of Minnesota--gang violence. Today, there are more than 12,000 gang members in Minnesota, the nation's tenth-highest level of gang participation. Throughout Minnesota, many communities have developed programs to stop the spread of gang activity, including the ``South Metro Gang and Youth Violence Project'' sponsored by Carver, Dakota and Scott counties. Among its achievements, this project has developed a computerized database to identify gang members, established a telephone hotline for graffiti removal, and formed the ``South Metro Gang Task Force,'' through which law enforcement agencies meet monthly to share information regarding gang activity in their jurisdictions. Through education, training and other community initiatives, this program has begun to tackle the threat of gang and youth violence. In my view, the federal government can supplement local anti-gang initiatives by vigorously enforcing federal laws designed to combat interstate gang crime. The anti-gang provisions within S. 254 will also help to deter gang involvement by imposing stiff penalties on anyone who recruits a minor to become a member of a criminal street gang, or who uses a minor to distribute illegal drugs or participate in crimes of violence--common activities of gangs. By imposing enhanced penalties on those who wear body armor during crimes and prohibiting violent felons from owning body armor, we will also help to protect the lives of law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line each day protecting our communities from the threat of gang violence. As someone who has always supported the important role of local communities in developing anti-crime strategies, I am pleased that the Senate modified this legislation to encourage the active role of State Advisory Groups (SAGs) as part of the juvenile justice system. I am hopeful that the conference report to this legislation will preserve the same level of responsibility for SAGs as provided under current law. In my home state, the Minnesota Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (JJAC) is composed of twenty-two individuals appointed by the Governor, including local prosecutors, students, police chiefs, judges, and state agency personnel, representative of communities throughout Minnesota. In 1998, JJAC awarded more than $1 million in federal funds to community-based organizations, schools, Indian reservations, and local law enforcement agencies to help develop effective and innovative juvenile offender programs. Statewide, more than 40,000 youth and their families were served by local programs identified and evaluated by JJAC last year. I ask that a list of the Minnesota Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee membership and a letter to me from the JJAC Vice-Chair be included as part of the Record following my remarks. Mr. President, over the last several months, I have given careful thought to the aspects of our society that may contribute to incidents of juvenile crime, including the influence of the entertainment industry upon young people. My concerns are underscored by a recent e- mail I received from Andrew Backenstross, a young Minnesotan and Boy Scout who is working on his Citizenship in the Nation merit badge in the community of White Bear Lake. Andrew wrote, ``All my teachers say that school should be a safe place to go and study. But Colorado and other places show us how exposed we are and that it could happen to us. Public schools need to be able to discipline or remove anyone who is not a threat or will not meet standards. Metal detectors, searches and police walking the halls is not the answer. That was not needed when my Dad went to school. People thought differently. We have to ask, what has changed? Maybe we are being conditioned for violence. ``My parents have taught me about standards, acceptable behavior and respect for myself and others. Maybe more help could be given to parents to be parents. Maybe if they didn't have to give so much of their income away in taxes they could afford to stay home and be parents.'' In response to the concerns expressed by young people such as Andrew, and thousands of parents, I am pleased that the Senate bill encourages the entertainment industry to voluntarily establish guidelines to reduce violence in motion pictures, television programming, video games, and music lyrics. The bill also encourages Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide filtering software to consumers that could block juvenile access to unsuitable material. These provisions will provide parents with the tools needed to reduce their children's exposure to the culture of violence. Mr. President, there were several amendments offered to this legislation that would impose additional restrictions upon lawful Americans, without contributing to a reduction in juvenile crime. Throughout the debate over these proposals, I urged the Senate to promote greater enforcement of our existing firearms laws before passing new gun control measures that would infringe upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. I am very concerned that prosecutions of those who violate federal firearms laws have been far less zealous than what the American people deserve and expect. According to the Executive Office of the United States Attorney, there were only eight prosecutions in 1998 of those who violated the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm in a school zone. From 1996 through 1998, there was only one prosecution of felons who have been denied the purchase of firearms after being subjected to a background check. These statistics underscore the reality that passing new, expansive gun control laws will not prevent violent crime or the illegal use of firearms. As an alternative to far-reaching gun control proposals, I supported an amendment that encouraged the enforcement of existing gun laws, the rights of law-abiding citizens, and keeping firearms from children and criminals. This proposal provided $50 million to hire additional federal prosecutors to prosecute those who violate our gun laws; a prospective ban on juveniles convicted of violent offenses from ever owning a firearm; and enhanced penalties for juveniles who illegally bring a gun or ammunition to school with the intent of possessing or using the firearm to commit a violent crime. Additionally, this proposal requires all firearms transactions at gun shows to be subject to the National Instant Check System (NICS) without subjecting law-abiding purchasers to unnecessary fees or record-keeping requirements. Importantly, this provision preserves legitimate business transactions at gun shows while also addressing the public safety concerns of millions of Americans. In my view, this proposal was more reasonable than a more-restrictive proposal by Senator Lautenberg that was later passed by the Senate. Mr. President, I believe the Senate passage of this bill is an important contribution to the national response to youth violence. The 106th Congress should seize the opportunity to pass meaningful and balanced legislation that will encourage local solutions to the complex problem of juvenile crime.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Clearly, Mr. President, MSAs offer many benefits for the uninsured. Let's lift the restrictions placed on MSAs and allow everyone to open a Medical Savings Account. The Health Care Accessibility and Equity Act begins the process of dealing with our nation's long term care needs. Mr. President, it is estimated that, in the history of the world, half of the people who have ever reached age 65 are alive today. And as the babyboom generation ages, the population of those over age 65 will increase quicker than at any time in history. The increase in the aged population brings with it a number of complex and vexing issues, one of which is long term care. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act tinkered slightly with the issue of long term care insurance, but we need to meet the issue head on. The legislation Chairman Roth, Senator Abraham, and I are introducing today would eliminate the questions surrounding what constitutes a qualified versus non-qualified long term care plan and their tax treatment. I have always believed we should encourage individuals to save for their retirement needs and, for a number of reasons, usually cost, long term care insurance is often overlooked during retirement planning. Unfortunately, this often leads to individuals spending themselves down to poverty and relying on Medicaid. By allowing individuals to deduct the costs of long-term care insurance, we can prevent many of our elderly from impoverishing themselves in order to receive long-term care. The Health Care Accessibility and Equity Act of 1999 is good policy and will begin to address the crisis of 43 million Americans without access to affordable health care insurance today. Most important, it levels the playing field for those who are purchasing health insurance individually. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to help us get closer to the goal of health care access for all Americans.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Chairman Roth and Senator Abraham, to introduce legislation which will provide access to affordable health insurance for 43 million uninsured Americans, correct the inequities in the tax treatment of certain types of health insurance, and allow for the full deductibility of long term care insurance. The Health Care Accessibility and Equity Act of 1999 presents us with the opportunity to create the most comprehensive tax-deductible coverage system in our nation's history. One of the most discriminatory portions of the tax code is the disparate treatment between an employer purchasing a health plan as opposed to an individual purchasing health insurance on their own. Mr. President, when employers purchase a health plan for their employees, he or she can fully deduct the costs of providing that insurance, effectively lowering the actual costs of providing that coverage. However, when an employee purchases an individual policy on their own, they must do so with after tax-dollars. They don't have the ability or the advantage offered to employers to reduce the actual costs of the policy by deducting premiums from their taxes every year. Therefore, they usually wind up without health coverage. The Health Care Accessibility and Equity Act will end this discrimination within the tax code and make health care available for many Americans today. Further, the legislation offered today by Senator Roth, Senator Abraham, and myself would immediately allow the self-employed to fully deduct health insurance costs. Twenty-five million Americans are in families headed by a self-employed individiual--20 percent of those are uninsured. We always talk about trying to have more Americans covered by health care insurance. Yet, we have a tax code which discriminates against some, while favoring others. This results in fewer people being covered. Let's make the same tax incentives for purchasing health insurance available to employers apply to everyone--level the playing field and we will have taken the next logical step in the evolution of our health care system, Mr. President, I believe Congress should be doing all we can to lower the costs of health insurance. However, it seems most proposals before the Senate do just the opposite by forcing some federal definition of a quality health plan on consumers and sticking them with the bill. It's not good policy it does nothing for those who are uninsured and it certainly won't help those who will be forced to drop health insurance because they can no longer afford the premiums,. Mr. President, we've heard a lot of rhetoric about patient protections and why the Federal Government needs to step in and help consumers. Indeed, a better role for the Government is to help consumers by removing restrictions on Medical Savings Accounts as we do in this legislation as well. MSAs allow the consumers to control their costs when it comes to providing their families with health care. It would allow them to decide which provider they want to see and which services they want and will pay for. Certainly, empowering patients is a much more productive solution to a problem than simply forcing consumers to buy the government's definition of quality health insurance. When Congress created the medical savings accounts in the Kassebaum- Kennedy Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, there were so many restrictions placed upon the program then that it was essentially set up to fail. Yet MSAs have managed to become tremendously successful. According to the General Accounting Office, 37 percent of all MSA policyholders were previously uninsured. When you gave them the option and the opportunity, they were then able financially to buy insurance. Clearly, MSAs are providing an option for those who before couldn't afford to buy health insurance. The bill we are introducing today does not force Americans into a government-centered health care plan, a system that they spoke so loudly against back in 1993, if we remember. Senator Kennedy's Patients' Bill of Rights legislation, I think, is another example of a government-centered approach which actually threatens the accessibility and the affordability of health care. Again, this morning, our legislation fosters a consumer-centered health care system without raising the costs, which so many of our constituents have favored. Glenn Howatt of the Minneapolis Star Tribune recently did an article on MSAs and spoke with several policyholders. I will read a portion of his article which I believe demonstrates exactly why Congress needs to lift the restrictions on MSAs so that everyone has the opportunity to purchase an affordable health insurance plan. Mr. Howatt gives an account of Suzanne Eisenreich Roberts. Last year, Roberts thought it would be a good idea to dump her individual health insurance policy, which cost $330 every month, because she rarely got sick. She switched to an MSA last year. Her premiums dropped to $100 per month, but her deductible shot up to $2,250 a year. Two days after the new policy became effective, Roberts developed a gallstone problem that required surgery. Although the insurance covered the $14,000 surgery, Roberts had to pay $2,250 to satisfy the deductible requirement. ``Financially, I can afford the deductible,'' said Roberts. And, she noted, ``I was really out nothing because I would have spent it in premiums anyway.'' If Roberts had kept her old policy, her annual premiums would have been $3,960. But her new policy's premiums are just $1,200 a year--a $2,760 saving that more than makes up for the deductible cost. Even though she went with the MSA, even though she had to have surgery the first year, she was far ahead by having a medical savings account compared to her own insurance policy. I ask unanimous consent to have printed the entire text of Mr. Howatt's article and another pertinent article in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Clearly, Mr. President, MSAs offer many benefits for the uninsured. Let's lift the restrictions placed on MSAs and allow everyone to open a Medical Savings Account. The Health Care Accessibility and Equity Act begins the process of dealing with our nation's long term care needs. Mr. President, it is estimated that, in the history of the world, half of the people who have ever reached age 65 are alive today. And as the babyboom generation ages, the population of those over age 65 will increase quicker than at any time in history. The increase in the aged population brings with it a number of complex and vexing issues, one of which is long term care. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act tinkered slightly with the issue of long term care insurance, but we need to meet the issue head on. The legislation Chairman Roth, Senator Abraham, and I are introducing today would eliminate the questions surrounding what constitutes a qualified versus non-qualified long term care plan and their tax treatment. I have always believed we should encourage individuals to save for their retirement needs and, for a number of reasons, usually cost, long term care insurance is often overlooked during retirement planning. Unfortunately, this often leads to individuals spending themselves down to poverty and relying on Medicaid. By allowing individuals to deduct the costs of long-term care insurance, we can prevent many of our elderly from impoverishing themselves in order to receive long-term care. The Health Care Accessibility and Equity Act of 1999 is good policy and will begin to address the crisis of 43 million Americans without access to affordable health care insurance today. Most important, it levels the playing field for those who are purchasing health insurance individually. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to help us get closer to the goal of health care access for all Americans.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Chairman Roth and Senator Abraham, to introduce legislation which will provide access to affordable health insurance for 43 million uninsured Americans, correct the inequities in the tax treatment of certain types of health insurance, and allow for the full deductibility of long term care insurance. The Health Care Accessibility and Equity Act of 1999 presents us with the opportunity to create the most comprehensive tax-deductible coverage system in our nation's history. One of the most discriminatory portions of the tax code is the disparate treatment between an employer purchasing a health plan as opposed to an individual purchasing health insurance on their own. Mr. President, when employers purchase a health plan for their employees, he or she can fully deduct the costs of providing that insurance, effectively lowering the actual costs of providing that coverage. However, when an employee purchases an individual policy on their own, they must do so with after tax-dollars. They don't have the ability or the advantage offered to employers to reduce the actual costs of the policy by deducting premiums from their taxes every year. Therefore, they usually wind up without health coverage. The Health Care Accessibility and Equity Act will end this discrimination within the tax code and make health care available for many Americans today. Further, the legislation offered today by Senator Roth, Senator Abraham, and myself would immediately allow the self-employed to fully deduct health insurance costs. Twenty-five million Americans are in families headed by a self-employed individiual--20 percent of those are uninsured. We always talk about trying to have more Americans covered by health care insurance. Yet, we have a tax code which discriminates against some, while favoring others. This results in fewer people being covered. Let's make the same tax incentives for purchasing health insurance available to employers apply to everyone--level the playing field and we will have taken the next logical step in the evolution of our health care system, Mr. President, I believe Congress should be doing all we can to lower the costs of health insurance. However, it seems most proposals before the Senate do just the opposite by forcing some federal definition of a quality health plan on consumers and sticking them with the bill. It's not good policy it does nothing for those who are uninsured and it certainly won't help those who will be forced to drop health insurance because they can no longer afford the premiums,. Mr. President, we've heard a lot of rhetoric about patient protections and why the Federal Government needs to step in and help consumers. Indeed, a better role for the Government is to help consumers by removing restrictions on Medical Savings Accounts as we do in this legislation as well. MSAs allow the consumers to control their costs when it comes to providing their families with health care. It would allow them to decide which provider they want to see and which services they want and will pay for. Certainly, empowering patients is a much more productive solution to a problem than simply forcing consumers to buy the government's definition of quality health insurance. When Congress created the medical savings accounts in the Kassebaum- Kennedy Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, there were so many restrictions placed upon the program then that it was essentially set up to fail. Yet MSAs have managed to become tremendously successful. According to the General Accounting Office, 37 percent of all MSA policyholders were previously uninsured. When you gave them the option and the opportunity, they were then able financially to buy insurance. Clearly, MSAs are providing an option for those who before couldn't afford to buy health insurance. The bill we are introducing today does not force Americans into a government-centered health care plan, a system that they spoke so loudly against back in 1993, if we remember. Senator Kennedy's Patients' Bill of Rights legislation, I think, is another example of a government-centered approach which actually threatens the accessibility and the affordability of health care. Again, this morning, our legislation fosters a consumer-centered health care system without raising the costs, which so many of our constituents have favored. Glenn Howatt of the Minneapolis Star Tribune recently did an article on MSAs and spoke with several policyholders. I will read a portion of his article which I believe demonstrates exactly why Congress needs to lift the restrictions on MSAs so that everyone has the opportunity to purchase an affordable health insurance plan. Mr. Howatt gives an account of Suzanne Eisenreich Roberts. Last year, Roberts thought it would be a good idea to dump her individual health insurance policy, which cost $330 every month, because she rarely got sick. She switched to an MSA last year. Her premiums dropped to $100 per month, but her deductible shot up to $2,250 a year. Two days after the new policy became effective, Roberts developed a gallstone problem that required surgery. Although the insurance covered the $14,000 surgery, Roberts had to pay $2,250 to satisfy the deductible requirement. ``Financially, I can afford the deductible,'' said Roberts. And, she noted, ``I was really out nothing because I would have spent it in premiums anyway.'' If Roberts had kept her old policy, her annual premiums would have been $3,960. But her new policy's premiums are just $1,200 a year--a $2,760 saving that more than makes up for the deductible cost. Even though she went with the MSA, even though she had to have surgery the first year, she was far ahead by having a medical savings account compared to her own insurance policy. I ask unanimous consent to have printed the entire text of Mr. Howatt's article and another pertinent article in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wish to talk this morning about health care. I find it ironic we are trying to get to a very important agricultural appropriations bill, and the Democratic side of the aisle is preventing the Senate from moving on that. Hopefully we can work out an agreement on these health care issues and discuss and debate them openly. I look forward to the debate. I find it humorous when Senator Kennedy calls our bill the ``Patient Bill of Wrongs''. It seems that if it is not his way, it is the wrong way. Our bill is the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus, which I think goes further in trying to encourage people to get health insurance and to have coverage, rather than leading America toward a government-type system of national health care. I am looking forward to the debate. I hope the agreement can be worked out and we can discuss the different views on health care reform, listen to Senator Kennedy on his Patients' Bill of Rights, and also to have adequate time to fully debate the Republican plan, Senator Nickles' bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus. I think we must have time to compare and contrast those two plans. I think the American people are going to get a good idea where both parties stand on the direction of health care and health care reform in the near future. (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 1274 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to introduce another Social Security-related bill. This bill would give all researchers access to Social Security's Continuous Work History Sample (CWHS). The access to the CWHS is critical for the general public and other government agencies to fully evaluate the working of the current system and estimate the budgetary impact of any changes that need to be made in the future. The CWHS is a key set of data which holds information on the work and benefit histories of Social Security program participants. Until 1976, this data was widely available to federal, state agencies, universities and private research groups. There is no evidence of any misuse of the CWHS in the period before 1976. The 1976 Tax Reform Act denied access to CWHS data to almost all users outside of the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration. Although it later extended the access to a few units of government agencies, private researchers are still denied access. The excuse was to protect privacy. However, the IRS is covered by the same law. But it has interpreted the law to enable it to make samples of individual tax returns available to researchers on the basis that identifiers must be removed and the research must be bona fide. Mr. President, if the IRS can make its data available to researchers, why cannot the SSA do the same? Last year, during a Budget Committee hearing, I asked SSA Commissioner Apfel about this. Here is his reply: The SSA supports, in principle, the idea of making data from our administrative records available to researchers in order to better inform the ongoing debate on the future of Social Security. The National Research Council and other academic institutions also support to give researchers access to the CWHS. My legislation would amend the 1976 Tax Reform Act to allow bona fide researchers access to CWHS data, and at the same time protect the confidentiality and privacy of program participants. It also requires researchers to sign a legally binding agreement that restricts use of the data to the research and forbids the disclosure of information that could be used to identify individuals. Mr. President, this is ``good government'' legislation. Allowing access to CWHS data will open the entire Social Security system to outside scrutiny. It will significantly improve oversight of the program and enable Americans to know everything they need to know about how the system operates and what changes are needed to make it solvent. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support these legislative initiatives.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, 1999 has been declared the ``International Year of the Older Person'' by the United Nations. In honor of this special tribute, I rise today to introduce legislation specially designed to provide fair and accurate Social Security benefits in order to help all Americans achieve retirement security. I believe senior citizens in this country have made, and continue to make, valuable contributions to their families, communities and to society as a whole. One of the most troubling aspects of the debate over Social Security's future has been attempts to frighten older Americans. Many seniors fear that they may lose their Social Security benefits. To ease their fears and worries, I introduced legislation last month that would require the government to legally guarantee seniors full Social Security benefits plus accurate COLA adjustments. In essence, this bill would give older Americans property rights to their Social Security benefits, which they do not have now. It is no wonder they now worry about loss of benefits. However, an accurate method for how we calculate Social Security remains a subject of debate. In order to understand this issue, Mr. President, we need to go back and take a closer look at how seniors' COLAs are currently calculated by the government. To compensate for the effects of inflation, Congress passed legislation in 1972 to give Social Security beneficiaries an automatic cost of living adjustment, or a COLA. This COLA is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as tracked and surveyed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) under the Labor Department. Currently, the BLS produces two official CPIs, one for All Urban Consumers called the CPI-U, and one for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, called the CPI-W. The CPI-U represents the spending habits of about 80 percent of the population of this nation, and the CPI-W is a subset of the formula, representing about 32 percent of the total population. The government uses the later the CPI-W to measure COLAs for Social Security benefits. But clearly, this does not reflect the older American population and their consumption habits. Spending habits of urban wage earners cannot be equated with those seniors. Nevertheless, the government continues to use it calculating COLAs for Social Security beneficiaries. Back in 1987, after considerable criticism of the CPI-W and its applicability to senior consumers, Congress amended the Older Americans Act of 1965 to require the BLS to develop an experimental CPI that would better reflect the buying habits of consumers 62 years of age or older. This is now known as the CPI-E. The CPI-E places greater weight on the cost of such goods and services as medical care and prescription drugs, areas where seniors spend more than other Americans. Although it's still experimental, the preliminary finding shows annual increases in Social Security benefit payments received by older Americans are not keeping pace with inflation on the goods and services on which they spend much of their money. Over the past 15 years, goods purchased by seniors increased 6 percentage points more than goods purchased by the general public. Their medical costs skyrocketed 156 percent. The main reason that the CPI-E has been higher than the other two CPIs. My concern is, as inflation on medical and pharmaceutical goods continues to rise, without a fair COLA increase, older Americans' hard- earned Social Security benefits are worth less and less. Their purchasing power will continue to diminish. Mr. President, that's why I am introducing legislation today to prevent that from happening. My legislation is simple and straightforward. It first calls for the establishment of a CPI Review Committee made up of well-known economists who have expertise in the field, plus representatives of our senior citizens population. The Committee will be given the task of studying how to analyze and improve the CPI-E method, make recommendations, and form an implementation plan to produce a CPI that accurately reflects the senior population and their consumption that will be used to determine the Social Security COLA each year. Appointing economic professionals will de-politicize this issue, and allow us to make sound policy based on merits rather than on political consideration. This is also consistent with the measures recommended by the Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index, or the Boskin Commission, which calls for Congress to establish an independent committee or commission of experts to review progress in developing a new system of measuring the overall cost of living adjustments. Within a year, the Committee I recommend is required to complete its work. A pilot program will test the accuracy of the CPI-E over a 3 year period by using improved and recommended methods. However, I must point out that the experimental CPI-E currently computed by the BLS has limitations. For instance, the number of consumer units was relatively small, only 19 percent of the total sample. Expenditure weights used in the construction of the CPI-E have a higher sampling error than those used for larger populations. That's the reason that my legislation specifically instructs the Committee to remove this and other major limitations. To construct an improved CPI-E that is more scientific, accurate and representative of older Americans' spending habits. We had the right idea in 1987. My legislation will improve on that law after we've had some time to analyze it. Now, Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues will raise questions about this bill. First, they are going to say, what about the issue of cost? Mr. President, it is perhaps true that moving from the CPI-W to the improved CPI-E to determine Social Security COLA increases may increase federal spending. As a consistent fiscal conservative, I am concerned about the budgetary impact. I believe we must exercise caution and discipline on how government spends our money. However, the issue of a fair Social Security COLA is not at its root a fiscal one, but rather an issue of fairness, particularly in the case of retired workers who rely upon their fixed Social Security pensions for survival. I have argued repeatedly that the federal government has entered into a sacred covenant with the American people to provide benefits for their retirement if they pay into the system. We have also committed to give them a fair COLA to keep up with inflation. It's our moral and contractual duty to honor that commitment, and to ensure the program will be there for current and future beneficiaries. Senior citizens are a unique consumer population that should not be lumped into a category that considers spending habits the same as the average American family of four. Once again, Mr. President, this is an issue of fairness and justice, not an issue of cost. All my legislation asks for is an accurate CPI and a fair COLA, up or down. Second question: if an official CPI-E is created, wouldn't it set a potentially dangerous precedent for creating a CPI for every seemingly distinct population group? The answer is no. Senior citizens comprise nearly 60 percent of Social Security beneficiaries, and this number will increase substantially as the Baby Boomer generation retires. Furthermore, the Social Security program is specifically intended to benefit senior citizens. It's only fair and rational to create an accurate CPI for them. However, we have not forgotten that there is another distinct group of Social Security beneficiaries who receive disability benefits. Because this group also spends more of their money for medical and pharmaceutical goods and services, their purchasing power could be affected by the inaccurate CPI and therefore COLA increase. My legislation specifically requires the Committee to look into this issue and make recommendations on how to resolve it. Third question: would this legislation overlap and contradict the study conducted by the Boskin Commission? The answer again is no. On the contrary, my legislation is a complement to the Boskin Commission report. It parallels the general recommendations of the Boskin Commission. These include development of a new Consumer Expenditure Survey that is larger and therefore more representative of the American consumer; development of a new market basket of goods and services that can register changes in the quality of products, the introduction of new products, and the substitution of less or more expensive goods when prices change; and development of a point-of-purchase survey that can register consumer shifts to lower price outlets. Finally, would this legislation set back Social Security reform efforts? The answer is no. As I mentioned earlier, it would be wrong to let Social Security beneficiaries bear the burden of a mistake which is not of their own making. In fact, when we give a legal guarantee to older Americans that they will receive Social Security benefits in full plus a fair COLA increase and take this fear away from them, it will be much easier to move the retirement system from a PAYGO system to a fully funded system. This would in effect secure retirement income for our children and grandchildren. In conclusion, Mr. President, retirement security for today's and tomorrow's seniors is essential to the social stability and economic prosperity of our society. This is all my legislation attempts to achieve. I urge the Senate to make this issue the top priority for the 106th Congress. Working together, we will meet the demographic challenges and move towards a society that allows all ages to progress in the new millennium.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank the chairman for recognizing me. As the subcommittee chairman with jurisdiction over the State Department authorization bill, I compliment our chairman for all the work he has put into this bill to move it quickly to the floor. As he said, I hope we can get these amendments addressed and send this bill to the House and hopefully have it signed by the President in the very near future. I worked closely and diligently with Members on both sides of the aisle and the administration to craft legislation which will strengthen America's leadership role in the international arena. This package enhances the security of our embassies abroad, establishes benchmarks for the payment of U.N. arrears, and prioritizes our international affairs expenditures. I am pleased this authorization bill contains the provisions of a bill I introduced, the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999. In the aftermath of the embassy bombings in August of 1998, the State Department Accountability Review Boards chaired by Admiral Crowe concluded that we have devoted inadequate resources and placed too low a priority on security concerns. Those findings echoed those of the Inman Commission, which issued an extensive embassy security report that raised these same points 14 years ago. We seek to remedy that situation by establishing an Embassy Security and Construction Account so funds designated for embassy security will not be used for other purposes. In addition to authorizing $600 million a year for the next 5 years, this bill provides security requirements for U.S. diplomatic facilities and requires the Secretary of State to certify that the funds are being used to meet security objectives. It also establishes requirements for threat assessments and also emergency procedures. Working abroad will never be risk free. But we can take a number of measures, like these, to make sure that safety is increased for U.S. Government employees overseas. We can also put forward requirements to ensure we have an effective emergency response network in place to respond to a crisis should one arise. I am also pleased that the U.N. Secretary General and the administration have endorsed our U.N. reform package which provides $819 million in arrears and another $107 million debt relief in exchange for reforms. This is a positive step towards shaping a U.N. that is a viable organization in the 21st century. Because any organization burdened with a bloated bureaucracy and no mechanisms to control spending will collapse under its own weight of inefficiency. We must reform the United Nations now, and the United States has the responsibility to play a major role. If we do nothing, and the United Nations collapses under its own weight in a few decades, then we will have only ourselves to blame. I believe that the U.N. needs the discipline of actual benchmarks tied to the arrears to provide the impetus for fundamental reform; because given the power of an entrenched U.N. bureaucracy, true reform will only occur when there are tangible incentives to change. We have seen how difficult it is to streamline our own bureaucracy here in Washington. It is even more difficult to streamline an international organization where each member is involved in these decisions. But I want to underscore that these reforms are achievable. These reforms include having Inspectors General in the specialized agencies; promoting merit-based employment; and establishing a code of conduct for personnel with an anti-nepotism provision. Congress' message is simple and it is straightforward. The U.S. can help make the United Nations a more effective, more efficient and financially sounder organization, but only if the U.N. and other member states, in return, are willing to finally become accountable to the American taxpayers. That being said, I want to emphasize that the U.N. does excel in certain areas. The U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture gives financial aid to organizations that help torture survivors, like the Center for Victims of Torture in Minnesota. Assisting treatment centers for victims of torture is an effective method to lessen the incidence of torture by providing irrefutable medical and psychological evidence that torture is actually still occurring. These centers also serve a strategic purpose of restoring faith in the principles of human rights and democracy. That is why I am leading the effort to increase the U.S. contribution to $5 million a year. I urge my colleagues to support the entire bipartisan package and, especially, to understand how difficult it was to arrive at an agreement on the arrears. Again, I commend the chairman and also the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee for their diligence and also their perseverance in effecting this compromise bill. This agreement is in America's best interest, and the best interest of the entire international community. I compliment the chairman for all his fine work in getting this bill to the floor. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage. Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, 1999 has been declared the ``International Year of the Older Person'' by the United Nations. In honor of this special tribute, I rise today to introduce legislation specially designed to provide fair and accurate Social Security benefits in order to help all Americans achieve retirement security. I believe senior citizens in this country have made, and continue to make, valuable contributions to their families, communities and to society as a whole. One of the most troubling aspects of the debate over Social Security's future has been attempts to frighten older Americans. Many seniors fear that they may lose their Social Security benefits. To ease their fears and worries, I introduced legislation last month that would require the government to legally guarantee seniors full Social Security benefits plus accurate COLA adjustments. In essence, this bill would give older Americans property rights to their Social Security benefits, which they do not have now. It is no wonder they now worry about loss of benefits. However, an accurate method for how we calculate Social Security remains a subject of debate. In order to understand this issue, Mr. President, we need to go back and take a closer look at how seniors' COLAs are currently calculated by the government. To compensate for the effects of inflation, Congress passed legislation in 1972 to give Social Security beneficiaries an automatic cost of living adjustment, or a COLA. This COLA is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as tracked and surveyed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) under the Labor Department. Currently, the BLS produces two official CPIs, one for All Urban Consumers called the CPI-U, and one for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, called the CPI-W. The CPI-U represents the spending habits of about 80 percent of the population of this nation, and the CPI-W is a subset of the formula, representing about 32 percent of the total population. The government uses the later the CPI-W to measure COLAs for Social Security benefits. But clearly, this does not reflect the older American population and their consumption habits. Spending habits of urban wage earners cannot be equated with those seniors. Nevertheless, the government continues to use it calculating COLAs for Social Security beneficiaries. Back in 1987, after considerable criticism of the CPI-W and its applicability to senior consumers, Congress amended the Older Americans Act of 1965 to require the BLS to develop an experimental CPI that would better reflect the buying habits of consumers 62 years of age or older. This is now known as the CPI-E. The CPI-E places greater weight on the cost of such goods and services as medical care and prescription drugs, areas where seniors spend more than other Americans. Although it's still experimental, the preliminary finding shows annual increases in Social Security benefit payments received by older Americans are not keeping pace with inflation on the goods and services on which they spend much of their money. Over the past 15 years, goods purchased by seniors increased 6 percentage points more than goods purchased by the general public. Their medical costs skyrocketed 156 percent. The main reason that the CPI-E has been higher than the other two CPIs. My concern is, as inflation on medical and pharmaceutical goods continues to rise, without a fair COLA increase, older Americans' hard- earned Social Security benefits are worth less and less. Their purchasing power will continue to diminish. Mr. President, that's why I am introducing legislation today to prevent that from happening. My legislation is simple and straightforward. It first calls for the establishment of a CPI Review Committee made up of well-known economists who have expertise in the field, plus representatives of our senior citizens population. The Committee will be given the task of studying how to analyze and improve the CPI-E method, make recommendations, and form an implementation plan to produce a CPI that accurately reflects the senior population and their consumption that will be used to determine the Social Security COLA each year. Appointing economic professionals will de-politicize this issue, and allow us to make sound policy based on merits rather than on political consideration. This is also consistent with the measures recommended by the Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index, or the Boskin Commission, which calls for Congress to establish an independent committee or commission of experts to review progress in developing a new system of measuring the overall cost of living adjustments. Within a year, the Committee I recommend is required to complete its work. A pilot program will test the accuracy of the CPI-E over a 3 year period by using improved and recommended methods. However, I must point out that the experimental CPI-E currently computed by the BLS has limitations. For instance, the number of consumer units was relatively small, only 19 percent of the total sample. Expenditure weights used in the construction of the CPI-E have a higher sampling error than those used for larger populations. That's the reason that my legislation specifically instructs the Committee to remove this and other major limitations. To construct an improved CPI-E that is more scientific, accurate and representative of older Americans' spending habits. We had the right idea in 1987. My legislation will improve on that law after we've had some time to analyze it. Now, Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues will raise questions about this bill. First, they are going to say, what about the issue of cost? Mr. President, it is perhaps true that moving from the CPI-W to the improved CPI-E to determine Social Security COLA increases may increase federal spending. As a consistent fiscal conservative, I am concerned about the budgetary impact. I believe we must exercise caution and discipline on how government spends our money. However, the issue of a fair Social Security COLA is not at its root a fiscal one, but rather an issue of fairness, particularly in the case of retired workers who rely upon their fixed Social Security pensions for survival. I have argued repeatedly that the federal government has entered into a sacred covenant with the American people to provide benefits for their retirement if they pay into the system. We have also committed to give them a fair COLA to keep up with inflation. It's our moral and contractual duty to honor that commitment, and to ensure the program will be there for current and future beneficiaries. Senior citizens are a unique consumer population that should not be lumped into a category that considers spending habits the same as the average American family of four. Once again, Mr. President, this is an issue of fairness and justice, not an issue of cost. All my legislation asks for is an accurate CPI and a fair COLA, up or down. Second question: if an official CPI-E is created, wouldn't it set a potentially dangerous precedent for creating a CPI for every seemingly distinct population group? The answer is no. Senior citizens comprise nearly 60 percent of Social Security beneficiaries, and this number will increase substantially as the Baby Boomer generation retires. Furthermore, the Social Security program is specifically intended to benefit senior citizens. It's only fair and rational to create an accurate CPI for them. However, we have not forgotten that there is another distinct group of Social Security beneficiaries who receive disability benefits. Because this group also spends more of their money for medical and pharmaceutical goods and services, their purchasing power could be affected by the inaccurate CPI and therefore COLA increase. My legislation specifically requires the Committee to look into this issue and make recommendations on how to resolve it. Third question: would this legislation overlap and contradict the study conducted by the Boskin Commission? The answer again is no. On the contrary, my legislation is a complement to the Boskin Commission report. It parallels the general recommendations of the Boskin Commission. These include development of a new Consumer Expenditure Survey that is larger and therefore more representative of the American consumer; development of a new market basket of goods and services that can register changes in the quality of products, the introduction of new products, and the substitution of less or more expensive goods when prices change; and development of a point-of-purchase survey that can register consumer shifts to lower price outlets. Finally, would this legislation set back Social Security reform efforts? The answer is no. As I mentioned earlier, it would be wrong to let Social Security beneficiaries bear the burden of a mistake which is not of their own making. In fact, when we give a legal guarantee to older Americans that they will receive Social Security benefits in full plus a fair COLA increase and take this fear away from them, it will be much easier to move the retirement system from a PAYGO system to a fully funded system. This would in effect secure retirement income for our children and grandchildren. In conclusion, Mr. President, retirement security for today's and tomorrow's seniors is essential to the social stability and economic prosperity of our society. This is all my legislation attempts to achieve. I urge the Senate to make this issue the top priority for the 106th Congress. Working together, we will meet the demographic challenges and move towards a society that allows all ages to progress in the new millennium.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Clarence Lien of Forest Lake, Minnesota. On June 7, 1999, I had the great honor of presenting a belated Purple heart to Clarence. He is most deserving of this long overdue recognition. I take this opportunity to congratulate Clarence and thank him for his service and sacrifice. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record remarks by Clarence Lien made at his award presentation. The remarks follow: Remarks by Clarence Lien I am a bit overwhelmed. I honestly didn't think this would ever happen, but I'm glad it did. And I'm really amazed that all of you would take time to come here today to be part of this. I feel lucky, I feel honored. And you know that I'm not a speech maker, or a big talker for that matter. But there is one thing that I would talk about, and that one thing is ``freedom''. Next to family, freedom is the most precious thing that you have. When I was in Stalag 17, I had a lot of time to think. And when you are in a situation where everything is taken away from you, you quickly realize where your priorities are. I can tell you, as if it was yesterday, that the things that I missed the most were my family and my freedom. Freedom is a word we all know and to many of us, take for granted. But, boy, if you don't have it for a year or so, you realize what a gift it is. Imagine, if you can, being told when or if you can eat, and what you can eat. Imagine someone else dictating when you can speak, and what you can say. Try to visualize being afraid for your life every waking moment. Freedom gives you the ability to make decisions, right and wrong ones. When you have that taken away, it makes you feel like an animal, a caged animal at that. Freedom to me is a treasure. There is something odd to me about the word ``free''. In every day living, we think free means ``At no cost.'' But that is so far from the truth. There is a huge cost associated with being free. And we should never forget that. I will always remember a certain moment back in 1945. I was being shipped home after the war ended, and we entered New York harbor. In the distance I could see the Statue of Liberty. I tell you, I was so happy and so thankful to be coming home, and Lady Liberty was the symbol that I had arrived. And that I was once again free. Yep, Stalag 17 taught me a lot about freedom. So I'd like to challenge you today to appreciate every decision you are allowed to make--even the hard ones. And to appreciate the veterans of today and tomorrow for protecting the freedom we all enjoy. And to never forget that this country we live in is truly ``the land of the free.'' Thank you.