Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the amendment that is pending before the Senate in this bill, the 1997 appropriations bill, is that we establish a separate transfer account for contingency operations. Moving into this account are the funds budgeted for the contingency operations from services' operations and maintenance accounts. In addition, the subcommittee added funding for emergency requirements identified by the Department of Defense. This amendment would transfer an additional $4,200,000 from the Army's operation and maintenance account, and seek $66 million from the defensewide operation and maintenance accounts. The funds were identified by the department as needed in support of contingency operations, but were not identified for previous transfer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a time limit on this amendment of 30 minutes with time equally divided.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this effort has been raised by several of my colleagues. I believe it has great merit. The camp program addresses the needs of children challenged with disabilities that are not easily addressed. This includes children with Downs Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, and Autism. This program meets an urgent need at Lackland Air Force Base. We are addressing this need in a unique way. We will consider this effort when we bring the defense appropriation bill to the floor. The commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center, which is located at Lackland Air Force Base, has indicated the medical center has a close association with the camp program. Most of his staff are volunteers in the program. He views the program as an outgrowth of the pediatric department at Wilford Hall. The base commander of Lackland Air Force Base also supports the program. We asked him how he deals with the liability he personally might incur. He indicated that the benefits outweigh his risks. The Senator from Ohio stated that there was no agreement between the Air Force and the camp program. The base commander has informed the Senate Appropriations Committee that there is, in fact, an agreement between the base commander and the director of the camp program. The camp program is now housed in three 2-story barracks. This creates significant hazards with disabled children. Also, the manpower required for three buildings will be reduced with this new building. For instance, they will only need one nurse instead of three. These barracks are scheduled for demolition. As soon as this facility is built these barracks will come down. This program is not yet endorsed by the Department. I believe we must address the special needs of military families. This program is an effort to do just that. I appreciate the willingness of the managers of this bill and urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to provide a certificate of documentation for the vessel Damn Yankee. The Damn Yankee (vessel number 263611) is a 40 foot vessel owned by David Guthert of Juneau, AK. It was built in Bellingham, WA, in 1952. Because of a gap in the ownership records of this vessel, it has been determined to be ineligible for documentation under the Jones Act. Mr. Guthert plans on using the boat for charter purposes. I ask for unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to provide a certificate of documentation for the vessel Damn Yankee. The Damn Yankee (vessel number 263611) is a 40 foot vessel owned by David Guthert of Juneau, AK. It was built in Bellingham, WA, in 1952. Because of a gap in the ownership records of this vessel, it has been determined to be ineligible for documentation under the Jones Act. Mr. Guthert plans on using the boat for charter purposes. I ask for unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are several letters that I would like to submit for the Record as the Senate considers H.R. 1508, the National Children's Island Act. The letters are addressed to me as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and express support of both former and current elected officials in the District of Columbia for this bill. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following letters:

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. I will find some time in July, if we need to hold the hearing on Saturday, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from New Hampshire wish me to yield?

Mr. STEVENS. I just said I would yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. STEVENS. If I am able to, I will.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have conferred with the sponsors of this bill--it is a bill, a separate bill--that has been referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee. It is a matter on which we are seeking the advice of many people in this country as to how it would affect the pension systems not only of our governmental employees but also of those in the private sector. As I have said to the two Senators, whatever we do in this area has generally been followed in the private sector after we have taken a new course with regard to pensions. I have committed to the Senators, I am pleased to say, Senator Gregg, who is the principal sponsor, and Senator Reid, cosponsor of the bill, that we will have a hearing and we will get the opinions of these people as quickly as possible. If we can get to the place where we can reach a conclusion in time to consider it at the time the legislative appropriations bill comes up, I will be pleased to assist in that regard. But I do think we have to have time to see how this is going to affect those people who rely on the pension systems. I am thinking of widows and spouses of those who might be incarcerated and how it is going to happen that we follow this process and what happens to the economy if they do not have the money they have earned in the past through the retirement systems. So I commit that we will hold that hearing as quickly as possible when we come back and work with them. I do applaud what they are doing. I do not disagree. There are provisions already in Federal law that authorize the forfeiture of benefits such as this in the event of conviction. I am not disputing the fact that there could well be additions to that. But I only ask that we be allowed to know what is the impact. There is, I understand, a rollcall vote scheduled now I am taking time on, but I would urge the gentlemen to withdraw this, we hold the hearing and come back to the floor at a later time in this Congress.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I do know the Senator from New Jersey's military background. Apparently I know something he does not know about the Army. The Department of Army did investigate the militias to see if there was any connection between the militias and the problems the Senator from New Jersey has mentioned. It is my understanding they found there was none. As a matter of fact, just in the last 2 weeks when I have been back to Alaska, twice, I have seen the Alaska Militia working as volunteers at the fires that took place near Anchorage, around our lake country. We call it the Meadows Reach fire. They were in their uniforms, provided by my State. They perform voluntary service, assisting people in disasters. They also perform the function of teaching our people, young people, how to handle weapons, weapon safety, weapons training. The unfortunate thing is, I do not think the Senator from New Jersey realizes in the President's appropriations bill, in the bill the President submitted to us--and this is the President's budget I have here--is this provision: None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles or M-1911 pistols. The impact of that is to continue in the appropriations process the provision that we put in there for many years to prohibit the Department of Defense from destroying these weapons. These are weapons that are now stored by the Defense Logistics Agency. They are obsolete with regard to the activities of the Department of Defense. The Department is required by law to protect them. I think others have already mentioned we have a series of people, 28 Government employees, we pay $83,000 annually for rent of a commercial building to store them, there is approximately $850,000 we currently pay from the taxpayers' money to conduct the national rifle matches. What has happened in the last year, the Department of Defense bill, which was signed by the President, had a provision to require these rifles be turned over to them, and the ammunition, which is surplus to the Department's needs. There is no U.S. ally or entity of our U.S. Department of Defense that uses a .30 caliber ammunition now. Contrary to this chart, there is no property being given to this corporation. I do not know where the Senator from New Jersey got those figures. This is not a giveaway. It is a creation of a foundation, in effect a corporation that is required by law to pay the costs of preparing and transporting any firearms or ammunition. It deals with the surplusing of these rifles over a period of time to this creature-- it is a corporation, created by law. It was not deep inside the Defense Authorization Act, done in the dark of night, as the Senator from New Jersey would have us believe. It is legislation signed by the President, 14 separate sections. This is the act that passed last year. That is an act of our Congress last year. It was signed and there are 14 sections in here that deal with this corporation for the promotion of rifle practice and firearm safety. We take the position it is a logical use of the power of Congress to create a corporation and assign it a function that has previously been paid for by the taxpayers. This is going to save money and continue the concept of trying to find ways to instruct our young people on rifle practice and firearm safety. I am sad we disagree. But he is not disagreeing just with those of us who are opposing him, he is disagreeing with the President of the United States. The President signed that bill. I do not remember objection being raised at the time. The President sent up to us again the same provision that prevents the destruction of these rifles and will require us to continue to store them and hire people to watch them and to guard them. The consequences of the amendment of the Senator will not be to prevent a giveaway, it will be to require the taxpayers to continue to pay for functions that can be supported by this corporation. And I did support the corporation when it was included in the Department of Defense authorization bill for 1996. And so did the President of the United States. I thought we had found a logical compromise to avoid the annual fight we have had over this program, to try to teach young people how to conduct themselves and how to handle rifles and firearms safely. I still think it is a good function. I am disturbed the Senator from New Jersey apparently links all of the State militias into the problems that have occurred with regard to two or three groups that call themselves militias. Particularly Western States have militias. My State has a militia of necessity because of the number of disasters we have. I saw them last year at the large, Kenai Peninsula flood area. They were down there volunteering. They came in and they helped everybody who was suffering because of that disastrous flood. They are helping, this year, the people involved in the fire area. I do not know why people have to attack a legitimate function of State government in order to try to make a point there are some people who go off the deep end, as far as the use of firearms. We join with others who are trying to correct that. But this amendment is not going to correct that. This amendment will take us back to the fight, what do we do with the rifles and guns? Even the President of the United States says none of the money in the bills--we are going to appropriate funds for the Department--can be used to in any way demilitarize them or dispose of them or destroy them. I believe the concept of this corporation is a good one. It basically gives us the ongoing funding by taking those firearms that are no longer necessary for defense purposes and makes them available for sale to gun collectors and others who want them or could use them. Many of us who are hunters still use .30 caliber weapons. My hunting rifle is a .30 caliber. I do not see any reason why that ammunition should be destroyed when it can be used by those of us who still have those guns. We are not using them in criminal ways. We are using them for our hunting activities, and I believe that ammunition should be available. The corporation will make it available for distribution and will use the income from that to offset the $850,000 we have been spending annually to conduct the national rifle matches and will use the income to continue the concept of these educational processes to teach our young people how to use rifles, how to use firearms safely. Sure, they have access to our military bases for that purpose. That is where the safe ranges are. I wonder where the Senator from New Jersey thinks in his State the safe firearms ranges are? I have a whole list of things here--I do not know if anybody read them--that people from New Jersey have said about the Senator's amendment. I do not think it is quite fair to quote his constituents to him. He can talk to them himself. Clearly, they have access to those military bases for the purpose of rifle practice and to teach safety classes, and I think that is a good idea. I do not think there is anyone better qualified to teach our young people how to handle firearms safely than people who are in the military. I do not think there is any safer place to have them learn than on a military base where we have a range that is operated under all sorts of conditions that protect the safety of all concerned. I am sure the Senator did as I did; he learned to shoot on a range on a military base.

Mr. STEVENS. In uniform. A lot of these kids are not going to be in uniform now, thanks to those of us who did away with the draft. They are going to have to learn how to shoot guns, and if they are going to learn, they ought to learn right from military people on military bases where safety is taught first. The first two times I went to the range in the military, we did nothing but what we called ``dry firing.'' We learned how to handle those guns safely. That is what goes on on those bases, and I think it is right. I sincerely oppose the Senator's amendment. I call his attention to this provision. I assume when we get to the Defense Department appropriations bill, that the Senator will try to take this provision out. But I remind the Senate, it was sent to us by the President of the United States. It says that none of the funds that we make available to the Department of Defense can be used to demilitarize or dispose of these weapons that he now opposes we transfer to this corporation for purposes of supporting a legitimate educational program on how to handle firearms safely. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I agree that the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 is an appropriate vehicle for this legislative proposal. Accordingly, I will support your efforts to include such a provision in your bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have discussed with my friend, Senator Thurmond, the issue of shipboard solid waste discharges and the Navy's ability to comply with the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships [APPS] and Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution on Ships [MARPOL]. After thoroughly studying the operational and environmental impacts, the Navy has identified the use of paper/ cardboard pulpers and metal/glass shredders as the preferred technology for full compliance with MARPOL, at a fleet-wide cost of about $300 million. Conversely, full compliance with the APPS would involve the use of technologies that would significantly degrade operations and result in a fleet-wide cost of about $1.1 billion. Therefore, it is evident that additional legislative guidance is necessary to ensure that U.S. strictures allow for the use of developed technologies that are environmentally sound, operationally feasible, and affordable. As a result, I have introduced S. 1728, which amends section 1902(c) of the APPS by allowing the Navy to use pulpers and shredders to dispose of non-plastic and non-floating solid waste. Senator Thurmond, I am aware that you and I have similar concerns related to this issue.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of the Senate Armed Services Committee to reform the Military Traffic Management Command's personal property reengineering program. I am concerned that MTMC's plan does not adequately address the concerns of the small moving companies, which comprise most of the industry. The Senate Armed Services Committee initiative establishes a working group of military and industry representatives to develop an alternative pilot program and requires the Government Accounting Office to review this revised plan.

Mr. STEVENS. I support reforming the current system to improve the quality of service and achieve cost reductions. However, I believe that the moving industry needs to participate in these discussions in a meaningful way. I believe that the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization language will facilitate that process.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am here today with a heavy heart to introduce a bill that I would like to have called the Mollie Beattie Alaska Wilderness Area Act. My colleague from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski joins me in my remarks and as an original sponsor of this legislation. I want to make a few remarks about Mollie, who has served well as the Director of Fish and Wildlife Service for this administration. I believe my colleague in the House, Don Young, will introduce similar legislation. As the Senate knows, Mollie Beattie is gravely ill--so ill that she decided to step down from her position as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. We are now informed that Mollie's situation is worsening. It may seem strange for me to be here talking about Mollie Beattie. She opposed many of the things that I believe in, as far as Alaska public lands are concerned. But I am introducing this bill to designate the 8 million acres of wilderness within the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as the ``Mollie Beattie Alaska Wilderness Area.'' Under my legislation, the Secretary of the Interior would be directed to place a monument on a portion of the wilderness, so that people entering the wilderness might remember and honor Mollie Beattie's contribution to the conservation of fish and wildlife. Now, Mollie Beattie opposed us on some things, and she worked with us on some things. But the reason I like her is she was always honest with us. We knew where she stood. And she listened. As a matter of fact, as days went on, we thought maybe she was listening to us more and we might be able to find some middle ground between the position she had taken and our own. And so I was saddened, and I came to the floor and said so, when Mollie stepped down from her position as the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In Mollie's departure from the Service, the American people are losing a leader of depth of knowledge and life experience. Mollie, by the way, was the first woman to serve as the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. During the Eisenhower administration, I served in the Interior Department for almost 5 years, and I know of the mission of that service and its continuing benefit to the American public. Mollie was and is a champion of resource conservation. I do not think we really had any disagreement as to the end result that we sought, but perhaps some of the means to get there. She came to the Fish and Wildlife Service from the Richard A. Snelling Center for Government in Vermont, where she was the executive director. Prior to that, she served in several Vermont State land management agencies. I am happy that the senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, and the junior Senator, Mr. Jeffords, have asked to cosponsor the bill that I will send to the desk in a few moments. In her last major speech as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Mollie recalled releasing Hope, a rehabilitated bald eagle, as a highlight of her career. Her career has had many high moments. She has focussed on reconnecting the American people to the wildlife around them. Those of us who have worked with Mollie really are saddened to learn about her condition. We send her and her husband, Rick, our sincerest sentiments and really want him to know that, from a professional point of view, his wife has enjoyed the greatest of friendships in the Congress regardless of party.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, these broadcasters are the people who deliver over-the-air free television and free radio to people who live in rural America. And if there is any place that is rural it is my State, one-fifth the size of the United States. To have a bill that says these people must provide the candidates free time is a burden from which many of those broadcasters cannot survive. If they do survive, it will be by charging their advertisers, their customers, to pay higher rates to cover the cost of this free time mandated by the Congress, if this bill is enacted. I think that too is unconstitutional. It also burdens the Postal Service. Mr. President, I now have served on the Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee of this Senate longer than any Senator in history. I have really spent a lot of time trying to help the Postal Service survive. It is something I believe must continue. Today, there are many, many Members of Congress would like to just do away with it altogether. This bill would start the process because it would require that the Postal Service provide reduced postal rates to the participating candidates. It is other postal users, their customers again, that pay those costs, or else there will be a deficit for the Postal Service. This bill is simply public financing of political campaigns again. It is masked. It is in disguise. It is not a reform bill. The broadcasters will pass along their costs to advertisers who try to support free over-the-air radio, or television, if they can. It will require the Postal Service to pass on their costs to the users of the Postal Service, if they can. In effect this bill may be raising the rates for everyone else in the country who uses the Postal Service. The Postal Service is not supported by the taxpayers. It is supported by the ratepayers. I believe that reform of the system is possible. But it must be constitutional, and it must be fair. It cannot place the financial burden of reform on the public. I support changing the system in many ways. I have discussed these before. All contributions and campaign expenditures I think should be held to the strictest standards of disclosure. I do not believe in soft money whether it is given to political parties or to candidates, or in bundling of contributions from many sources. I think sunlight is the best disinfectant for the political process, but there is no sunlight under this bill at all. I support the concept that political action committees should be held to the same disclosure standards and the same contribution limits as individuals or as associations of individuals. In my judgment, business people, fishing groups, and even Alaska whaling captains ought to have the right to participate in the system as a group. But it is not a stronger right I think than individual citizens. Cash contributions I think should be banned in any amount, whether it is called soft money, or whatever you want to call it. It ought to be banned. Cash is too difficult to track, too difficult to monitor, and it is ripe for abuse. I do not want to go back to the days when campaign chairmen traveled with suitcases full of cash. They do not do it anymore, Mr. President. There has been reform. And not too many people remember the reforms. Corporate contributions of any sort to candidates or to parties ought to be banned. We thought we had banned it before under the act that passed the Congress, and there have been ways found around it. But I do not think we should allow corporate contributions of any sort to candidates or parties. All contributions to parties or individuals who are candidates ought to be after-tax dollars. There should be no burden on the taxpayers as a result of the political process. I would support an additional constitutional amendment to get around the problem of Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme Court case that held that the bill we passed was unconstitutional as far as the spending of the money that belonged to an individual candidate or his family. I support a constitutional amendment that would limit a candidate's personal spending to a reasonable amount--a quarter of a million dollars, shall we say. That ought to be enough for anyone to spend of their own money to run for political office. Congress ought not to become a special preserve for the wealthy. But it also ought not to be so structured that it denies an individual or a group of individuals to freely associate and freely conduct themselves in a political process. Again, I say I was in the chair when one Member kept repeating that this is the reform bill of this Congress. If this is the reform bill of this Congress, if this is the best that we can do, we ought to go home now. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about this campaign reform bill which is before us. It is with reluctance that I come to the floor to make these statements because I, also, along with Senator Hollings, was a member of the conference committee that brought forth the Senate and the House bill, and sent to the President what I considered to be a real reform bill. We did that coming out of the days of the disclosures of the Watergate era. I believe we have come through several reform eras, and unfortunately those who have come in after the reform has taken place do not recognize that what they see has been reformed, when compared to the past. When I first came to the Senate there were campaign chairmen who went from State to State with suitcases full of cash. There was no disclosure as to where it came from. We did a lot to reform politics in the United States with the acts that have already been passed. If those acts had only been really followed perhaps we would not be here today arguing over whether this is a reform bill. I come to the Senate because in recent weeks Alaskans who were worried about the impact of this bill have contacted my office. They came to me from the Alaska Broadcasters Association, they came to me as members of various church related organizations, and they came just as individuals who are concerned about the limits placed on their political freedom by this bill. I agree with the statements earlier made by the Senator from Washington concerning the freedom of association. I view this bill as being directly contrary to one of the basic freedoms of our country. And it is not a bill that is a reform bill at all. It is a bill that people want to call reform because they want to have some symbol in this campaign to use against those of us who are candidates, and they think we will not have the guts to stand up and oppose this bill. They are wrong. This bill is not a reform bill. I believe we must clean up the system even more than we have in the past and make it fair. But we cannot do that by limiting people's freedom, or by forcing upon the public the cost of financing campaigns. To me this bill places unfair restrictions on advocacy groups and associations. People in this country ought to be free to associate together and pool their money as long as there is disclosure of where it has come from and there is a record of it. The bill restricts organizations that are the eyes and ears of people who are far distant from this place, and bans political action committees. Mr. President, the political action committee itself was a reform. It required that people who band together disclose who contributes to their campaign fund, and it requires those to whom the funds are given disclose the receipt of it as well as the committee disclosing the contribution of it. This bill would discourage voter guides that are given to members of groups such as the Christian Coalition or individual churches, or fishermen's organizations in my State. They are records to guide their membership as to the actual voting that takes place here on the floor, and the positions taken by candidates. I think that ought to be encouraged in a democracy, and not discouraged. This bill will discourage it. This bill requires broadcasters--and in my view unconstitutionally-- to provide free air time to participating candidates. I happen to have in my State a series of very small broadcasters. I sometimes wonder how they survive. As a matter of fact, one of them, Al Bramstedt of a network affiliate in Anchorage, flew in and testified at our Rules Committee and set forth their objections to this bill. Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Bramstedt's testimony be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am here today with a heavy heart to introduce a bill that I would like to have called the Mollie Beattie Alaska Wilderness Area Act. My colleague from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski joins me in my remarks and as an original sponsor of this legislation. I want to make a few remarks about Mollie, who has served well as the Director of Fish and Wildlife Service for this administration. I believe my colleague in the House, Don Young, will introduce similar legislation. As the Senate knows, Mollie Beattie is gravely ill--so ill that she decided to step down from her position as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. We are now informed that Mollie's situation is worsening. It may seem strange for me to be here talking about Mollie Beattie. She opposed many of the things that I believe in, as far as Alaska public lands are concerned. But I am introducing this bill to designate the 8 million acres of wilderness within the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as the ``Mollie Beattie Alaska Wilderness Area.'' Under my legislation, the Secretary of the Interior would be directed to place a monument on a portion of the wilderness, so that people entering the wilderness might remember and honor Mollie Beattie's contribution to the conservation of fish and wildlife. Now, Mollie Beattie opposed us on some things, and she worked with us on some things. But the reason I like her is she was always honest with us. We knew where she stood. And she listened. As a matter of fact, as days went on, we thought maybe she was listening to us more and we might be able to find some middle ground between the position she had taken and our own. And so I was saddened, and I came to the floor and said so, when Mollie stepped down from her position as the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In Mollie's departure from the Service, the American people are losing a leader of depth of knowledge and life experience. Mollie, by the way, was the first woman to serve as the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. During the Eisenhower administration, I served in the Interior Department for almost 5 years, and I know of the mission of that service and its continuing benefit to the American public. Mollie was and is a champion of resource conservation. I do not think we really had any disagreement as to the end result that we sought, but perhaps some of the means to get there. She came to the Fish and Wildlife Service from the Richard A. Snelling Center for Government in Vermont, where she was the executive director. Prior to that, she served in several Vermont State land management agencies. I am happy that the senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, and the junior Senator, Mr. Jeffords, have asked to cosponsor the bill that I will send to the desk in a few moments. In her last major speech as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Mollie recalled releasing Hope, a rehabilitated bald eagle, as a highlight of her career. Her career has had many high moments. She has focussed on reconnecting the American people to the wildlife around them. Those of us who have worked with Mollie really are saddened to learn about her condition. We send her and her husband, Rick, our sincerest sentiments and really want him to know that, from a professional point of view, his wife has enjoyed the greatest of friendships in the Congress regardless of party.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold hearings regarding security in cyberspace. This hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 25, 1996, in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Daniel S. Gelber of the subcommittee staff at 224-9157. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was pleased to be here during the period of presentation of the distinguished occupant of the chair. As a physician, the Senator from Tennessee brings a great deal of information to us in a direct way. I might say, as I begin my comments, starting in 1987 there was a group of us that decided we would meet once a week while the Senate was in session to review the problems of health care and insurance reform. It has been most enlightening to this Senator to be a participant, particularly with regard to these medical savings accounts. When they first came up, I realized what a great thing it would be for my State to have them put into Federal law. In my State, over 90 percent of the employers are small businesses. Community ratings often give us very high health insurance costs. Many of these small businesses, though they would like to do so, just cannot afford to provide health insurance coverage for their employees. We live on the edge, under very costly circumstances. It is very difficult for these employees to bear the cost of health insurance. Many times they are like that person that the Senator from Tennessee indicated that came to his office: They are without health insurance, and oftentimes face real difficult problems. I do believe the concept of a catastrophic insurance really fits into the frontier problems, because the situation often develops that our people would like to deal with someone they know, not only as a physician but as an insurance carrier. Catastrophic insurance is available through almost all small insurance firms. It is something you can deal at home with, and have a strong relationship with a person who has sold you the insurance. For that reason, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Kassebaum- Kennedy bill. I think it is high time Congress got around to passing this bill. I personally do not believe it should be a right of any Senator to object to the appointment of conferees. I think that ought to be a matter of right of the leadership to say when conferees should be appointed, and they should not be subject to any debate. We are being held up now by a debate on whether or not conferees should be appointed. This is probably one of the most important bills we will work on during this Congress. Time is running out. This objection to allowing medical savings provisions in this bill is what is really holding up the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. Under a compromise worked out by the House and the Senate, only employers with 50 or fewer workers and those who are self-employed could participate in medical savings accounts. Most employers who have used medical savings accounts that I have heard of know them as the Senator from Tennessee indicated: Medical savings accounts concepts allow people to choose their own doctors, hospitals, and their on form of care. They encourage preventive health care and eliminate out-of-pocket costs. Medical savings accounts allow people to use their savings to buy other forms of health insurance like nursing home coverage or long-term care. Medical savings accounts allow individuals to control their own health care dollars and to support the free enterprise system. There is just no question that this is a kind of provision that ought to be in a health care insurance reform bill. It is a very limited one, very limited. It will benefit thousands of Alaskans who change their jobs and lose their jobs, enabling them to maintain vitally important health insurance coverage for themselves and their families. In my State, Mr. President, 65 percent of our women of childbearing age work out of the home. They are women that, because they go in and out of the work force in order to take time off to bear their children, often end up without insurance coverage during the very period of their life they really need it. This medical savings account concept ought to be involved in this law to help us meet the problems of those women in our work force. It will also benefit Alaskans who have the so-called preexisting conditions, which in the past have prevented many Alaskans from getting health insurance coverage because they have changed their jobs or they have gone through a period of unemployment. When they go to a new job or they go back to work, they find their health insurance is not available because when they reapply, they now have a preexisting condition which was covered under their prior insurance policy, but they lost coverage. I do not think many people realize how many, many individuals in a State like ours change jobs, work part time, and find themselves without coverage because of this problem of preexisting condition. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill is a moderate, sensible approach to improving our health insurance system. Its benefits will be felt by some 25 million Americans in total, according to a report of the GAO. I cannot believe that this could be a program only for the rich, if it is going to apply to 25 million Americans. I can say, without question, that it will affect hundreds of thousands of Alaskans, despite our small population. Of particular importance is that this will make health insurance available to Alaskans who are self-employed by making it more affordable, by increasing the deduction for health insurance premiums from the current 30 percent to 80 percent over a 10-year period. I do not think anybody has mentioned that. This will bring about a change. As we all know, currently self-employed people can only deduct 30 percent of their health insurance premiums. This bill before us now will gradually change that so that discrimination against self-employed people, as far as health insurance premiums, is eliminated over a 10- year period. I might also mention a substantial benefit to Alaskan seniors. Long- term care insurance policies would receive the same tax treatment as traditional health insurance under this bill. Unreimbursed long-term care expenses would be treated as medical expenses for itemized deduction purposes--a change, Mr. President, which will make a substantial change in the ability of people to pay for long-term care, particularly for the children of those people who need long-term care. They are the ones that are paying these expenses. This legislation will not affect the right of Alaskans to receive health care from chiropractors or alternative medicine people. My office has received a slew of telephone calls from Alaskans who fear this legislation because of the fraud and abuse provisions added through the amendment to title V. They feel that that amendment would stop them from seeing a health provider of their choice, especially under the Medicare Program. I think I should assure Alaskans and all Americans that that is not true. I support the right of Americans and my Alaskan people to seek health care from alternative health providers. This bill will allow Alaskans and all Americans to get health care from the provider of their choice, including alternative medicine and chiropractors licensed by the State. I believe this legislation will make a vital contribution to the well-being of thousands of our people in my home State, who now have the prospect of losing health care for themselves and their families when there is an interruption in their employment. I urge the Senate to name conferees and get this bill to conference and to the President as soon as possible. This should not be an election year political issue. This is an issue which should rise above politics. I challenge anyone in the Senate to defend holding up this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 provide a useful updating of an important law enacted 12 years ago. The original Single Audit Act of 1984 created a procedure by which a State or local government receiving funds from several Federal assistance programs would be subject only to one, comprehensive audit. A 1994 GAO report on the intergovernmental experience under the act indicates that it has resulted in both improved accountability over Federal assistance and strengthened financial management in all covered entities. It has done this while reducing the Federal audit burden on State and local governments. The GAO report, however, also indicated that the process can be improved. And here I want to acknowledge the fine work of my colleague, Senator Glenn, in having first requested the GAO study, and then having worked with GAO to develop these amendments to the act. I am pleased to have joined with Senator Glenn in cosponsoring his bill. It further reduces the Federal audit burden on small governments, while improving audit coverage and effectiveness by allowing auditors to focus on testing the riskiest programs that a government operates. At the hearing I held on S. 1579, there was strong support for this legislation from the State auditors organization. The auditor from my own State of Alaska has indicated his own support, and I know this will be a real benefit to the local governments there, too. I urge my colleagues to join us in moving this very useful legislation forward today.