Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no additional amendments be in order and that further action be as described in the order of June 25.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services to meet on Wednesday, July 8, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. for a hearing on The Adequacy of Commerce Department Satellite Export Controls.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 8, 1998 at 10:00 am to hold a hearing.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 8, 1998, at 2:00 pm on S. 2105--Government Paperwork Elimination Act.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 8, 1998 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 1419, Miccousukee Land, S. 391, Cheyenne River Sioux Compensation, S. 1905, Mississippi Sioux Judgment Funds and H.R. 700, Agua Caliente. The hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on The Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 8, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on S.J. Res. 40, Joint Resolution Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 8, 1998, at 9:30 am on High Definition Television (HDTV).

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on The Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 8, 1998 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on S. 1529, The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1998.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 8, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a closed hearing on Intelligence Matters and at 2:30 p.m. to hold an open confirmation hearing on the nomination of L. Britt Snider to be Inspector General of CIA.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, our passage today of the IRS restructuring bill is a tribute to the dogged and determined efforts of Finance Committee Chairman Roth. This reform effort originated with the report of the bipartisan National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service, filed just over a year ago. It was given further impetus by the historic Finance Committee IRS oversight hearings held last year. Those hearings were the first comprehensive oversight hearings ever undertaken by the Finance Committee. They showed us how miserable the lives of average, law-abiding taxpayers could be when they ran afoul of a tax collection agency that was at best uncaring, and at worst abusive. Many taxpayers' suffering was prolonged; their cases got lost in an IRS black hole and took years to resolve. These oversight hearings really struck a nerve with the public, which flooded our offices, and the Finance Committee, with further complaints of abuse, mistreatment, and inattention. There were widespread calls for IRS reform. This public response not only led to further oversight hearings, but it also showed that any reform effort needed to be comprehensive, addressing a range of issues broader than those that surfaced during our oversight hearings. To his credit, Chairman Roth resisted calls for a quick fix, adopting instead a methodical, thoughtful approach to reform. The result represents the most comprehensive reform of the Internal Revenue Service in more than 45 years. This bill contains over 50 new taxpayer rights, leveling the playing field for taxpayers. It calls for an innovative oversight board. It assures that Congress will no longer shirk from oversight responsibilities. It calls for innocent spouse relief for taxpayers, usually women, who were the unknowing victims of former spouses that underpaid their taxes. There are three aspects of this bill that I believe are especially significant and on which I want to focus my remarks. The first is the new organizational structure at the IRS. Until now, the IRS has been administered by the Commissioner and his or her subordinates, many of whom have spent their entire career at the IRS. Since World War II, every commissioner has been a tax lawyer. Last year, Commissioner Charles Rossotti, a non-attorney, skilled in the areas of information management and familiar with the problems inherent in running a large organization, took the reins. With over 100,000 employees, the IRS presents a significant management challenge. Effectively managing an agency the size of the IRS requires skills other than those necessary for tax law enforcement. With a fresh viewpoint, Commissioner Rossotti has already made some proposals for reform that look promising. He has proposed to restructure the agency on a functional, rather than geographic, basis. This will allow functional units of the IRS to develop in-depth expertise in specific aspects of tax law and to provide more efficient service. The re-structuring bill builds on this fresh point of view, directing the Commissioner to implement an organizational structure with units serving particular groups of taxpayers with similar needs. Further, this legislation bill will assure that the IRS continues to benefit from fresh ideas. Administration of the IRS will be supplemented by new nine-member board, responsible for oversight of administration, management, conduct, direction of the IRS, as well as administration and execution of the tax laws. The majority of the board will be outsiders with expertise in such areas as customer service and management of large service organizations. These outsiders, not wedded to the current way of doing things, will be able to offer valuable input on new ways of doing business and will provide an important link to expertise from the private sector. To my knowledge, this type of public-private management partnership is unprecedented. An IRS employee representative is also on the oversight board. The presence of an employee representative on the board generated a substantial amount of controversy. In my view, inclusion of this representative will be key to the success of any future reform efforts. Reforming the IRS is not going to work unless it enjoys the support and understanding of those charged with carrying out the reforms. The employee representative's input will be very valuable, enabling board members unfamiliar with the day-to-day IRS operations better assess the impact and workability of reform proposals. Another aspect of this act that I think is particularly important is its emphasis on quicker and fairer dispute resolution. Taxpayers I have talked to are really bothered by the length of time it takes to resolve problems at the IRS. While cases await resolution, interest and penalties on unpaid taxes continue to accumulate. Frequently, the amount of interest due on unpaid taxes ends up exceeding the amount of taxes themselves. This bill contains several provisions that should make dispute resolution faster and more efficient. First, it provides that if the IRS doesn't contact taxpayers within a year after they file their returns, interest and penalties will not continue to accrue until the IRS sends the taxpayer a notice that additional taxes are due. Second, the bill mandates that the Commissioner's restructuring of the IRS include an independent appeals function. This appeals unit is intended to provide a place for taxpayers to turn when they disagree with the determination of front-line employees. A truly independent appeals unit will assure that someone takes a fresh look at taxpayers' cases, rather than merely rubber-stamping the earlier determination. This legislation also broadens the powers of the IRS Taxpayer Advocate. This will be especially important to taxpayers who find themselves facing immediate and serious harm as the result of actions taken by the IRS. In cases of hardship, the Taxpayer Advocate can intervene to issue taxpayer assistance orders, requiring the IRS to release seized property or otherwise refrain from taking action that could result in a significant hardship. The definition of ``significant hardship'' is expanded. This should make taxpayer assistance orders more widely available. In addition, the bill provides that persons appointed to the post of Taxpayer Advocate must agree not to accept employment with the IRS during the five-year period following their tenure. This will assure that they won't hesitate to overturn IRS actions out of concern about offending future bosses or co-workers. These provisions represent important steps to cut down on the time it takes to resolve disputes. In addition, the bill provides for informal Tax Court proceedings in certain types of small cases, giving more taxpayers, usually without lawyers, a greater opportunity to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved administratively. Expanded criteria for installment agreements and offers-in-compromise should mean that more taxpayers will be able to take advantage of those settlement tools. The last aspect on which I want to comment is the role that Congress will play in these reforms. With more frequent Congressional oversight, perhaps a bill of this scope might never have been necessary. With more oversight, we in Congress might better to be able to identify and address problems when they first arise. This bill imposes oversight responsibilities on Congress. It will assure that the Committees of Congress with jurisdiction over the IRS will hold an oversight hearing at least once a year. In addition, this measure requires that when Congress passes a tax bill, it must consider the practical consequences of tax law changes. Our tax system is built on the principles of self-reporting and self- assessment. Luckily, we have relatively high compliance rates from individual taxpayers. The increasing complexity of our tax laws, however, threatens to undermine voluntary compliance. The more complex the law becomes, the more difficult we make it for taxpayers to comply. The bill provides that IRS should comment on the administrability of tax law amendments when they are under consideration by the tax-writing committees. The IRS must also submit an annual report on sources of complexity in administering the tax code. Finally, the bill requires committee reports to include an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation of complexity and administrability issues. When we considered the tax law proposals in the Taxpayer Reform Act of 1997, it would have been helpful to know how those proposals would translate into new record keeping and paperwork requirements for taxpayers. This analysis will be a helpful, welcome addition to the legislative process. I suspect that nothing we do will make the IRS loved, but this bill makes it a kinder and gentler agency. It will be an agency guided by principles of fairness, rather than the bottom line and an agency held accountable for its actions, no longer out of control. Any organization the size of the IRS is going to experience some problems, and adoption of this conference report isn't going to solve every problem in our tax collection process. Still, it is our obligation here in Congress to see that those problems are minimized to the largest degree possible. This bill marks the beginning of fundamental structural changes at the IRS; it changes the way the IRS does business. It also provides important new protections for taxpayers embroiled in a dispute with the IRS. Most taxpayers pay their taxes and never again hear from the IRS. These taxpayers may not appreciate any immediate consequences of the new taxpayer protections. All of us, however, should benefit from a more efficient and effective tax collection process that I hope will result from the sweeping reforms we initiate today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, yesterday the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3130, the Child Support bill by unanimous consent. Today, the Senate will pass the same bill. One provision in the bill affects qualified medical child support orders, a provision in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and a matter under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Senators Kennedy, Coats and myself were conferees on that provision. I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Roth for including a description of the changes we agreed upon in his explanatory material. It is terribly important that this explanation be made a part of the legislative history on medical child support orders.. There are 700,000 children in the United States today who are eligible for medical support from a non-custodial parent. All too often when the States attempt to enforce a medical child support order, the plan sponsors have had fiduciary concerns regarding some aspect of the medical support order and, consequently medical benefits were denied to the child. Hopefully, this legislation will alleviate those concerns and more children will be covered under private health benefit plans. The legislation requires the Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor to quickly promulgate a model Medical Support Order form that States must use to collect medical support for children. It also requires those Secretaries to appoint and to collaborate with a Working Group to improve the process by which these medical support orders are implemented. I am happy that we were able to reach agreement on this important language. I want to take this opportunity to thank Senators Kennedy and Coats, and their staff, for all their assistance. Also, I thank Chairman Bill Goodling of the House Workforce Committee, Chairman Bill Roth of the Senate Finance and Senator Jay Rockefeller, for their help and guidance in reaching an agreement. In particular, Mr. Bill Sweetnam, Senior Counsel to the Finance Committee and Ms. Mary Bissell of Senator Rockefeller's staff provided the technical expertise, knowledge of State programs and support we needed to finish the job. I look forward to the Labor and Human Resources Committee exercising its oversight authority to see that this legislation is properly implemented and that we work toward improving collection of medical child support for every child to which such support is legitimately owed.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the defense authorization bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation we consider each year and by far the largest annual authorization bill. Even though the bill's overall numbers are huge by comparison to most others, the Department of Defense is being forced to make difficult spending decisions and curtail its program requests for future years in order to live within a budget that has shrunk in real terms. I recognize that this is a difficult challenge. However, I feel compelled to bring to my colleagues attention a matter of great concern to me--funding for the National Guard. The Department of Defense has not given sufficient attention or resources to this important component of our national defense. We all understand the importance of the Active Duty forces, and support for the active component must be strong. However, this must not come at the expense of an equally important component--the National Guard. I need not belabor the virtues of the National Guard for most of my colleagues. They are familiar with the cost savings that come from assigning duties to the National Guard. Senators also appreciate the critically important role the Guard plays in times of emergency in our own States. And most Members of Congress understand the intangible political benefits that come from having citizen soldiers and from maintaining a force that is intertwined with the fabric of daily life in every state to a much greater degree than the active component. The National Guard and Reserves are the face of the US military for many Americans, yet they continue to get second billing when it comes to the distribution of resources. In particular, I am concerned about the unintended consequences of National Guard Bureau formulas for distributing manpower and resources among the various Guard units. The current system gives priority to top tier units, which would seem to make sense at first glance, as those are the ones maintained at the highest readiness levels. However, the funding allocated to each unit then comes together somewhat randomly to form the mosaic of each State's National Guard and Reserve forces overall funding. Distortions sometimes creep in that cannot be corrected at the State level. I have found this to be true in the technician end strength levels projected for my State's National Guard for the coming years. A steady drop over the past few years combined with a projected cut of 15 percent next year would put the Vermont Guard in a very difficult position. It is quite possible that the resources coming to Vermont in the near future to support its essential operations will fall well below the acceptable level, and below what I believe even the National Guard Bureau would recognize as appropriate. The Vermont Guard has performed exceedingly well, winning national recognition in some instances, even though most of its units have been resourced at only 55 percent. But with projected cuts to 35 percent, for a drop of 20 percent over three years, I worry that Vermont will have to make cuts in its core program, like closing armories. Mr. President, each State's National Guard is a unique compilation of duties and responsibilities, all deemed critical to our national defense. No State's mission should be slighted because the formulas don't allow for an overall assessment of the aggregate funding level and an opportunity to correct shortfalls that are deemed unreasonably harsh for any one State. I can only assume that a few other States' National Guards are suffering in much the same manner as Vermont is. The Armed Services Committee has been helpful to Senator Leahy and me in our efforts to address this problem. We offer this amendment to direct the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to examine the process of resource distribution and, in particular, to evaluate the effects of these allocations upon each State's ability to carry out its missions. This report should also shed light on the aggregate effects of the current formulas for determining allocation and distribution of full- time manning strengths. I trust that this report will clarify the exact nature of this problem and allow the Pentagon and Congress to address it directly next year. We have agreed not to specify minimum end strength levels for military technicians, but we trust that the Committee will make every effort to recede in conference to the minimum end strength levels endorsed by the House of Representatives in its authorization legislation. I appreciate the support the Committee has given us in this effort and I urge my colleagues' endorsement of this amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, it is my pleasure to come to the floor of the Senate today to inform my colleagues of something very special that happened this morning during the committee's mark-up of S. 2206, the Human Services Reauthorization Act. The Human Services Act, as many of my colleagues know, authorizes a number of important programs, such as Head Start and the various activities under the Community Services Block Grant that provide services to families and communities in need. For the past 30 years, the State, local and federal governments have worked jointly under this program to help lift our most vulnerable citizens out of poverty and into self-sufficiency--one of the most noble goals of a responsible government. Moreover, the programs in the Human Services Act has done this effectively, and with widespread community involvement. In the Labor and Human Resources Committee, the Subcommittee on Children and Families--which is chaired by our colleague, Senator Dan Coats of Indiana--has been responsible for much of the heavy lifting that has to be done as these programs make their way through our committee for the fifth time in the last twenty years. The Human Services Act is a large and very important act, so its reauthorization is never an easy process, especially in a committee as diverse as ours. While broad bipartisan support for the reauthorization bill is always a desirable goal, it is never a given. And this year, Senator Coats worked overtime to make sure that his bill would not only responsibly reauthorize the Human Services Act, but would also do so in a way which accommodated the concerns and requests of members on both sides of the aisle. Consequently, the Labor and Human Resources Committee approved the reauthorization of the Human Services Act by a unanimous vote of 18 to 0. But Mr. President, I am not here today to make my pitch for the reauthorization of the Human Services Act--that will come soon enough. Rather, I want to highlight Senator Coats' hard work on this legislation. It is yet another illustrative example of the years of service that Senator Dan Coats has committed to strengthening families, strengthening children, and strengthening communities. It is typical of Senator Coats that he does so in a manner that is always tenacious, but never brash. While he is always accommodating, he never loses sight of the ultimate goal of helping families and communities. And with his quiet demeanor and a wit that I think sometimes surprises even him, Senator Coats is always a pleasure to work with, especially when it is for a common goal, as it was in this morning's mark-up. As we all know, Senator Coats has announced he will not be returning to this body when his term expires at the end of the 105th Congress. However, his departure does not mean his voice on behalf of children and families will be any quieter. Senator Coats will move into a new leadership role as President of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of the USA. This is a program that I know is very near to Senator Coats' heart, and the Senate's loss is clearly Big Brothers/Big Sisters' gain. In the Labor Committee, and in the Senate as a whole, we will miss Dan Coats. We will miss his leadership, and we will miss his friendship. When someone who is such a good friend leaves, it is sometimes difficult to know just what to give that friend of yours as a token of your affection. Well, Mr. President, at this morning's mark-up of the Human Services reauthorization, we gave it a try. It is with real pleasure that I inform the Senate that this morning the Labor and Human Resources Committee unanimously agreed to name the 1998 reauthorization of the Human Services Act as the ``Community Opportunities, Accountability, Training and Educational Services Act,'' or, as we prefer to call it, the COATS Act. We did this in recognition of all that Senator Coats has done not only on this bill, but for children and families throughout his career. Mr. President, I know there will be more time later to honor Senator Coats for all that he has done here in the Senate. But sometimes time gets away from us and we never let some of our colleagues know how much they mean to us. The action by the Labor Committee this morning is a modest gesture, but a sincere one. I think Senator Coats knows that it is from all of our hearts. We shall miss you, Senator.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a Executive Session of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, will be held on Wednesday, June 24, 1998, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The Committee will consider Human Services Reauthorization Amendments of 1998. For further information, please call the committee 202/224-5375. committee on indian affairs

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be held on Thursday, June 25, 1998, 10:00 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Health Insurance and Older Workers.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. Committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, June 18, 1998 beginning at 10:00 a.m., in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Caucus on International Narcotics Control be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18 at 2:00 p.m. to receive testimony on the U.S. Efforts in International Demand Reduction Programs.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 18, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 469, a bill to designate a portion of the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; S. 1016, a bill to authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritage Trail Route in New Jersey, and for other purposes; S. 1665, a bill to reauthorize the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National Heritage Corridor Act, and for other purposes; S. 2039, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail; and H.R. 2186, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance to the National Trails Interpretive Center in Casper, Wyoming.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I have closely monitored Americans' access to health insurance coverage in order to have a better understanding of the trends and underlying causes of declining coverage. Today, I am releasing a new U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report, entitled Private Health Insurance: Declining Employer Coverage May Affect Access for 55- to 64-Year-Olds (GAO/HEHS-98-133). This report examines access of the ``near elderly'' population to employer-based and individually purchased private insurance. Specifically, the report discusses the employment, income, health, and health insurance status of the near elderly, their ability to obtain employer-based health insurance if they retire before becoming eligible for Medicare, and their health insurance coverage through the individual market or employer-based continuation insurance. The findings of this report will be the focus of a Labor Committee hearing scheduled for June 25, 1998. This report and the related hearing have been prompted by a growing concern that several factors may converge to create the situation where a large number of 55- to 64-year-old Americans could lose, or have to pay considerably more for, health insurance coverage. Access to affordable health insurance is especially critical for this population, since their health status is worse than that of any other age group except the elderly who have the guarantee of Medicare. The near elderly population can be characterized as a group in transition. Their employment status, income, and health are all changing. The GAO reports that currently about 14 percent of the near elderly have no health insurance. Although this rate is lower than that of the nonelderly population in general, the GAO found several disturbing trends that could lead to a substantial increase in the numbers of near elderly without health insurance coverage. This would be especially problematic, since the near elderly have 25 percent lower median family incomes, but 45 percent higher health care expenses than younger age groups. The economic impact would be even greater when ``baby boomers'' join the near elderly, swelling their ranks from 21 million now, to 35 million by 2010. Most of the near elderly acquire health insurance coverage from one of the same three sources as individuals in other age groups: their employers, the individual private insurance market, or the Government. The main difference between coverage for the near elderly and the elderly is that all elderly qualify for Medicare, but only those near elderly who are ill or disabled qualify for public benefits. The main difference between coverage for the near elderly and younger populations is that a larger proportion of the near elderly are covered by public programs or have individual coverage through the private market. The near elderly are more likely to be willing to purchase individual coverage than younger age groups, because they are more averse to the risk of high health care costs. The two main factors contributing to the trend for more near elderly to become uninsured are the loss of employer-based coverage and the rising costs of individual insurance. The GAO reports that in 1996, 65 percent of the near elderly had employer-based insurance; but, despite the strong economy, this coverage is being eroded, particularly as the near elderly retire. Already the rate of health coverage offered by large employers to retirees has fallen faster than that of coverage for active employees, from an estimated 60 to 70 percent in the 1980s to less than 40 percent now. In addition, retirees are being asked to cover a larger share of the premiums. For example, in 1995, retirees contributed an average of $655 more for family coverage than did active workers. The higher costs have prompted some near elderly to drop coverage. The GAO reports that 27 percent of the 5.3 million retirees who discontinued employer-based benefits in 1994 cited expense as a factor. Retirees also are finding that more employers are linking retirement health benefits to length of service. The GAO report cites the example of one company's requiring 35 years of service to qualify for the maximum employer contribution of 75 percent. This trend does not bode well for retirees who have changed jobs frequently. The source of health insurance for the near elderly generally correlates with employment, health, and income status. The GAO reported that near elderly who had individual health insurance were more likely to be employed, be in good health, and have higher incomes than those on Medicare and Medicaid. The correlation is not absolute, however, because 20 percent of the uninsured had family incomes of more than $50,000 per year, and one-third of near elderly with individual insurance had incomes of less than $20,000. It should be noted that the latter figure may be misleading because this group may have less- expensive coverage, less-comprehensive benefits, or the income measured may not have included all of their resources. In general, the near elderly are more likely than younger age groups to purchase insurance through the individual market if they lose employer-based coverage. Often, however, they find that they do not qualify because of preexisting conditions, or that the cost of individual coverage is prohibitive because premiums take into account the fact that this age group uses more medical services than younger age groups. The GAO found that premiums for individual coverage constituted 10 percent of the median family income for the married near elderly in Colorado, which is almost twice as much as the retiree share of employer-subsidized family coverage. Some States have provisions guaranteeing access to some form of individual coverage, but in most States individual insurance for the near elderly is limited by exclusion of certain conditions or body parts, or denial of coverage. Chronic conditions that are common in this age group such as diabetes and heart disease, and even such non- life-threatening conditions as chronic back pain, may limit eligibility for coverage. Reform measures that have been considered or implemented to remedy these problems include initiatives to limit variation in premium rates; guarantees of certain products to all applicants; and State pools for those who have been rejected by at least one carrier. These measures have met with variable success. Overall, the GAO found that about 15 percent of all applicants were denied individual coverage, while many others were denied coverage for specific conditions. Since 1986, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) has provided temporary access to health insurance for individuals of all ages who leave the work force. COBRA may be particularly important to the near elderly before they become eligible for Medicare. It is attractive for continuation coverage, because its premiums reflect lower group coverage rates, and it does not exclude preexisting conditions. However, several factors limit the near elderly's ability to use COBRA benefits: It is available only to retirees whose employers have at least 20 employees and who offer health insurance benefits; it lasts for only 18 months; and it may not be affordable since employers do not provide contributions. It also is important to note that many people who could benefit from this program do not know about it. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) also guarantees that some people who leave group coverage have access to individual coverage and cannot be excluded for preexisting conditions. However, HIPAA has stringent eligibility requirements, depends on exhausting COBRA or other continuation benefits, and places no limits on the cost of premiums. Before HIPAA was enacted, individuals usually relinquished COBRA before they had used up all of their benefits. The impact of HIPAA on the use of COBRA remains to be determined, but cost may prevent many near elderly from being able to afford to take advantage of either. The GAO reports that whereas one company paid almost the entire cost of health benefits for active employees, the COBRA cost ranged from about $5,600 to almost $8,000 per year for family coverage. This is a great deal of money, particularly for people who are taking advantage of the program because they are leaving the work force. I believe the GAO report, Private Health Insurance: Declining Employer Coverage May Affect Access for 55- to 64-Year-Olds (GAO/HEHS- 98-133), will be an important resource as Congress considers proposals to expand health insurance coverage. Mr. President, I ask that excerpts of the executive summary of the report be printed in the Record. The material follows: Private Health Insurance Declining Employer Coverage May Affect Access for 55- to 64-Year-Olds

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I want to, first of all, make a comment or two. I thank both the leaders on this bill. I respect their comments. I also know that you cannot promise anything when you get into conference, but I will also be watching very carefully because in the past we have not had any success in holding these amendments. I understand, though, that the administration is strongly in favor of more funding. I understand there may be additional funding in the health provision, so I expect that we will be able to get a significant increase at this time. Amendment No. 2715, as Modified

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.