Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays on the perfecting amendment.

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I send a perfecting amendment to the desk.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask the Presiding Officer to tell the Senator from West Virginia when he has only 1 minute remaining. Mr. President, the Craig amendment would cut $10.5 billion in veterans' funds in the budget resolution. No. 2, the Craig amendment still allows the money to be cut and then to reauthorize--as he says, we will do a study for a year-- incidentally, by the same people, a study by exactly the same people who came up with this solution, to cut the money. But in order to reauthorize the veterans' disability benefit, the Congress--everything would then be subject to PAYGO, and my colleagues had better understand that Congress would then have to cut off another veterans' benefit. So this is a blind path that we are going down. A vote in favor of the Craig amendment is a vote to shift $10.5 billion away from disabled veterans. Mr. President, I yield back my time. Amendment No. 2284 to Amendment No. 2226

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Regular order, Mr. President. Mr. President, I believe I had----

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield back the remainder of my time and send an amendment to the desk. Amendment No. 2283 to Amendment No. 2226

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the distinguished floor manager indicates that the President of the United States has done this. I am not trying to protect the President of the United States. I think he is wrong on this also. I am trying to protect disabled American veterans who have been addicted to nicotine and who will be barred from getting compensation as a result of this. All I can say is that my amendment seeks to strike $10.5 billion that was put artificially, by trumped-up means, into the veterans' baseline. If there is a study or something to look at it in the future, it will then be too late--my purpose will be dead. I want to return to veterans that $10.5 billion which is ascribed to roads--which we treasure in West Virginia, but which, because of the good work of my senior colleague, we are doing very well with. And that is a common joke around here, and one which I enjoy and respect. But I care about veterans. We have approximately 200,000 of them in West Virginia. We have 26 million of them in this country. This is a blatant attempt, under a whole new concept--despite our new understanding of addiction to tobacco in general, and our new understanding of addiction to tobacco by veterans in the service--which DOD now admits for the first time--to take money away from helping veterans and give it to highways. Concrete and rebars and all of those things are important. But so are human beings who have served in this country's military service and who are addicted and have to go through an incredibly hard process to become classified as disabled to get this kind of help from VA. Yes, as the manager has indicated, some will get their health care benefits. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a process which, because of the addiction, they have to go through a very difficult process to achieve a status where they can get compensation for their disability due to addiction. It is a fundamental American matter, and it is also the law of the land at the current time.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Specter.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I want very much to give the chairman time.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will close on this portion.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Therefore, the Senator from West Virginia has 1 minute.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to clarify the situation in my mind. Senator Craig has not yet offered his amendment. Therefore, 5 minutes for responding to that amendment is not at this point available to me.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we have a very interesting amendment to propose and I think a very important one. I want to say first, I fully support highway funding. Obviously, in a State like West Virginia, where it is mostly mountainous, highway funding is more important and more expensive than most places. I supported Senate passage of ISTEA. We are spending $217 billion on highway funding this year. When I was Governor, I helped get an amendment passed in this Congress, which was actually referred to as the Rockefeller amendment, which said if States had accumulated money, they went to the head of the line on interstate highway building and got their money from the Federal Government first. Again, this is in no way an antihighway amendment, as some are very anxious to label it. It is, however, very much a proveteran amendment. The amendment has one purpose and one purpose only: To protect veterans funding from a midnight raid--nothing less--by the administration and the Budget Committee. The raid isn't really a raid, it is a ravage on the authority of the Veterans' Committee to see that the needs of the Nation's veterans are met. In this case, I am talking particularly about disabled veterans. It is as simple as that. The veterans' account under the budget authority is being cut by $10.5 billion to pay for an enormous increase in highway funds. This money is in the veterans' budget baseline. And today they are taking it away from disabled veterans and putting it into highways, where we already have $217 billion. My point is they need to find another offset. I think my colleagues would want to know just what is being done here, because it is not a pretty sight. First, what is the law about? Veterans law generally requires the VA to pay disability compensation to veterans for any injuries, diseases, or conditions they incur while they are in service in the military. After long debate, and for very good reasons, the Government long ago decided that veterans disability compensation is not limited to only combat-related conditions. The budget resolution would change that. In 1993, the VA general counsel in a Republican administration interpreted the law to require the payment of disability compensation to veterans who could prove they had become addicted to tobacco while in military service if that addiction continued without interruption and resulted in an illness and disability. It is important to remember that this is a very, very tough test for veterans to meet. And very few veterans--only about 8 percent of those who have made such claims--have been able to meet this test so far. In my home State of West Virginia, where there are approximately 200,000 veterans watching this debate closely, as of March 10, only 250 smoking-related disability claims have been filed and, of that number, only 6--6--had been granted so far. What this says to me is that these are tough claims to substantiate. This tough test is the very reason that so few claims have been filed and why so few have been granted. Even the military now acknowledges that it played a significant role in fostering addiction in very young men and women in the service. How did the military do this? One, by distributing free cigarettes in C- rations and K-rations. Two, by creating a culture that encouraged smoking at every opportunity, a culture of ``smoke 'em if you've got 'em.'' And three, by selling tobacco products at vastly reduced prices, prices as much as 76% less than in civilian markets. Mr. President, whether or not a veteran became addicted to tobacco during military service, the results of that addiction are issues that the VA has correctly decided, under existing law, should be determined by its triers of fact. This is the law currently. This is the law that the Budget Committee would unilaterally change. Now we get to the midnight raid. In approving the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution, the Senate Budget Committee assumes a $10.5 billion cut from the veterans account--from disabled veterans, in effect--to partially fund the very large increase in ISTEA funds. The Budget Committee made this transfer based upon their decision to totally bar any veterans' claims for disabilities resulting from any tobacco- related illnesses. But not only did the Budget Committee make this raid on veterans' compensation for disabled veterans under the budget resolution, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs' jurisdiction over this issue is totally removed. And lo and behold, where does it appear to go? It appears to be solely placed in the realm of the Transportation Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. President, this type of gimmickry makes a mockery of our budget process and of regular order in the Senate. It makes a mockery of the system of the Senate, which so many of our Senators are fond of talking about. This budget resolution will ultimately result in the erosion not only of the Veterans' Committee's authority, but of all authorizing committees' authority to determine policy. The budget committee is saying to us on the Veterans' Committee, we who take our work seriously, we will decide for you, we in the Appropriations Committee will decide for you; you will not decide policy in the authorizing committee. Let's put a human face on this issue. Just who are the people that this VA compensation is helping? In Huntington, WV, Robert Christian is a 71-year-old World War II veteran. He entered the Navy when he was 17 years old. He began smoking cigarettes supplied by the Navy while on a ship headed to the Pacific, where he was involved in three separate invasions during that war. Robert is just one of thousands of World War II veterans who became addicted to cigarettes supplied by the military. Don't talk about personal choice. His cigarettes were supplied by the military. So Robert smoked and has been addicted for 24 years. Today, he has bronchitis and emphysema as a result of his addiction. He receives regular treatments to help him breathe. Because Robert and his physicians were able to make the connection between his bronchitis and his nicotine addiction, his medical disability has been service-connected by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under the budget resolution, veterans like Robert would not be able to seek help. That is a disgrace. His disability check is not a lot of money, I might add. But the real asset in this case is his VA health care. Now, as a service-connected veteran, Robert is able to go to the VA medical center for treatment of his service-connected condition. He is able to get his health care because he is service connected. This would change under the budget resolution. And let's look at my friend, Larry Stotts of Spencer, WV. Larry joined the Marines at age 18, and he, too, began smoking the cigarettes supplied in service. Larry is a Korean War combat veteran and one of the Chosin Few. The Chosin Few are veterans of a bloody battle--in driving snow and sub- zero temperatures--at the Chosin Reservoir in Korea in 1950. After years of smoking beginning in the military, Larry has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is so severely disabling that the VA has granted--under the very law now proposed to be struck down--a 100% service-connected disability and free medical care. So when you take away this Department of Veterans Affairs compensation, remember that VA health care is now being provided on a priority basis. It has to do with your service-connected status or income level, and the first priority is for medical conditions linked to service in the military. A vote to deny VA compensation for smoking- related illnesses due to Government-sponsored nicotine addiction, which began in the service when these young men and women were teenagers, is also a vote to deny veterans health care--not just compensation for being disabled, but health care to thousands of veterans who turn to the VA for treatment of their smoking-related diseases. This is indeed a sorry statement about this country's sense of obligation to those who served our country. Mr. President, this issue is much clearer than all of this discussion of the law and the cost estimates. The issue is stunningly simple. Even if one opposes paying this compensation to a disabled veteran, or even if one is totally comfortable with the cost estimates that have been created, there is simply no reason--no reason--morally, ethically, or otherwise, to take away money from disabled veterans' programs and use it for other programs like tax cuts and highways. It is outrageous that veterans' programs are being looted in this way. We are not asking for cuts in all accounts this year. In fact, we are not even demanding that others, such as Social Security disability recipients, lose their smoking-related compensation. No. Only veterans. This year, we single out veterans and say: You, veterans, pay for all of this by giving up your rights. We imagine your satisfaction, disabled veterans, at $10 billion extra for highways, paid for by the loss of your rights to compensation as a disabled veteran. I oppose this raid. I urge a vote in favor of my amendment, and I reserve the remainder of my time. I will ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment after I yield to the Senator from Colorado. How much time is left?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 2226 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his, as usual, stalwart defense of what is right in health care. I am struck by the referral of the Senator from Maine to the increased number of uninsured, which has always been put out by those--particularly the insurance companies--who oppose any kind of adding on to health care coverage or the quality of health care coverage in this country. It is the oldest irony in the books. They have never supported anything, anything that I can remember, over the last 10 years that increased health insurance coverage. They have opposed everything. She quotes them--and she was even shot down by the Republican appointed CBO Director June O'Neill, who says in her letter, ``CBO has not estimated how PARCA [the bill referred to in the estimates under discussion] might affect the number of people covered by insurance.'' So on the one hand there is no argument, there is no case to be made about the increase; and secondly, in talking about this consumer bill of rights, we are talking about very, very fundamental things. I had to take my own son into an emergency room within the last 2 weeks with my wife. There was nobody in the emergency room except us. It was held open, Sibley Hospital, because it was open and we were able to take advantage of it. It is the most important room in a hospital. This bill would guarantee that an emergency room would be open for everybody in America--not just people named Rockefeller or Kennedy--24 hours a day, 365 days a year. That is necessary. I have another relative who has been through a mastectomy. People who say mastectomy quality is going up and people are not being urged to get out of hospitals simply don't know the facts because I have seen otherwise and I know otherwise. I suggest we support the amendments of the Senator from Oklahoma and that we support the Senator from Massachusetts, both.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it took Congress a decade to forge consensus necessary to pass the 1996 Telecommunication Act. This bold law was designed to promote competition in the dynamic telecommunications industry, but such competition is to be balanced by maintaining the commitment to universal service, a fundamental principle which has ensured affordable access to communications for every American, especially those in rural areas. I voted for this historic legislation because in my view it struck the right balance. I support competition, but I will insist on universal service. And I will insist on time to fully implement the Act. This bold law seeks to move the $200 billion telecommunications industry to a more competitive market, but it will not happen overnight. President Clinton signed this major legislation into law in February 1998, just two years ago. This started the telecommunications industry on the path toward competition, but there have been some road blocks along the way with implementation snags, mergers instead of competition, and excessive litigation. The current result, unfortunately, is confusion. I do not want to reopen the Telecommunications Act, but I do want to relieve the confusion among consumers who seem to be bearing the brunt of this transition. Today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation called the Consumer Protection Act to ensure ``truth in billing.'' I believe that consumers deserve to have the truth, the whole truth about changes in billings. As the telecommunications industry moves from a regulated, monopolistic model into a more competitive model, we need to ensure that consumers get the information they need to make wise decisions in selecting their telecommunications carriers. In a regulated market, the regulations are intended to protect consumers' interests. Under a more competitive model, we need to ensure that accurate information is provided to consumers so they can protect themselves and use their ability to choose in the market place. This legislation is very simple. It directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate billing practices, and report on the findings to Congress. If this investigation exposes misleading practices, we need to have disciplinary action to protect consumers. If telecommunications companies choose to use line-items on phones bills, those companies must accurately report all regulatory actions, including how federal actions reduce costs, such as the $1.5 billion in access reductions provided in July 1997. This legislation ensures that telecommunications companies cannot selectively disclose only those pieces of information that are in the companies' interest. When federal actions bring rates down, consumers have the right to know. As the industry makes the transition to a more competitive market, consumers deserve a full accounting so they can make informed decisions when they choose their telecommunications provider. The Consumer Protection Act will ensure that consumers will see on their own bill how companies allocate savings resulting from deregulation of the industry, as companies are required to disclose how savings are passed along to residential rates, small business rates and other customer payment plans. This is not re-regulation. Nothing in this dictates how much companies can charge for their services. And nothing prevents companies from putting line items on bills. Those choices are still entirely at the companies' discretion. This legislation simply requires them to tell the whole truth if they choose to put a line item on customers bills. The legislation has a third provision that requires companies using a line-item on customer bills to file with the FCC all the revenue and company reports they now file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The idea behind this requirement is simple. Since we require companies to report their revenues to the SEC in order to protect stockholders, shouldn't we provide the same information to the FCC in order to protect consumers? During this period of transition from a monopoly-based system to a market-based system, there will be some ups and downs. But we should act to minimize confusion and protect consumers as the new market evolves. At the state level, public service commissions are beginning to take steps to provide fuller, more accurate information to consumers. In January of this year, New York Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Stein recommended that telecommunications carriers be required to disclose fully, in bills of all classes of customers, the fee increases and fee reductions resulting from the enactment of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In February the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) passed a resolution that clearly noted that line- items are a business choice made by companies not a mandate from the federal government. The NARUC resolution called on the FCC to take action to require interstate carriers to provide accurate customer notice and the purpose of line-items. Some state officials are taking action. NARUC is calling on the FCC to lead. Now Congress needs to end the confusion, and tell consumers the truth. I am proud that the Consumers Union supports this bipartisan legislation. I welcome the support of my colleagues, Senator Snowe of Maine and Senator Kerrey of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it took Congress a decade to forge consensus necessary to pass the 1996 Telecommunication Act. This bold law was designed to promote competition in the dynamic telecommunications industry, but such competition is to be balanced by maintaining the commitment to universal service, a fundamental principle which has ensured affordable access to communications for every American, especially those in rural areas. I voted for this historic legislation because in my view it struck the right balance. I support competition, but I will insist on universal service. And I will insist on time to fully implement the Act. This bold law seeks to move the $200 billion telecommunications industry to a more competitive market, but it will not happen overnight. President Clinton signed this major legislation into law in February 1998, just two years ago. This started the telecommunications industry on the path toward competition, but there have been some road blocks along the way with implementation snags, mergers instead of competition, and excessive litigation. The current result, unfortunately, is confusion. I do not want to reopen the Telecommunications Act, but I do want to relieve the confusion among consumers who seem to be bearing the brunt of this transition. Today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation called the Consumer Protection Act to ensure ``truth in billing.'' I believe that consumers deserve to have the truth, the whole truth about changes in billings. As the telecommunications industry moves from a regulated, monopolistic model into a more competitive model, we need to ensure that consumers get the information they need to make wise decisions in selecting their telecommunications carriers. In a regulated market, the regulations are intended to protect consumers' interests. Under a more competitive model, we need to ensure that accurate information is provided to consumers so they can protect themselves and use their ability to choose in the market place. This legislation is very simple. It directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate billing practices, and report on the findings to Congress. If this investigation exposes misleading practices, we need to have disciplinary action to protect consumers. If telecommunications companies choose to use line-items on phones bills, those companies must accurately report all regulatory actions, including how federal actions reduce costs, such as the $1.5 billion in access reductions provided in July 1997. This legislation ensures that telecommunications companies cannot selectively disclose only those pieces of information that are in the companies' interest. When federal actions bring rates down, consumers have the right to know. As the industry makes the transition to a more competitive market, consumers deserve a full accounting so they can make informed decisions when they choose their telecommunications provider. The Consumer Protection Act will ensure that consumers will see on their own bill how companies allocate savings resulting from deregulation of the industry, as companies are required to disclose how savings are passed along to residential rates, small business rates and other customer payment plans. This is not re-regulation. Nothing in this dictates how much companies can charge for their services. And nothing prevents companies from putting line items on bills. Those choices are still entirely at the companies' discretion. This legislation simply requires them to tell the whole truth if they choose to put a line item on customers bills. The legislation has a third provision that requires companies using a line-item on customer bills to file with the FCC all the revenue and company reports they now file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The idea behind this requirement is simple. Since we require companies to report their revenues to the SEC in order to protect stockholders, shouldn't we provide the same information to the FCC in order to protect consumers? During this period of transition from a monopoly-based system to a market-based system, there will be some ups and downs. But we should act to minimize confusion and protect consumers as the new market evolves. At the state level, public service commissions are beginning to take steps to provide fuller, more accurate information to consumers. In January of this year, New York Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Stein recommended that telecommunications carriers be required to disclose fully, in bills of all classes of customers, the fee increases and fee reductions resulting from the enactment of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In February the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) passed a resolution that clearly noted that line- items are a business choice made by companies not a mandate from the federal government. The NARUC resolution called on the FCC to take action to require interstate carriers to provide accurate customer notice and the purpose of line-items. Some state officials are taking action. NARUC is calling on the FCC to lead. Now Congress needs to end the confusion, and tell consumers the truth. I am proud that the Consumers Union supports this bipartisan legislation. I welcome the support of my colleagues, Senator Snowe of Maine and Senator Kerrey of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to you on behalf of the citizens of West Virginia. The West Virginia Department of Culture and History has named 1998 ``The Year of the Quilt.'' In the Appalachian Mountain region, and particularly in the great state of West Virginia, the tradition of native crafting, including quilting, has thrived uninterrupted for over two hundred years. In 1968, my wife, Sharon, along with a group of community-minded West Virginians assisted a talented group of quilters to form Mountain Artisans, a nonprofit group comprised of gifted quilt makers, to help in the preservation and exposure of this artful tradition of design and talent. Many West Virginians considered quilting a part of the mountain state's heritage. My wife and I are particularly fond of the Mountain Artisans. When we were expecting our first child, in the late 1960's, the group graciously decided to create a quilt for our first-born. With the assistance of the Sod Sewing Group from Sod, West Virginia, the quilt was completed in mid-September of 1970. The beautiful quilt, which is known as ``The Rockefeller Quilt'' was displayed at the Rockefeller home and today, adorns the wall just outside my office in the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. One master quilter I especially admire is Mortana McCormick of Sod, West Virginia, who contributed to the creation of The Rockefeller Quilt. Ms. McCormick, a distinguished quilter, has represented the State well and helped put our state on the ``interior design and fashion'' map. She has contributed to fashion patchwork designs for Barbra Streisand and museum collections displayed in West Virginia and internationally. Mortana McCormick is just one of the talented artisan- quilters that call West Virginia home. I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in recognizing this long standing tradition and art, and its many talented artists, including Ms. Mortana McCormick.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, are we now back on the Kyl amendment?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I hope that Senator Richard Bryan from Nevada is on the way to the floor as I speak. I speak in opposition to this amendment. I need to point out that Medicare beneficiaries did not ask for this so-called ``new right.'' This is a proposal which is written to, frankly, charge seniors more money. That comment can be thrown around and thrown around very glibly when one is trying to make a populist point. On the other hand, therefore, it is true--and it has to be said in that manner--92 percent of beneficiaries are satisfied or, in fact, very satisfied with the availability of care under the Medicare Program now. It is this Senator's belief that fraud and abuse in the Medicare Program will increase very substantially if private contracting is allowed to occur. The Congressional Budget Office has this to say about the Kyl-Archer bill: HCFA's efforts to screen inappropriate or fraudulent claims could be significantly compromised because it would be difficult to evaluate episodes of care with gaps where services were directly contracted-- A very complicated way of saying a rather easy thing. It would not be very easy to track this: Without adequate regulatory oversight, unethical providers could bill Medicare while also collecting from directly- contracted patients. In other words, they could collect twice from Medicare and the patient. The bill would almost certainly raise national health spending. The Government Accounting Office. Private contracting, further, Mr. President, is not about the freedom of choice, as some of our friends from across the aisle would have us believe. The effort to privately contract is really, as I indicated much earlier, about money. Seniors have freedom of choice now. You can make a very, very good case that the strength of Medicare is based upon an original concept that no longer exists, and that is one gigantic pool. Because everybody is in that pool, almost like the original Blue Cross, Medicare wins money on some, loses on others, but in the end everything tends to wash out evenly. Seniors now are given many options. I participated in one of the options myself, the PSO amendment, which I did with Senator Bill Frist, and it was successful. But all this does not indicate, therefore, that seniors do not have the freedom of choice now. They do. They can go in many directions, and that is increasing all the time. They can see any doctor they want now, and they have adequate protections that the Medicare Program has and is providing them. The proposal to privately contract is opposed by the American Association of Retired Persons, the American College of Physicians, the National Council of Senior Citizens, Families USA, et cetera, and that is not really the point, is it? Because one can always find groups that are for or against something. While private contracting may be a good deal for doctors, it really is not necessarily a very good deal for beneficiaries, and that becomes important in the Medicare communities. Seniors would pay 100 percent of the bill when they privately contract. That is the way it would work--a large price tag for services that Medicare would otherwise cover. Private contracting would cripple Medicare's ability to hold down health care costs and would put elderly and disabled citizens at serious financial and medical risk. Under the Kyl-Archer bill, doctors can charge whatever they want for a Medicare-covered service. One would ask, why would one want to do that? The Kyl-Archer bill would allow doctors to give priority, frankly, to wealthy patients who are willing and able to pay out of pocket. My wife and I recently had an event--not serious--with our 18-year- old son. We took our son to six different physicians, most of them specialists. So when I say this, I say this in the context of an enormous regard for physicians and for the field and for the fact that our 18-year-old son wants to become a physician himself. Nevertheless, it is an incentive for doctors to go to those who are able to pay and get them to pay out of their pocket and pay more. In a February 23, 1998, letter from the GAO--which I believe is fairly broadly respected around here--to Senator Moynihan, the GAO's findings do not support Senator Kyl's sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Senator Kyl's amendment, for example, reads, according to the GAO, ``most seniors are denied this right (to obtain health care from physicians or providers of their choice) by current restrictions on their health care choices.'' Again, a denial of choice argument. The GAO letter to Senator Moynihan reads: Nearly all physicians treat Medicare patients and accept new patients covered by Medicare. Recent data from the AMA indicate that 96.2 percent of all non-Federal physicians treated Medicare beneficiaries in 1996. Moreover, the percentage of physicians treating Medicare patients has increased--from 95.2 percent in 1995 and 94.2 percent in 1994--over the last 2 years. A 1-percent increase. It simply shows the direction of more physicians treating Medicare patients. Again, the GAO says: According to the recent reports from PPRC, ``access for most [fee-for-service] beneficiaries remains excellent and . . . measures of access are essentially unchanged from previous years.'' In closing, Mr. President, I wish to make this statement. Much has been made of the United Seniors Association, which is a conservative fundraising arm of the Republican Party, in fact, and is the No. 1 supporter of the Kyl private contracting amendment. But then again, those things happen, too. I will say when Chairman Roth of the Senate Finance Committee heard their testimony, he said, ``I just want to make it clear that those kinds of statements are not satisfactory to this chairman.'' And he was not at that point a particularly happy chairman. At the beginning of the Kyl amendment, frankly, there were some of us who were very, very concerned because there were 47 cosponsors, including one Democrat. There has been a lot of emphasis, I think, in the last number of weeks to try to get this to be a better-understood proposition. In fact, I think now people are beginning to understand that this is not necessary, and there is a way for physicians to be able to charge Medicare beneficiaries more, and, in a sense, if a Medicare beneficiary is in a very sick condition or bad condition, how are they able to negotiate in the first place? I think the Senate would do best to simply send this sense of the Senate underground. I thank the Presiding Officer for his courtesy. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.