Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, colleagues, this is a very straightforward sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It would simply express the sense of the Senate that we support a supermajority to raise taxes. Many of the States in this country now have supermajorities. In some of the fastest growing States like Arizona and Florida and Nevada, our State legislatures pass supermajorities to raise taxes with 69, 70, 71 percent of the vote. It has not hurt the economy. In fact, it has helped the economy of those States. The House of Representatives will be considering a constitutional amendment to do this. The Senate will probably not be considering that. But I do think it is important, before tax day, April 15, for the Senate to at least express its view that it ought to be as hard to raise taxes as it is to cut taxes. That means we should have some kind of a supermajority to raise taxes here in the U.S. Congress. It is a sense of the Senate. It expresses a very simple proposition that Americans are taxed enough and that to tax them any more should require more than a bare majority of the House and the Senate.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2221.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL. I note, Mr. President, that this amendment was supposed to have been discussed earlier. That undoubtedly accounts for the confusion, because it should have occurred already. However, I was not here at the time and, therefore, it will be the last amendment discussed prior to the time the votes start, for the benefit of my colleagues. This is a very straightforward amendment. It expresses the sense of the Senate in favor of a supermajority vote for raising taxes. Mr. President, the tax burden imposed on the American people has grown so large that it is beginning to act as a drag on the Nation's economy. As a share of the gross domestic product, revenues to the Treasury will rise from 19.9 percent this year to 20.1 percent next year. That would be higher than any year since 1945, and it would be only the third year in our entire history during which revenues have exceeded 20 percent of the national income. Notably, the first two times that revenues broke the 20 percent mark, the economy tipped into recession. Mr. President, we are talking about something very serious, and that is the possibility that this great economic engine that has been creating budget surpluses for the Federal Government and a great standard of living for the American people could come to a screeching halt if we do not begin to do something about the tax burden imposed upon the American people. Many of us believe it would have been prudent to consider more tax relief in the budget this year. But it seems to me that if the Congress and the President cannot agree on more tax relief, we at least ought to be able to agree that taxes should go no higher. The House of Representatives, I inform my colleagues, is scheduled to vote in April on an initiative to make it much harder for Congress to raise taxes. It would require a two-thirds majority vote in each House in order to add to the tax burden. The sense-of-the-Senate amendment that I have offered now will begin the debate in the Senate as well. I do not specify a particular percentage that would constitute a supermajority for purposes of raising taxes, but simply request that we go on record as expressing support for the principle that a supermajority should be required. I will briefly explain why. A third of the Nation's population imposes tax limitations on their State governments. Voters have approved tax limits by wide margins, so this is not something new or risky. In my home state of Arizona, for example, a tax limitation passed with 72 percent of the vote, and we are one of the fastest growing States in the Nation. We have one of the lowest tax burdens, one of the highest rates of growth. In Florida, another high-growth State, a tax limitation amendment was adopted with 69.2 percent of the vote; in Nevada, with 70 percent. I daresay, Mr. President, these are probably three of the fastest growing States in the country. A tax limitation ensures growth, reduces taxes, provides more jobs and, I believe, would be a good thing for the Federal Government to adopt for the entire country with respect to Federal taxes. The proposed Constitutional amendment, which is referred to in the pending sense of the Senate amendment, now has 23 cosponsors in the Senate. It is something that was recommended by the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform. In fact, that commission, which you will recall was chaired by former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, advocated the supermajority requirement in its report on how to achieve a simpler single-rate tax to replace the existing maze of tax rates, deductions, exemptions and credits that makes the Federal Tax Code so complicated as we know it today. Here are the words of the commission: The roller-coaster ride of tax policy in the past few decades has fed citizens' cynicism about the possibility of real, long-term reform, while fueling frustration with Washington. The initial optimism inspired by the low rates of the 1986 Tax Reform Act soured into disillusionment and anger when taxes subsequently were hiked two times in less than seven years. The commission believes that a two-thirds supermajority vote of Congress will earn American's confidence in the longevity, predictability, and stability of the new tax system. Mr. President, there is no small irony in the fact that it would have taken a two-thirds majority vote of the House and Senate to overcome President Clinton's veto and enact the 1995 Balanced Budget Act with its tax relief provisions. Yet, by contrast, the President's record- setting tax increase in 1993 was enacted with only a simple majority and, in fact, not even a majority of elected Senators at that. Vice President Gore broke a tie vote of 50-50 to secure passage of the tax increase in the Senate. A tax limitation is based on a simple premise: that it ought to be at least as hard to raise people's taxes as it is to cut them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several documents.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Santorum be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 2221

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Might I inquire, how much time is remaining?

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me take about 30 seconds and then see if anyone on the other side wishes to speak to this. This is a very simple sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and I will read you what the sense is. I cannot imagine people would oppose this principle. It is the sense of Congress that seniors have the right to see the physician or health care provider of their choice, and not be limited in such right by the imposition of unreasonable conditions on providers who are willing to treat seniors on a private basis. . . Mr. President, there are a lot of details in legislation that might ultimately be passed that we can argue about, but I think there is no doubt that in expressing the principle, we can all be in agreement that just because one turns 65 and is eligible for Medicare does not mean they lose the right to see the physician of their own choice. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and will see if there is anyone who wishes to speak in opposition.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for the purpose of offering an amendment, which I send to the desk.

Mr. KYL. I ask that the amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I clarify. I would like 5 seconds as well to offer an amendment.

Mr. KYL. Thank you. I want to respond to the distinguished minority leader. It is true that legislation that would actually change the law would certainly have to consider all kinds of issues dealing with fraud and abuse and similar questions that the distinguished minority leader has raised. We can have that debate at the time such legislation might come before us. What is before us today is simply a sense of the Senate, an expression of a principle that it is the sense of Congress that seniors have the right to see the physician or health care provider of their choice. I hope we can at least agree on that basic principle. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from New Mexico, the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for the budget resolution that he has brought to the Senate floor. It is not exactly as I would have written it--and my hope is that we will be able to make some improvements during the course of debate over the next few days--but I believe it is generally on the right track and compares favorably to the alternative budget submitted by President Clinton. First and foremost, the Senate budget resolution would balance the unified budget and keep it in balance during each of the next five years. We will even run a small surplus. By comparison, President Clinton's budget appears to throw fiscal discipline out the window with proposals to spend billions of dollars on new government programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Clinton budget would take us back into deficit as early as the year 2000. Second, the Senate budget would adhere to the spending limits that both Congress and the President agreed to just last year. The Clinton plan, by contrast, would bust the spending caps outright--by $12 billion in FY99, and a total of $68 billion over the next four years. I think we ought to keep our word and stick to the spending limits, and we do. Third, the Senate budget would reserve the anticipated surplus for Social Security. The President said that is what he wanted, too, but he then submitted a budget that would spend down the unified budget surplus on myriad new government programs. And of course, he is asking us to spend every dime of the Social Security surplus on general operating expenses of the government. Fourth, our budget would set aside any proceeds from a tobacco settlement to shore up the Medicare trust fund for our nation's senior citizens. The Clinton budget would spend all of the tobacco money on other programs. And fifth, the Senate budget would accommodate another, albeit small, installment of tax relief for hard-working Americans. By comparison, President Clinton's budget would raise taxes yet again. Mr. President, let me turn for a moment to the portion of the Senate budget resolution that deals with education, training, and employment programs, since that seems to be what we are hearing about most from the other side. Last year's budget agreement made education, training, and employment a protected category and called for spending--outlays-- of $61 billion next year. It called for a total of $318.3 billion over five years. Here is what President Clinton said about the level of education spending in the budget agreement when he signed off on it last year. These are comments the President made on the South Lawn of the White House on July 29, 1997: . . . at the heart of this balanced budget [agreement] is the historic investment in education--the most significant increase in education funding in more than 30 years. He went on to call it ``the best education budget in a generation and the best for future generations.'' The level of spending the President was referring to then is exactly what is included in the Senate budget resolution that is before us today. It is the exact level. What about health research? Over the next five years, spending at the National Institutes of Health would increase substantially under the Senate budget. We are talking about an 11 percent increase in 1999, on top of the seven percent increase provided in 1998. And we would provide these additional funds within the overall spending limits, and regardless of whether a tobacco settlement is passed later this year. By contrast, President Clinton would link increased NIH spending to the fate of the tobacco settlement. That means that if there is no settlement, there is no increase for the NIH either. I do not think that is good enough. We should devote more to health research whether or not we are able to achieve a tobacco settlement, and we do that in our budget. If there is any revenue derived from the tobacco settlement, we say that it ought to go into the Medicare trust fund. And that is what this budget resolution would do. We all know that Medicare's long-term solvency is still tenuous at best. We ought to shore up the system before tapping new sources of revenue for a multitude of new government programs. So these are some of the things I think the Senate does better than the alternatives. But, in my opinion, it still does not do enough to limit the growth of federal spending. It is true that the committee- reported budget is within the spending caps that were set last year, but those caps are still too high. The caps allow total spending to grow from $1.73 trillion next year to $1.95 trillion in 2003. That will amount to a nearly 13 percent increase at the end of the five-year period. And it comes on top of the 25 percent increase in spending that has occurred in just the last five years. What does that mean for taxpayers? The Tax Foundation estimates that the median income family in America saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 38.2 percent of income last year--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. Put another way, in too many families, one parent is working to put food on the table, while the other is working almost full time just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy. Here is a different way to measure how heavy the federal tax burden is. Consider that federal revenues this year will claim about 19.9 percent of the nation's income, the Gross Domestic Product. Next year, that portion would climb to 20.1 percent, according to the administration's projections. That would be higher than any year since 1945. It would be only the third year in our nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded 20 percent of national income--and the first two times, our economy tipped into recession. So the question we need to ask is whether a balanced budget is the only goal, even if it means we achieve balance at a level where taxes and spending are too high? Or is the real goal of a balanced budget to limit government's size and give people more choices and more control over their lives? For me, there is not great achievement in balancing the budget if it means that hard-working families continue to be overtaxed. There is no great achievement in a balanced budget if the government continues to grow, even as it balances its books. If it is doing that, it is continuing to take choice and freedom away from its citizens. A balanced budget is really the means of right-sizing the government so that it is more respectful of hard-working taxpayers' earnings and their desire to support their own families. With that in mind, I believe we have got to do much better in providing tax relief. Currently, this budget calls for tax relief amounting to $30 billion over the next five years. Although that may initially sound like a lot, let me put it into perspective. The federal government expects to collect nearly $9.3 trillion--that is, $9.3 trillion--over the next five years. So a tax cut of $30 billion really amounts to just about 0.3 percent. It is too little. We must find a way to do more. And the way to do more within the confines of a balanced budget is to reduce non-priority spending and limit spending growth. At the very least, if we cannot provide more tax relief, we should at least be able to agree that taxes are high enough and should go no higher. I intend to offer an amendment to express the sense of the Senate that it should be harder to raise taxes--at least as hard to raise taxes as it is to cut them. Recall that President Clinton's record-setting tax increase in 1993 failed to win support from even a simple majority of elected Senators-- Vice President Gore's vote in favor broke a 50 to 50 tie. By contrast, it would have taken a supermajority vote to provide tax relief two years later; President Clinton vetoed our tax-relief bill, and it would have required a two-thirds vote--67 votes in the Senate--to overcome the President's resistance and provide tax relief. That is wrong. A supermajority vote to raise taxes would ensure that future tax increases, if they are needed, are approved with broad bipartisan support in Congress and around the country. Mr. President, I again want to commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for his work on this measure. It is a good proposal, and I think we have an opportunity during the next few days to make it even better.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 493, the Cellular Telephone Protection Act, and urge the President to sign this important piece of legislation without delay. This bill makes it easier for federal law enforcement to stop cell phone cloning by targeting cloning at its source--the equipment (``black boxes'') used to alter or modify the ESN (electronic serial number) of a cellular phone. I am particularly pleased that this bill has the support of the U.S. Secret Service, the Department of Justice, the wireless phone industry, and Congress. This bill is not only a victory for law enforcement, but also for the 56 million Americans who currently use wireless/cellular service. According to the cellular telecommunications industry, consumers lose in excess of $650 million a year due to fraud, much of it as a result of cloning. This results in increased costs to cellular customers. S. 493 is the first in a series of anti-crime initiatives I introduced that are aimed at modernizing U.S. law to reflect changes in technology. It is another step to assure that law-abiding citizens don't inadvertently become part of a criminal activity. Wireless fraud is not a victimless crime. It strikes at the heart of technology that is improving the safety, security and business productivity of the entire Nation. This bill will help stop the criminal cloning of wireless phones by giving law enforcement the tools they need to combat wireless fraud. The Secret Secret--the Federal agency charged with investigating cloning offenses--has doubled the number of arrests in the area of wireless telecommunications fraud every year since 1991, with 800 individuals charged for their part in the cloning of cellular phones in 1996. At a House Subcommittee on Crime hearing law year, the Secret Service conducted a demonstration in which a phone was cloned in approximately 30 seconds. At that hearing, law enforcement officials testified at how cloning technology is increasingly being used in various types of criminal activity--especially in drug crimes. On February 24, 1998, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Government Information in which the Secret Service testified that foreign terrorists were financing their operations in the U.S. with the aid of ``cloned'' cellular telephones. Deputy Assistant Director Richard Rohde testified that foreign terrorists often make money by running illegal ``cell-sell'' rings. These rings involve the illegal sale of long-distance telephone access using fraudulently-obtained service. One common method is ``renting'' the use of a cellular phone which has been ``cloned,'' or modified to direct billing identification to the user of a different phone. While the current cell phone law (18 U.S.C. 1029) has been useful in prosecuting some cloners, the statute has not functioned well in stopping those who manufacture and distribute cloning devices. In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Michael C. Stenger of the Secret Service stressed the need to revise our current cell phone statute: Due to the fact that the statute presently requires the proof of ``intent to defraud'' to charge the violation, the distributors of the cloning equipment have become elusive targets. These distributors utilize disclaimers in their advertising mechanisms aimed at avoiding a finding of fraudulent intent. This allows for the continued distribution of the equipment permitting all elements of the criminal arena to equip themselves with free, anonymous phone service. Under S. 493, a prosecutor would need to prove that an individual knowingly uses, produces, traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses hardware or software, knowing it has been configured to insert or modify telecommunications identifying information associated with or contained in a telecommunications instrument so that such instrument may be used to obtain telecommunications service without authorization. The removal of the ``intent to defraud'' language in 18 U.S.C. 1029 only applies to the possession and use of the hardware and software configured to alter telecommunications instruments. It does not apply to those who are in the possession of cloned phones. Nor does it apply to those in the possession of scanning receivers (which do have some legitimate uses). Someone who does not know that a telecommunications device has been altered to modify a telecommunications instrument would not be criminally liable under this section. I am very proud of this important crime-fighting legislation and look forward to its prompt signature by the President.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I inquire about the time remaining?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts, and perhaps those of the Senator from West Virginia as well. First of all, let me clarify something. The Senator from Massachusetts says that this is the ``freedom to price gouge'' and the ``freedom to exploit.'' In so saying, the Senator misrepresents significantly the amendment, or the bill that Representative Archer and I have introduced, which has a variety of provisions specifically designed to prevent fraud and abuse. The only thing that we have before us here today is the sense-of-the- Congress resolution. I draw the Senator's attention to some of the provisions on page 2 which specifically set forth the requirements that would protect against fraud and abuse. In other words, what we are saying is that this freedom to choose must--and I am quoting now from the amendment that we are debating--must include provisions that ``are subject to stringent fraud and abuse law, including the Medicare antifraud provisions in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.'' Now, if those are not good enough, then perhaps we ought to be changing the existing law. But we are going to actually have more stringent fraud and abuse provisions than the existing law has. So I really in a sense resent the suggestion that there is nothing in here that prevents fraud and abuse. This legislation has more antifraud and abuse provisions than existing law. Second point. The Senator from Massachusetts says that only 4 percent, according to a study, only 4 percent of seniors have difficulty getting their health care under Medicare. Well, by my calculation that is ``only'' 1,360,000 seniors. That is a lot of seniors. The truth of the matter is most seniors will take advantage of Medicare. It is a good deal. We hope that will continue to be the case. But for those few who choose to contract privately, why deny them that right? The GAO study cited by the Senator from Massachusetts says, ``If direct contracting continued to be rarely used''--and I say ``continued to be'' because the right does exist today--``there would be no changes in the benefit payments, no additional difficulties in combating fraud and abuse, and no major new administrative burdens placed on HCFA.'' So if it is not a problem, then why oppose this amendment? GAO says it would not be a problem. And, in fact, the Senator proves too much by the last point that he made. He said, actually it is the case today that if a patient wants to ask the doctor not to submit a claim, the doctor does not have to do that and therefore we already have this so we do not need the Kyl amendment--to which there are two responses. First of all, if current law already provides this, then why does the Senator object to the mere statement of the principle that the choice should exist? If the Senator is happy with existing law, he can't very well oppose the principle that simply restates existing law. I again quote from what we are debating. It is frequently helpful to do that. All the sense-of-the-Senate provides is, and I quote, ``It is the sense of Congress that seniors have the right to see the physician or health care provider of their choice, and not be limited in such right by the imposition of unreasonable conditions on providers who are willing to treat seniors on a private basis. . .'' Does the Senator oppose that principle? The Senator suggests that that is already existing law. If so, then what is the problem? The truth, however, Mr. President, is that it is not existing law. As a matter of fact, the Senator from Massachusetts cannot cite either a statute or a regulation which says that this is existing law, because it is not. HCFA will quietly tell you that they would not mind if a patient did that, but they do not want to advertise it and there is no legal authority for it. The truth of the matter is that, as the GAO pointed out, it has always been the case up until January 1, 1998, that patients had this right to privately contract. You have all of the great concerns about fraud and abuse that have been articulated by the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Massachusetts, but I have never heard of one single case--and I would be delighted if the Senator could cite one--where in the past 20 years, since this right did exist until January 1 of this year, there was fraud and abuse as a result of this. I know of none. So, Mr. President, I will make one final point. The Senator from West Virginia is not on the floor, but he made the point that this isn't good for Medicare beneficiaries. I suggest, that goes to the heart of this debate. Who decides what is good for the beneficiaries? Washington, DC, bureaucrats or the beneficiaries? Let the beneficiaries decide. As the GAO points out, if most beneficiaries do not take advantage of this freedom to contract--and I doubt that they will--then there is no problem. But let them make the decision. We should not be making the decision that they do not have the right even if they desire to exercise it. I think it is pretty hard to argue with the proposition that patients should have this freedom of choice. And I have not heard anything yet that persuades me that this is not a good amendment. I again urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the Chair. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we are now back on amendment No. 2169. That amendment is a sense of the Congress, and it is very simple. I will read the operative clause: It is the sense of Congress that seniors have the right to see the physician or health care provider of their choice and not be limited in such right by the imposition of such unreasonable conditions on providers who are willing to treat seniors on a private basis, and that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this resolution assume that legislation will be enacted to assure this right. It is that simple, Mr. President. Senior citizens should not be discriminated against because when they turn 65 they are eligible to receive Medicare. Unfortunately, the administration has taken the position that eligibility to receive Medicare is exclusive; that is to say, that it's either Medicare or no care, that a senior citizen has no right to be treated outside of Medicare for Medicare-covered services. How could we be in that situation in the United States of America, where the Government provides a good program for senior citizens which, in most cases, is going to be precisely what they want to take advantage of, but it says to them that, if there is some reason why you might want to privately contract and pay the bill yourself, you can't do that. Here is the history of it, Mr. President. For over 20 years during the time Medicare has been in force, senior citizens have had the right either to go to the physician of their choice and have him submit a bill to Medicare or, if they choose, to be treated outside of Medicare and not submit the bill. There are some people who have not wanted their records to be part of the official Government archive. They may have psychiatric problems, for example, and they didn't want to have their treatment be a part of Medicare and they were willing to pay the bill themselves. That is just one example. But recently HCFA, the Health Care Financing Administration, began taking the view that that was illegal and began sending letters to physicians threatening them with prosecution if they treated patients outside of Medicare. So, as part of the Balanced Budget Act, I offered an amendment which prevailed on an overwhelming vote here last year that citizens did, in fact, have the right to privately contract--a very straightforward proposition. During the last-minute negotiations of the Balanced Budget Act, however, the administration representatives convinced whoever was negotiating on our side that the President would veto the entire Balanced Budget Act if the Kyl amendment stayed in, and it was changed, pursuant to the administration's request, to provide that while the right of the senior citizen existed, it could only be exercised by a physician who, in advance, dumped all of his Medicare patients for a period of 2 years. That is obviously an unreasonable requirement. Very few, if any, physicians are going to do that. So, as a practical matter, the right of senior citizens to go to a physician of their choice under Medicare was eliminated. We have not yet offered legislation for a vote here which would reverse that. But this is the first opportunity we have had, so we present to the Senate a sense of the Senate, as part of the budget resolution, which says that senior citizens should have this right. Then, when the opportune time comes, we will be offering the legislation which has already been introduced and has 49 cosponsors in the Senate, and 190 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, a bill sponsored by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer called the Medicare Beneficiaries Freedom to Contract Act. That legislation, which, as I say, has 49 cosponsors here and 190 in the House already, will be offered, so we will have the opportunity to actually change the law. But pending that, this presents the principle that seniors ought to have this freedom to contract. Our resolution, by the way, is sponsored by Senator Hollings, Senator Lott, Senator Frist, Senator Gramm, Senator Domenici, Senator Stevens, Senator Gorton--the Presiding Officer--and, as I say, 49 Members total. Let me give an example of a specific situation which came to my attention. One of my constituents from Prescott, AZ--a relatively small town--has a severe case of diabetes. She went to a physician who said, ``I am sorry, I am not taking any Medicare patients, so I cannot take care of you.'' He was the only specialist, really, in the small community who could care for her. Why is it, by the way, that some physicians are in that position? We know that Medicare reimburses at such a low rate--the average is 70 cents on the dollar of cost--that many physicians simply cannot take all Medicare patients. So they have to draw the line and not take any beyond a certain point. In any event, she said, ``That's fine, bill me directly, and I will be happy to pay.'' He said, ``Medicare will prosecute me for fraud if I do that.'' And that is what we are trying to fix here. There are a lot of situations where people may wish to go to the doctor of their choice and be treated outside of Medicare. I know of a situation in which I helped a constituent obtain a compassionate release from FDA so that constituent could take an experimental drug to treat her for cancer. The reason is that her husband was willing to go to any lengths, to do anything, to preserve her life. She ended up dying, but I think her case is illustrative of what every one of us would do in her husband's position. If we had the money, if we had the ability, we would go to any length to do anything to save our loved one's life. That is what is being denied American citizens today. Believe it or not, the socialized medicine system in Great Britain allows patients this choice. They can either be treated under their socialized medicine system or they can go to a private physician and pay the bill themselves. But here in the United States of America, once you turn 65, you lose that right. This amendment simply expresses the sense of Congress that that should not be the case. The seniors here should have the freedom of choice. That right should not be limited by any unreasonable conditions placed upon providers. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to present these views. I would love to hear from anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this principle that senior citizens should have the right to privately contract. I invite anyone who is in opposition to present those views here, because I would love to debate that, as I said. Constituents all over this country are writing in and calling me saying, this is outrageous; please reestablish this right. So I am going to cease my presentation now since we are limited in the amount of time we have. I reserve whatever time we have to respond to anyone who is willing to come defend the proposition that senior citizens should not have the right to privately contract in the United States of America. Mr. President, observing no other Members on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could make just a couple of comments in response to the Senator from Minnesota. If an insurance company or plan like Kaiser company has a contract to provide care, they would be obligated to provide the care they contracted to provide. They can't all of a sudden just opt out and say we have decided we don't want to do that anymore or we are going to charge more money for it. I really don't understand the point of the Senator from Minnesota in that regard. Second, he argued that under this amendment it could well come to pass, probably would come to pass, that so many physicians would charge so much more that pretty soon people wouldn't be able to afford their medical care. Yet it has also been argued here that very few people would want to take advantage of this; that 92 percent of the people in Medicare are happy with the care that they are getting. I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't think you can argue on the one hand that there would be dire consequences because everybody will want to do this and on the other hand everything is just fine and nobody is going to want to do it. The truth of the matter is that probably not very many people will want to do this and therefore it will not have dire consequences on the system. But for those people who do want to do it, it becomes a very important matter to them. They may want to spend whatever they have-- whether they have very much or not--in order to get that physician of their choice. Let me present an analogy to you, Mr. President, about what the Senators who are arguing in opposition to this are really arguing. They said we provided this great health care system for the citizens of the United States, and so it has to be the only system. To be consistent, they should also say we provided a great retirement system for people in this country; it is called Social Security. So in order to prevent anybody from getting anymore money than anyone else in retirement, we are going to provide that under Social Security; that is what you got; you can't go outside; you can't have pension benefits, insurance benefits, stock paying you dividends or money from your kids or whatever. It is the Government plan or no plan, just like they are saying, here it is, Medicare or no care. Same thing, Mr. President. You can see how absurd the proposition is when presented in that way. For retirement savings, we acknowledge the fact that people ought to have a choice. They can have the Government plan but they can also exercise their own freedom of choice to provide for themselves as they see necessary. But what our colleagues on the other side are saying is, when it comes to health care, which I argue is even more important to people than money, ``No, you don't have that choice, because the Government has decided not only is it going to provide you an entitlement of health care, but it has now decided that is the only thing you can get once you turn 65; that you cannot go outside of that system.'' That, Mr. President, is what is so wrong with the law that took effect as of January 1 of this year and what we are trying to correct. That is why we need to go on record expressing the sense of the Senate, and I will read it again: [Expressing] the sense of the Senate that seniors have the right to see the physician or health care provider of their choice. . . I hope my colleagues will support us in that expression.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair. I think it is probably time for me to respond to some of the things that have been said. I appreciate the spirit in which the comments were made by the Senator from Minnesota, and earlier by the Senator from Arkansas, and certainly also by the Senator from Nevada. We have reasonable differences of opinion about certain matters here. I appreciate the spirit in which their comments have been made. But my, oh, my, Mr. President, it is amazing to me that we would have 49 or 50 cosponsors of this legislation in the Senate and almost 200 in the House if it were going to do all of the horrible things that have been suggested by my colleagues. I don't think I could go home. I daresay that I probably represent more senior citizens--or at least as many as my distinguished colleague from Minnesota. In fact, half of the State of Minnesota comes to my State in the wintertime, and we really enjoy visiting with his constituents. Obviously, they probably receive some medical care in our State, too. Obviously, we are not going to be doing something by which my mother and father and all of their friends and all of my other senior constituents are going to feel threatened. What could it be that is so horrible about this? The Senators from Arkansas and Nevada made, I think, a very telling point. They said that Medicare has certainty. The Senator from Nevada said that it may not be perfect but at least it has certainty. Mr. President, that is true. The Congress began here with a program, an entitlement for senior citizens, to provide certain medical care--not all care, but certain care for senior citizens. Gradually, over time, that has transformed from an entitlement into an exclusive program. It is Medicare or no care, as of January 1 of this year. Up to that point, you had options. You could go outside the Medicare system, if you wanted to, for covered services. As the Senator from Nevada pointed out, it wasn't done very much, but you had the right. That is the point. All of these dire warnings about price gouging and people having to choose between food and medical care, that has been the situation for the last 20 some years. Patients have always had this right to privately contract. It was taken away from them, as a practical matter, on January 1 of this year. That is why I am standing here. I would not be here otherwise. What happened was that because the Health Care Financing Administration was writing letters to doctors threatening them that they had to submit a bill to Medicare for anyone who was ``Medicare eligible''--obviously, that is everybody over 65--the doctors were worried. They said, ``We never had to do this before,'' and, as a colleague pointed out, ``If the patient doesn't want to have this done, we don't have to do it. They could be treated outside of Medicare. So would you please confirm that, make it absolutely certain in the law?'' So I introduced the amendment. It passed overwhelmingly, like 65-35 or so. All of us want to give patients the freedom of choice: Even if the right isn't going to be exercised very much, let the patient decide. But what happened was that after that became part of the Balanced Budget Act of last year, as it was being negotiated in its details at the very end of the year, in the middle of the night, the administration officials convinced some House and Senate negotiators that they had to attach a condition onto our amendment; namely, in order for a patient to have this right, they had to find a doctor who would dump all of that doctor's Medicare patients for 2 years in advance, or you could not contract privately. As a practical matter, that eliminated the choice, because very few doctors are going to dump all of their existing Medicare load to just treat a few private contract patients. So, as a result, we are now dealing with a new phenomenon. What started as a great program, an entitlement, which people could take advantage of, has now become the exclusive, only way for senior citizens to receive care in our country. As I pointed out earlier, even in England where they have socialized medicine, they have a system whereby, if you don't want to go to the socialized medicine program, you can go to a doctor of your choice. Many people do, and has it ruined the English system of health care? No. If this is going to be such a horrible thing and ruin Medicare, why hasn't it ruined the English system, where this right of private choice always has existed? Why didn't it ruin the Medicare system before January 1, when this right existed? It may not be perfect, but at least there is certainty. We are saying the certainty has now gotten to the point where it is a constraint, the denial of a right and the denial of a freedom. In that regard, certainty is less desirable than choice. Now, my colleague from Minnesota made an interesting point in concluding. He said doctors could overcharge here and you could actually create two classes of medicine. Mr. President, I think this says a lot, because what it says in the long run is that we are going to have one level of care for senior citizens. We can't predict exactly what that level of care is going to be, but whatever it is, if a senior feels dissatisfied with that level of care, he or she is stuck with it; there is no way out. Even in Great Britain, you have a way out. If you are not satisfied with it, if you don't think it suits your particular needs, you at least have the right to go to the doctor of your choice outside the system. But not in the United States of America. We are going to say, ``No, no, there has to be only one type of care and it has to be the same for everybody once you hit 65.'' What we are saying is that there may be a few people--and I grant it will not be a large number--but there may be a few people who are not satisfied with that, who, for whatever reason, decide they want to have care outside of the Medicare system and they are willing to pay for it. Why deny them that right? This is America. One of my colleagues made the point, I think it was the colleague from Arkansas, that this is elitist because some people will pay for their own care. Perhaps you have a patient who has been treated by the same doctor for many years and he just wants to go back to that same doctor even though he would have to privately contract. That could well happen, but I don't call that elitist. I cited the example of a friend of mine, who is not a senior citizen, by the way, but his wife was very, very ill with cancer. He would have spent every nickel that he had, he would have spent his life savings, he would have done anything to save her life. In the end he couldn't, but he went to great lengths to try to save her life. As I said, I was successful in getting a compassionate release from FDA so she could be treated with some experimental drugs. When it is your life, or your wife, your spouse, you will do anything when their health care, their life, is involved. Are we going to say to them, in the United States of America, ``No, you are stuck with Medicare whether you like it or not,'' even though you might be able to go to a great specialist somewhere at some great university who is not taking very many Medicare patients and he doesn't want to take any more Medicare patients but he is willing to treat you? We are saying, ``No, we are not going to let that great surgeon, that university research expert, treat you outside of Medicare because we only have one level of care in this country and we don't want anybody to have any better care than anybody else.'' I don't call that elitist. I call that the denial of the basic American right of freedom. That is why I think we need to get this back to what we are really talking about. Let me read again the words, because I find it hard to believe that my colleagues would really vote against these words. This is the amendment we are debating here: It is the sense of Congress that seniors have the right to see the physician or health care provider of their choice. Those who vote no are saying, no, they should not have that right. It is that simple. Finally, perhaps I could refer to some of the antifraud provisions. I had not wanted to take the time to do this, but there has been a suggestion that patients are in jeopardy, that seniors would be in jeopardy because doctors could charge all kinds of extra money. I really don't have the time to read all of this; it is page after page after page. Let me just cite some examples here of some of the things that are included that a physician would have to do in order to enter into this kind of contract, in order to assure that there is no fraud or abuse. And HCFA, Health Care Finance Administration, would have total control over this. The requirements are as follows. First of all, a contract would have to be in writing and signed. No claims could be--the contract provides that no party to the contract and no entity on behalf of any party to the contract shall submit any claim or request for payment to Medicare. The contract must identify the Medicare-covered professional services and the period, if any, to be covered, but does not cover any services furnished before the contract is entered into for the treatment of an emergency medical condition. So this couldn't be used when the patient is in extremis unless the contract was entered into before the onset of the emergency medical condition. There must be clear disclosure of terms. The contract must clearly indicate that by signing the contract the Medicare beneficiary understands and agrees not to submit a claim to Medicare, agrees to be responsible, whether through insurance or otherwise, to pay for the services, acknowledges that no limits under this title may be charged, acknowledges that Medicare supplemental policies do not make payments for such services, acknowledges that the beneficiary has the right to have such services provided by other physicians or health care practitioners for whom payment would be made by Medicare; that the contract must also clearly indicate whether the physician or practitioner is excluded from participation; the parties can modify the contract if they consent, the health care practitioner must submit a variety of--a whole variety here of things to HCFA, including information to HCFA which makes it clear as to what the charges are, what the services are for which the payment is being made by the patient, and other information that Medicare--HCFA deems necessary to prevent fraud and abuse. It goes on and on and on. I don't need to quote it all. The point is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that we have before us here also makes reference to and summarizes those provisions. I noted just one of the provisions. I will cite it again, that the legislation we are talking about here must include provisions that are subject to stringent fraud and abuse law, including the Medicare anti- fraud provisions in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The point is, if the existing law antifraud provisions are good enough for the existing law, then it is kind of hard to criticize them as applicable to this. So I think it is a red herring to say doctors could somehow gouge patients under this. They are going to be subject to very stringent antifraud provisions, at least as stringent, and frankly more stringent, than those under existing law. So I really don't think that is a fair criticism of what we are trying to do here. This is merely a sense of the Senate that people in this country, just because they turn 65, should not be precluded from making the choice--that they are willing to pay for--to be treated outside of the Medicare Program. Most will not want to do so. But who are we to say in those cases in which a person does want to do so that they can't do it, whatever it means to their life or the life of their loved ones? I think that is what is elitist. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KYL. I thank my colleagues. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, this amendment is a sense of the Senate entitled ``Freedom of Health Care Choice for Medicare Seniors.'' The purpose of this amendment is for Members of the Senate to go on record as supporting the eventual adoption of legislation that will ensure that all seniors have freedom of choice in obtaining health care services for themselves and members of their families. As a result of the balanced budget amendment of last year, an amendment went into effect on January 1 that precludes most seniors from having this freedom to contract. While it establishes the principle that they may do so, it puts forth a condition that is virtually impossible for them to satisfy; namely, to find a physician who is willing to dump all of his Medicare patients for a period of 2 years prior to the time that their services are sought. As a result, it is impossible for most seniors to exercise a choice that is theoretically theirs in the law today. This proposal to be amended into the Balanced Budget Act is to express our sense that we intend to adopt legislation later that will provide for this right. As a matter of fact, I have introduced legislation, as has Congressman Bill Archer from Texas in the House of Representatives, that would fulfill this commitment. Mine is Senate bill 1194, the Medicare Beneficiaries Freedom to Contract Act. We have 49 cosponsors for this at the moment, and I think number 50 is on the way. Clearly, it is a popular idea because of the expressions of concerns by our senior citizens that they would like to have the freedom to contract for the services they desire. In the House of Representatives, Representative Archer, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has over 190 cosponsors. What is this sense of the Senate, and why do we need it? We believe the sense-of-the-Senate amendment here provides that Medicare beneficiaries should have the same right to obtain health care from the physician or provider of their choice as do Members of Congress and virtually all other Americans, and that there should be no unreasonable provisions or unreasonable conditions that prevent them from obtaining this care. Moreover, we specifically provide that the assumptions underlying the budget resolutions assume that this legislation will be enacted. So what is the problem here? Prior to January 1 of this year, and for all of the time that Medicare has been in effect, Americans have had the ability to go to the physician of their choice, and if that physician did not feel he could treat them under Medicare, or chose not to do so, or they chose not to be treated under Medicare, they would have the choice to contract outside of Medicare. Obviously, they had to pay the bill themselves. For most Americans, Medicare is such a good deal that this was rarely taken advantage of. However, there are situations in which a senior citizen might want to take advantage of this requirement. It had always existed. For example, a constituent of mine wrote to me and pointed out that in her community there was only one specialist that she felt could take care of her particular kind of diabetic condition. She went to see that physician, and he said that since she was 65 years of age, she was a Medicare beneficiary, she was Medicare eligible, and since she was Medicare eligible, he would have to submit the bill to Medicare if he treated her, but that he could not take on any more new Medicare patients, that he had as many as he could afford to continue to provide care to. She said, ``No problem, I'll pay you. You bill me directly, and we will save Medicare the money.'' He pointed out--and verified this with the Health Care Financing Administration--that they would assume he had committed fraud if he took care of her, submitted the bill to her, and had her pay him directly. Unless the bill is sent to Medicare, the care can't be provided. In effect, it is Medicare or no care. As of January 1 of this year, that is the law of the United States of America, believe it or not. Once you turn 65, you lose a right that all other Americans have, which is to go to the physician of your choice. It is Medicare or no care. You cannot contract outside of Medicare for Medicare-covered benefits. That is fundamentally un-American. If you have saved all of your life to provide for health care for yourself, your spouse, and your family, you are going to do anything within your power to help your spouse, let's say, who is ill, and if she wants to go to someone who is not treating new Medicare patients, for example, or is a non-Medicare-treating physician, you are going to spare no expense to save her life. I had this happen to a friend of mine. I was able to get a compassionate release from FDA to get an experimental drug so she could use it in the last few months of her life. Unfortunately, she passed on anyway. Her husband was willing to do anything to preserve her life, go to any lengths. Are we going to tell senior citizens in the United States they can't do that, they can't go to the doctor of their choice, that they have to go through Medicare or they can't be cared for at all? If they can't find somebody willing to treat their particular condition under Medicare, that is it, sorry, this is the United States of America, but they don't have that right anymore? If you are 64 and a half, of course, you have that right. If you are a Member of Congress, you have that right. If you are in Great Britain, under a socialized medicine system, you have that right. Even in Great Britain, which has socialized medicine, you can either go to that program or contract privately, so long as you pay the bill yourself. That is all we are asking for the United States of America. Yet, under an amendment that the President insisted be part of the Balanced Budget Act of last year, that right has been taken away from seniors in this country. All over the country, seniors are beginning to complain because they have figured out what has been taken away. This is one of the first things being brought up in town hall meetings. They ask me, ``Why are you taking away the Medicare rights?'' I have said, ``Look, I didn't do it. I didn't know that agreement had been struck in the middle of the night and snuck into the Balanced Budget Act. Everyone voted for it, and we knew nothing about it. A couple of days later, it was revealed that the President had insisted that this provision go into the law.'' So, Madam President, I think it is important for the Members of the Senate to go on record in the Budget Act here as supporting the principle of freedom to contract. The measure I have introduced has all kinds of safeguards to prevent fraud and abuse. We can have a good discussion about exactly what those should be. If you have a suggestion on how to make it better, fine with me, let's talk that out. At some point, we will actually bring that legislation to the floor and have that debate. I think all of us can agree on the basic principle that, A, we should have the freedom of choice to contract with the physician of our choice in this country; B, there should be adequate provisions to prevent fraud and abuse; and, C, we need to get this done as soon as possible. That is what our sense of the Senate calls for, Madam President. I hope that those people who have expressed opposition to this legislation will come forward and debate the issue. Let's have an open public debate, because the people of America need to understand what the Congress and the President did to them last year when it took away this fundamental right. Those of us who believe in the principle of doing everything you can for your loved ones need to support this. One final thought before I sit down. This law that is currently in effect is just like saying to seniors on Social Security that the only way you can provide for your retirement, your financial needs, is through the Government's Social Security system; you can't save any money, you can't have any stocks and bonds, you can't have any pension, you can't have any insurance annuities--none of that; it is either the Social Security system, the Government program, or no system. That is what we have said with regard to health care--you either take the Medicare health care program or nothing; you cannot contract outside of Medicare for covered benefits. As I said, it is ludicrous when you present it that way. Opponents say that there might be some fraud and abuse here. I think that sells the physicians in this country and our senior citizens very short. I know of nobody more careful about their bills than seniors. I know my mom and dad are. They can tell you whether they were overcharged. We can put provisions in this to ensure that there is no fraud and abuse. I think it is fundamentally wrong for us to deny this right to citizens just because we feel there may be some physician out there who would abuse the system. So I conclude by urging colleagues, when we have an opportunity to vote on this, to support this principle again in the Budget Act--and at this point it can only be a principle; it cannot be the effective legislation. We will propose that later. Surely we can support this principle through the sense of the Senate and, at a later time, actually support the legislation that would accomplish the principle. Madam President, at this time I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be laid aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, my amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill (S. 1768) would accelerate the development and deployment of theater missile defense systems. Recent revelations that Iran has nearly completed development of two new ballistic missiles--made possible with Russian assistance--that will allow it to strike targets as far away as Central Europe have convinced me that U.S. theater missile defenses must be accelerated in order to counter the emerging Iranian threat. This increased Iranian missile threat has materialized much sooner than expected due to the extensive assistance Russia has provided over the past year. According to press reports, development of Iran's 1,300 kilometer- range Shahab-3 missile, which will be capable of reaching Israel, could be completed in 12 to 18 months. Development of a longer-range missile, called the Shahab-4, whose 2,000 kilometer range will allow it to reach targets in Central Europe, could be completed in as little as three years. Both missiles could be armed with chemical or biological warheads. These revelations are part of a string of very troubling disclosures that have surfaced over the past year detailing the extensive aid Russia has provided to Iran. A bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives have been working on various legislative approaches to address the Iranian threat for some time. For example, last fall both Houses of Congress passed a Concurrent Resolution which Representative Jane Harman and I submitted expressing the sense of the Congress that the Administration should impose sanctions against the Russian organizations and individuals that have transferred ballistic missile technology to Iran. The annual foreign aid bill passed last year also contains a provision conditioning the release of foreign aid to Russia on a halt to the transfer of nuclear and missile technology to Iran. And, Senator Lott and Representative Gilman have introduced legislation that would require that sanctions be imposed against any entity caught transferring goods to support Iran's ballistic missile program. In addition to these legislative initiatives, the Administration has engaged in a series of diplomatic exchanges with the Russians. According to press accounts, Vice President Gore has raised the issue with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin on several occasions. President Clinton has discussed the matter with President Yeltsin at the Helsinki summit in March 1997 and at the P-8 summit last June. The President also appointed Ambassador Frank Wisner as his special envoy to hold detailed discussions with Russian officials about the dangers of aiding Iran's ballistic missile program. This is a very serious issue which the Clinton Administration has clearly acknowledged. As a result of the Administration's diplomatic efforts, in January Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin signed a decree issuing catch-all export controls on nuclear, biological, chemical, and missile technology. The Russian government has also said it will not assist Iran's missile program. While we all hope this will lead to an end to the transfer of Russian missile hardware and expertise to Iran, I think the jury is still out on whether Moscow will fully comply with its obligations. For example, just one month after Prime Minister Chernomyrdin issued the decree on catch-all export controls, the Washington Times reported that Russia was still providing missile aid to Tehran. Specifically Russia and Iran's intelligence services were reportedly coordinating a visit to Moscow by a group of Iranian missile technicians and Russian missile experts were planning to teach courses in Tehran on missile guidance systems and pyrotechnics. It is also worth remembering that Russia promised three years ago to phase out conventional arms sales to Iran and to join the Missile Technology Control Regime. In addition, last March, President Yeltsin assured President Clinton at the Helsinki summit that it was not Russia's policy to assist Iran's missile program. But Russia has given missile aid to Iran in violation of these commitments. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Einhorn summarized this situation well in Senate testimony last year stating, We have pressed the Russian leadership at the highest levels and we have been told that it is not Russia's policy to assist Iran's long- range missile program. But the problem is this: There's a disconnect between those reassurances, which we welcome, and what we believe is actually occurring. In any event, the United States and our allies must be prepared to protect ourselves from the possibility that Iran will use ballistic missiles armed with nuclear, biological, or nuclear warheads. It is that possibility that this amendment is intended to address. Neither the United States nor Israel will have missile defenses capable of countering the threat from the Shahab-3 or Shahab-4 missiles before those systems are deployed. This amendment provides funding to accelerate the development of some key theater missile defense systems, as well as procurement of items for a third Arrow missile defense battery for Israel. In crafting this amendment, I have worked closely with the Defense Department and my colleagues in the House of Representatives. Last month, Deputy Defense Secretary Hamre identified a variety of initiatives which DoD felt were needed to counter the new missile threat from Iran. In a letter to Representative Weldon, Mr. Hamre indicated the Administration felt so strongly about the need for these new initiatives that if additional funding was not provided, that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization would reprogram $100 million from existing missile defense programs for this purpose. Reprogramming missile defense funds would be counterproductive since, in effect, we would be robbing Peter to pay Paul. The $100 million of funding for initiatives identified by DoD are the core of this amendment. This funding requested by the Administration would provide: $35 million for integration of the Patriot (PAC-3), Navy Upper and Lower Tier, and THAAD radar systems to allow earlier, more accurate cueing that will increase the effective range of these missile defense systems. $15 million to accelerate completion of the PAC-3 remote launch capability. Remote launch allows PAC-3 missiles to be deployed at considerable distances from the PAC-3 radars effectively doubling the amount of territory defended. $40 million for one additional test flight of the PAC-3 and Navy Lower Tier systems to test their capabilities against longer-range missiles such as the Shahab-3 missile that Iran is developing. $10 million to improve interoperability between the Arrow and U.S. TMD systems. In addition to providing funding for the programs identified by the Administration, this amendment would also provide $6 million to integrate a variety of sensors and communication systems to provide better, more accurate early warning data from a missile launch, and $45 million to purchase a third radar for the Israeli Arrow system, the first step toward eventually providing a third battery of the system to Israel. The proposals contained in this amendment enjoy bipartisan support. Last week, the House National Security Committee passed a bill, which is very similar to the amendment I have offered, by a vote of 45 to 0. It is also important to note that the amendment I have offered simply makes $151 million in funding available to the administration. In order for the Administration to use this funding it must designate it as an emergency requirement. In closing, I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens for his support and urge my Senate colleagues to support this amendment which will help ensure that the United States and its allies can take meaningful steps to counter the growing threat from Iran's missile program.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power, of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to receive testimony regarding S. 1515, a bill ``To amend Public Law 89-108 to increase authorization levels for State and Indian tribal, municipal, rural, and industrial water supplies, to meet current and future water quantity and quality needs of the Red River Valley, to deauthorize certain project features and irrigation service areas, to enhance natural resources and fish and wildlife habitat, and for other purposes,'' has been postponed. The hearing was scheduled to take place on Tuesday, March 31, 1998, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, and will be rescheduled later. For further information, please call Jim Beirne, senior counsel (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765.