Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 98 (Friday, June 28, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 98 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7287-S7291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MINIMUM WAGE AND HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, under the Senate schedule, when the
Senate returns a week from Monday, we will have the opportunity to
debate the minimum wage increase, the proposal that will be before the
U.S. Senate. In anticipation that minimum wage really is the next order
of business, I will address the Senate briefly this afternoon in terms
of what I think are the issues that will be considered. I think it is
important, as we move through the Fourth of July recess, that the
American people understand the issues that will be considered, under a
relatively short time agreement, with the vote coming up in the early
part of the week, when we return.
The issues that will be before the Senate and the American people are
extremely important to working families, especially low-income working
families, and their children.
I think it is important that we begin to think about these matters,
now that the issues on the defense authorization bill have been
addressed and pretty well resolved. Then I would like to just take a
few moments to address where we are, as I consider it, in terms of the
health insurance reform bill that was passed unanimously out of our
committee and on the floor of the Senate and where we are in terms of
the discussions that have been taking place in recent days.
But on the first issue, on the minimum wage, Mr. President, I think
it is regrettable that our Republican colleagues continue to try to do
all they can to undermine a fair increase. We will have the opportunity
to vote on a 90 cent increase in the minimum wage over a 2-year period.
Nonetheless, it is important to know that not only will we have the
opportunity to vote for the increase, but that there will be an
alternative before the U.S. Senate that will undermine in a very
dramatic, important and significant way the effects of the increase for
working families.
Mr. President, that is the particular part of the debate that I would
like to talk about briefly this afternoon. At every turn, wherever we
can provide some protection, there will be at least a proposal to
minimize that protection for workers in the form of delays in the
increase of the minimum wage.
In the proposal that will be the alternative to our increase in the
minimum wage, the Republican proposal will, first of all, put off any
increase until January 1, 1997.
That means for another 6 months, minimum wage workers will go without
a raise. They have already had no raise over the period of the last 5
years. They will be denied approximately $500 more in additional pay
that they would have received over the next 6 months--$500 that could
buy medicine for sick children, new school clothes, or even Christmas
presents. Only the Grinch would be mean enough to delay this raise for
our poorest workers until after Christmas. Surely, our Republican
colleagues find this kind of meanness embarrassing.
It is important to know that in the proposal that was introduced 2
years ago, the first phase of the increase in the minimum wage was to
go into effect in this July period, to go up 40 cents, and then an
additional 45 cents a year from now. Now we will have before the Senate
the alternative of delaying any kind of increase until January 1997, at
the earliest.
Next, our opponents propose an increase--but just a flat increase in
the minimum wage, as we had in 1989, signed by a Republican President.
Under our Republican proposal, we will find that the minimum-wage
proposition that they support creates a subminimum wage for any worker
who takes a job with a new employer.
Their proposal would allow employers to pay any new employee a
subminimum wage of $4.25 an hour for 6 months. This harsh provision
could have a serious depressing effect on the already depressed wages
of large numbers of working Americans. Each year 6 million workers lose
their jobs and struggle to find new ones, and all of them would be
subjected to this subminimum wage.
Our Republican friends call this an opportunity wage. But the only
opportunity in sight is the opportunity for employers to exploit their
new workers. No one will be hurt more by this than the downsized, laid-
off workers in a time of high unemployment who cannot find jobs
equivalent to the jobs they lost. Not only will they face the indignity
of having their wages fall to the minimum, but they will find
themselves falling to a subminimum wage.
The past year has been a time of economic expansion and relative
prosperity for our economy as a whole. But again and again we see the
stories of white and blue-collar workers laid off after long careers in
good-paying jobs. Many of these workers have found themselves forced to
accept minimum-wage jobs after being laid off by a downsizing employer.
Mr. President, what we are saying here is that anyone who enters the
job market will not be eligible for an increase in the minimum wage for
180 days. They may work for a period of time, they may be laid off from
that job, they may go to another job, and they are still not eligible
for another 180 days.
At least in 1989, when we were debating the increase in the minimum
wage, they called it a training wage for a period of 90 days. Even
though there was no requirement to provide either education or training
during that period of time--they just labeled it as a training wage.
This one before us now in the U.S. Senate is 180 days, without any
kind of

[[Page S7288]]

suggestion that there is a training wage for a minimum-wage job. This
does not suggest that for entry into a minimum-wage job there is not
any training--there has to be some. There is training, but for the most
part that can be done within a week or a 2-week period for minimum-wage
jobs.
But what we are basically saying is that there is a delay, and the
effect of the delay is going to mean a loss for those who are eligible
for the increase in the minimum wage. Then for every person who enters
the job market--the 6 or 7 million Americans who are out there who want
to work, provide for their families, and are being laid off of these
minimum-wage jobs--they go to a new job and they are again held at
$4.25. They do not get the increase that other minimum-wage workers
would get because they are a new entry into the job market.
At least the House of Representatives said, ``Well, we'll do that
with regard to teenagers.'' Not the U.S. Senate. They are going to do
it to anyone, any single mother, and any single mother that may be
trying to get off welfare and trying to provide for her family. The way
the Senate Republican proposal is going to work is that it is going to
say, ``If you go into the job market for 180 days, you're still going
to be at $4.25. Then if you have to take a few days off--maybe change
jobs because you have to look after a child--you're going to be
continued at $4.25 for a period of time.'' It is effectively
undermining the impact of any increase in the minimum wage.

So, Mr. President, the result of their plight is to make it more
painful; workers will fall farther and farther behind. We are talking
about minimum-wage jobs that are the least-skilled jobs. They are jobs
for which little or no training is needed--at most a few hours or days.
Yet the Republican amendment doubles the duration of the subminimum
wage of the House-passed bill, from 90 to 180 days, far beyond any
reasonable training or tryout period.
There is no good reason for this harsh proposal other than Republican
opposition to the minimum wage and any Government protection for
working people. In the Republican view, the lower the minimum wage, the
better. Our Republican friends would rather have no minimum wage at
all. If American workers' wages have to sink to the third world level
to make business competitive, so be it.
I oppose the subminimum wage in the House-passed bill which applies
only to teenagers during the first 90 days of employment with any
employer. Many of the 18- or 19-year-olds need a living wage as much as
any adult, especially if they are young welfare mothers willing to work
for a living. The notion that they need training for 3 months in jobs
like burger flipping or waiting on tables, washing dishes or bagging
groceries is absurd.
The Senate Republican proposal is even more objectionable than the
House proposal because it imposes a longer subminimum wage for workers
at all ages, not just youths. Employers would be authorized to pay a
subminimum wage to a 50-year-old steelworker who is down on his luck
after his plant is closed. Office workers whose 30-year careers have
ended in layoffs could be paid a subminimum wage.
Republicans cannot hide behind their typical excuses about the
minimum wage applying to wealthy teenagers who do not really need a
job. The facts are plain: the Republicans simply want to drive workers'
wages as low as they can, regardless of the workers' age, experience or
family situation.
Mr. President, the third part of the Republican alternative, besides
the delay in the effective date and the 180-day delay in terms of
putting the minimum wage into effect, is the exemption for workers in
small businesses. Businesses with less than $500,000 in annual sales
would be exempt from any minimum wage. There are 10.5 million workers
who are employed in those firms today. I say they deserve protection,
too.
The protection is not something small business needs. The economy has
added more than 10 million jobs since Congress last raised the minimum
wage in 1991. Small business often claims to have led the way. The
minimum wage has not been a drag on job creation. It strengthens job
creation by putting more money into circulation. Even the National
Federation of Independent Businesses' own survey found that the minimum
wage is not a critical issue for small business. In that survey, the
minimum wage ranked 62d in importance out of 75 issues--62d out of 75.
So these proposals are a cruel hoax on low-wage workers. They are
nothing more than an attempt to deny a fair increase in a minimum wage
to millions of low-income Americans, even while appearing to grant an
increase to those people. There is no accurate information on how many
of the 10.5 million workers in small firms will be denied a raise they
would otherwise receive, but there is no justification for denying even
one working American the right to a living wage.
What possible rationale can there be for forcing millions of
Americans to continue working at wages that everyone knows are poverty
wages, wages so low that they cannot support a family?
The Republican alternative says that the reason is to save jobs. But
the fact is that the modest increase we are proposing will not cause
job losses, and may even lead to an increase in employment. I point out
that the Wharton School, the DRI examination of our minimum wage
increase says that there is at risk 20,000 jobs--20,000 jobs--20,000
jobs, Mr. President, and still we find our Republican friends say,
``Well, we can't afford any kind of increase because we're going to
lose those jobs.'' The other studies which I referred to today, the 12
other studies, the most current show there is a good possibility it
will mean expanded jobs, because many people will go back into the
market if they think there is a possibility to have a livable wage. The
money that is expended by those individuals will create sufficient
demand to increase employment as well.
So, Mr. President, the expansion of employment is exactly what
happened in New Jersey in 1992 and is happening, I point out, in my own
State of Massachusetts and the State of Vermont. The last two States
who have increased the minimum wage are Massachusetts and Vermont. They
have seen the greatest decline in unemployment that we have had in New
England. Over the period of the last 4 to 5 months, we have seen the
greatest decline in unemployment in the two States that have increased
their minimum wage in the early part of this year. There are just no
real, meaningful studies that have demonstrated that there would be any
important job loss.
Mr. President, one reason for that result is reflected in an analysis
released by Salomon Brothers in the U.S. Equity Research report of
April 22, 1996. The Salomon Brothers predicted retail businesses would
benefit from an increase in the minimum wage due to the enhanced
purchasing power it would create for many low-income consumers. This is
the Salomon Brothers. The Salomon Brothers recommend purchasing a
number of retailing stocks because of the benefits they will receive
from the increased purchasing power of low-income workers.
The report specifically concludes that the benefits from increased
sales would generally outweigh the modest rise in wage costs. It is not
fear of job loss by those who oppose minimum wage increases and who
support the Republican proposals; what motivates these groups primarily
is greed. There is no other way to explain the intense opposition to
the minimum wage by organizations like the National Restaurant
Organization. The Restaurant Association claims that a minimum wage
increase would be a job killer, even though the restaurant industry has
seen enormous employment growth since the last minimum wage increase in
1991.

In fact, the actual experience of the restaurant industry shows that
the minimum wage incresae would be good for business and good for the
economy.
For 3 years before the 2-step minimum wage increase in 1990-91,
employment growth in the restaurant industry was falling, along with
the real wages of minimum wage workers. Restaurant industry employment
growth fell from 3.1 percent in 1987 to 2.8 percent in 1988, to 2.3
percent in 1989, to 1.7 percent in 1990, and actually decline by 0.5
percent in 1991.
But in 1992, the first full year after the 90-cent minimum wage
increase took effect in April 1991, employment growth rebounded by 2.1
percent. And

[[Page S7289]]

in each of the next 2 years, employment growth accelerated, reaching
3.2 percent in 1993 and 3.6 percent in 1994.
From 1991 to 1995, the restaurant industry added almost 800,000 new
jobs! If that's what the Republican Party calls job-killing, I say
let's have more of it.
With respect to this small business subminimum wage, it is critical
to remember not only that the last minimum wage increase took effect in
April 1991, but that the 1989 amendments expanded coverage to include
employees in small restaurants who had formerly been excluded.
That expansion should have compounded the job-killing effect of the
increase, but it did not. Instead, the restaurant industry saw an
expansion of job growth, record profits, and mindboggling increases in
CEO pay. The sub-minimum was not needed. Small businesses don't need
it, and their employees don't deserve that harsh and unfair treatment.
The argument that the minimum wage kills jobs is nonsense. Both
Vermont and Massachusetts raised their State minimum wage to $4.75 in
January of this year, while our neighbors in New Hampshire and New York
did not. What has happened since then? Have we lost jobs in
Massachusetts and Vermont? Far from it.
Since January, when these States raised their minimum wage,
unemployment in both Massachusetts and Vermont have fallen. We haven't
lost jobs--we've added them.
But what happened to our neighbors who left their minimum wage
unchanged? Haven't they done better? No, far from it. In both New York
and New Hampshire, unemployment has risen since January from 4.9 to 5.1
percent in New York and from 4.2 to 4.4 percent in New Hampshire.
Unemployment fell where the minimum wage has increased, and rose where
the minimum wage was frozen at $4.25.
Giving working Americans a living wage will not cost jobs. Making all
employers pay a living wage will not cost jobs. The minimum wage law in
Massachusetts does not exempt businesses with sales of $500,000 or
less, and neither does the minimum wage law in Vermont.
Have small businesses been demanding an exemption from the minimum
wage? No, they have not. Studies cited by the Small Business
Administration show that only 7 percent of small businesses consider
the minimum wage a critical problem. As I pointed out earlier, a survey
prepared by the National Federation of Independent Businesses ranked
the minimum wage as 62d in importance out of 75 issues.
Another study, funded by the NFIB Foundation, revealed that even
among the smallest of businesses--those with less than 10 employees--
only 6 percent consider the minimum wage a critical problem.
I have been over here the last 35 years. This is the first time, Mr.
President, other than a training wage, that we have seen this kind of
alternative, to extend the existing minimum wage for a period of time,
to delay the effective day, or to exclude massive numbers that will be
affected by the minimum wage. If this Republican proposal is enacted,
it will be the first time since 1938, when we enacted the minimum wage,
that we have decreased the coverage of the minimum wage.
All we are trying to do is provide a livable wage for people. The
only way we can get this before the U.S. Senate is to permit this
alternative. The alternative delays the effective date. It would deny
working families $500. It delays the effective date for people that
move from job to job, the 6 million Americans that move every year or
so in terms of their jobs. It will delay them for 180 days repeatedly.
This has been the most important penalty that we have seen in any
possible increase in the minimum wage.
Usually, when the time comes to ultimately vote on minimum wage--and
it may be a begrudging vote--we vote on the increase. What we will see
here, if the Republican proposal passes, is that they will take away
the increase in the minimum wage in one hand and go back and issue the
press releases about how they voted for the increase in the other. Wait
and see.
The American people are too smart for that, Mr. President. They ought
to understand exactly what is being considered.
There is no excuse to deny a minimum wage increase to any American
who works in interstate commerce. The Republican proposals are mean-
spirited ideas that will hurt the poorest of workers. I hope my
Republican colleagues will reconsider these objectionable proposals and
join us in the coming days in supporting a fair increase in the minimum
wage for all workers.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. SARBANES. Do I understand under the proposal that our Republican
colleagues want to put forward with respect to the minimum wage, as I
understand it, you have an initial period when you are paid at below
the minimum wage, is that correct, for 6 months?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 180 days.
Mr. SARBANES. Suppose someone takes a job and he gets the below wage
for, say, 5 months, and then they let him go because they do not need
him anymore. When that man or woman goes to another job, do they get
the below minimum wage for another 6 months in the new job, as well?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. The Senator is
absolutely correct.
Mr. SARBANES. If fortune should strike them that they are moving from
one job to another, they could be kept below the minimum wage for
successive periods of time, is that correct, for successive 180-day
periods of time?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct.
The Senator remembers even in 1989 when we had the period of the 90
days, they called it a training wage, even though there was no training
required. Now it is 180 days, and they call it an opportunity wage. It
is just an opportunity for the company not to pay hard-working
Americans a livable wage. That is one of the three parts that is in the
Republican alternative.
What you will see here, Mr. President, on the first or second day
after we are back on that Monday or Tuesday, they will vote for the
Republican proposal that will delay the effect of the minimum wage and
deny the $500 for these working families. That $500 means months of
groceries and utility bills and perhaps half the tuition to go to a
State school, tuition for a year. Then they will vote for delaying for
the 180 days the payment so people will still be paid $4.25. Then they
will exclude all of the businesses under $500,000--not just those
intrastate commerce or interstate commerce, which is approximately 10
million Americans. There are only 13 million Americans affected by the
increase, so they will deny all of those Americans any opportunity for
a significant increase.

Then they will go out and vote for an increase in the minimum wage.
That is what this issue is about--the phoniest possible effort to blind
side, I think, not just the workers, because they understand it, but
all of the American people. Evidently, this is being done for the
political purposes of trying to be on the right side of the minimum
wage.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. SARBANES. If this exclusion of below $500,000 that the Senator
made reference to--exclusion, I take it if you work for a company that
has below $500,000 in sales, you are not covered by this increase in
the minimum wage. As I understand it, that is a great many of the
people. Many of the people who now work for such companies are, in
fact, covered by the minimum wage. There are some such small companies
that are only intrastate commerce, not interstate, but many are in
interstate commerce and are now covered by the minimum wage, as I
understand it.
Under this proposal they would no longer be covered by the minimum.
At least they would not receive this increase in the minimum wage. I
take it they would still receive the current coverage, but they would
not get this increase in the minimum wage. In effect, they would be
dropped out from this legislation by this proposal, is that correct?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is not only correct, but I think what you
have to assume is that they would be dropped out of any increase in any
proposal in the future, because this will be

[[Page S7290]]

the first time, the first time since enactment of the minimum wage,
that we will have carved out an area to reduce the coverage for working
families--the first time. Every other time we have increased the
minimum wage we have expanded the coverage of the minimum wage because
we have recognized that men and women that are working 40 hours a week,
52 weeks of the year, ought to be entitled to a livable wage.
If this passes, it will be the first time that we will have an
important and significant carve-out. That, I think, is part of the
Republican proposal which is objectionable. Not only that, but we have
not even started to deal with the restauranteurs, the restaurant
association and restaurants. If you look at the employment in
restaurants over the period from 1989 to 1991, you saw a declining
balance in terms of the number of increases in the employment for
restaurants. After the minimum wage absolutely went into effect, you
saw those employment figures take off.
Here we are finding out that because of the power of the restaurant
association, even though the number of people that are working in the
restaurant industry has been expanding and it is a growth industry
according to projections by the Department of Labor, the restauranteurs
have a sweetheart agreement in here. It says the restaurant is not
responsible for them going from the $4.25, increasing the minimum wage
if they make that money in tips. They are only liable if they do not
make it in tips.
I will have printed in the Record on Monday and Tuesday, during
debate, the amount this sweetheart deal will save those restaurants in
terms of taxes. In many of those restaurants, in fancy places, people
are well above it, but there are a lot of restaurants that are out
there across America in small and medium-sized towns where people are
working, trying to provide for their families, who are entitled and
need the resources to be able to do it. Now, finally let me----

Mr. CHAFEE. If the Senator will yield----
Mr. KENNEDY. After I make this point. Finally, after all this is out,
we have, underneath that, the special provisions, the $8 to $10 to $12
billion of tax breaks that are going to go to small business industries
which are going to be affected by them. The cost of the minimum wage is
going to be $3.4 billion, and we have about $10 billion in tax breaks
for these small companies.
How much do you have to give them to provide some respect for working
families? How much do you have to bribe them to finally get a vote here
on the floor of the U.S. Senate? You talk about taking care of a
constituency. You are giving them $10 million on the one hand, and you
are carving out millions of Americans on the other hand; you are
delaying the increase for working families and also delaying the
trigger. We think we are debating an increase in the minimum wage. We
can understand why it took so long for our Republican friends to come
up with the agreement to schedule this discussion on the floor of the
U.S. Senate--for a short time period of debate--on the issues of the
increase in the minimum wage.
Mr. President, the American people have to understand what we are
talking about. Go back to the debates--when we had the increase debates
going back to the early sixties and seventies. I see the Senator, and I
will yield in one minute to the Senator from Rhode Island. We have
never had these kinds of sweetheart deals and exemptions. Generally,
when an increase was worked out, we voted on it. We have, as the
Senator from Maryland understands, Republicans--like Eisenhower and
Nixon and President Bush--who have signed increases in the minimum
wage.
I see the Senator from Rhode Island. I yield for a question.
Mr. CHAFEE. I know the distinguished junior Senator from Kansas has
been waiting to give her maiden speech here. I do not want to delay
things. Is the Senator about through?
(Mr. GRAMS assumed the chair.)
Mr. KENNEDY. I was here all day on Thursday when we were denied any
opportunity for morning business to speak. We were denied, also, a very
short period of morning business yesterday from 8:15 to 9 o'clock.
Senator Murray had to stay here until 10:30 in order to get 15 minutes,
from 8:15 to 8:30 yesterday. I wanted to wait until we concluded. I
want to pay respects to our new Senator, and I will be very brief and
then I will terminate. I eagerly await the Senator's speech. But I
would like to conclude on the minimum wage and speak briefly on MSA's,
and then I will yield.
Mr. CHAFEE. If I may say one thing, I have a couple of questions for
the Senator from Massachusetts. First, I congratulate Massachusetts for
the low unemployment, which you attribute to the rise in the minimum
wage. I myself would attribute it to the outstanding Governor that they
have.
Mr. KENNEDY. I know he has been trying to take credit for it.
Mr. CHAFEE. I have heard--
Mr. KENNEDY. Even though his opposition to the increase of the
minimum wage is well understood.
Mr. CHAFEE. All I know is that the State is extremely vigorous and
thriving because of the outstanding leadership he is providing, and,
indeed, the people have recognized this with the overwhelming
reelection victory that he had.
However, we will have an adequate opportunity, I think, to discuss
this. I might say, I do not agree with the Senator's characterizations
of employers. I wrote down some of them: ``Harsh,'' ``greedy,''
``exploiting.'' That is the different attitude that we take.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the only thing I would ask the Senator is whether
I have stated correctly the fact that in the Republican proposal you
delay the triggering time for the minimum wage until January, which
will be a loss of $500, and that you do have the 180-day period which
you call the ``opportunity wage,'' and you have the carve-out? If you
agree with these facts, then I am glad to welcome whatever
characterization of the differences there might be, as long as the
Senator would either differ or agree with that.

Mr. CHAFEE. My great concern in connection with the minimum wage is,
if it does not include some kind of a ``training period'' or
``opportunity period,'' whatever you call it, that on the one hand, we
are demanding folks on welfare get off and all of us have supported
here provisions that require these people to be off welfare, whether it
is in 2 years, 5 years or whatever it is. Fifty percent must be off in
a certain length of time. Where are they going to get jobs? Who is
going to hire them? So I strongly support some kind of a period--call
it a training wage, or an opportunity wage. I do not think it should be
restricted to those 19 years of age or younger.
This is a very serious problem we have because we cannot deal with
welfare reform without considering what is happening under the minimum
wage. I notice that the Senator from Kansas is here, so I will--
Mr. KENNEDY. I will just respond. If you talk about a training wage,
I do not see any proposal of the Senator that would provide any degree
of training or any education. If the Senator had a proposal that, look,
we are going to delay the minimum wage and we are going to provide a
training or insist there is training or some education, I think that
argument has some degree of credibility. But to say that, for minimum
wage, you have to wait 180 days--ask any minimum wage worker whether
they think it should take 6 months to get training to provide for
minimum wage services. That really stretches the imagination.
I will just take a moment or two to comment about our situation on
the health care issue. I think all of us, as we come to the period of
the Fourth of July recess, wonder why we have not had the opportunity
to vote here in the U.S. Senate on a bill that was drafted by our
friend and colleague, Senator Kassebaum, over 1 year ago and was
steered through our committee with bipartisan support. The bill would
have provided relief for 25 million Americans with preexisting
conditions and had some degree of portability. There is virtually
unanimity on that particular issue here in the Senate and, I daresay,
in the House of Representatives.
There is another ingredient which has been added in the House of
Representatives in the process of the negotiations on medical savings
accounts. I have expressed my view--and not only my view, but the view
of some 35 different editorials, from newspapers from virtually all
parts of the country, questioning whether the U.S. Senate ought

[[Page S7291]]

to add and tag this provision onto this very, very important and
essential piece of legislation.
I think everyone in this body knows that if we were to have a vote on
the legislation dealing with preexisting conditions and portability, it
would pass by 100 votes. Americans all over this Nation, as they come
through the Fourth of July period, will understand the degree of
security that they would have in terms of their futures, for any
preexisting conditions. And workers would understand the importance of
that.
Nonetheless, we are not able to come back to the Senate and report an
agreement on the final bill. Still, effectively, no matter how you
characterize it, that bill is being held hostage for an untried,
untested idea. We understand where the votes are, in terms of our
Republicans friends in the House and in the Senate, who are absolutely
insistent on trying to find some common ground. I have heard those that
have said they support certain proposals that they believe far and wide
exemplify a very reasonable sort of compromise. Mr. President, I think
Americans are asking why we do not go ahead and pass what is agreed on
and then debate the medical savings account independently tomorrow,
tonight, this afternoon, or next week. But let us get out what we can
agree on. But we are denied that opportunity.
So, Mr. President, I want to just indicate to all of those
Americans--the 25 million Americans and their families, all those
workers that are out there--that we are going to do everything we
possibly can to get this legislation, and that we are committed to
trying to have some kind of a pilot program that can examine the value
of medical savings accounts. But for all the good reasons that have
been demonstrated here, we are not going to be stampeded into accepting
something which is untried and untested.
Mr. President, I will say a final word. If any company wants today to
go out and sell a medical savings account, they can do it. I have
listened to my friends on the other side of the aisle say all we are
looking for is freedom. That is baloney. What they want is their hand
in the pocket of the American Treasury. They have the freedom to go out
and sell medical savings accounts today. But what they want is the
Federal Treasury to be opened for the tax advantage that they would
receive, and they are asking their legislators to help Golden Rule and
other companies--companies which have been poorly rated by consumers
group and have been drummed out of states like Vermont and other
communities, for their conduct and lack of consumer protections. They
want to get inside the Federal Treasury. That is what is at risk. They
have freedom to go out and sell MSAs today. No; they want to get inside
the Federal Treasury and get that privileged position to be able to
have a deduction or special tax advantage.
So this is very, very important. I am very hopeful that we will still
have the opportunity for the health insurance reform act to become
law--but quite frankly there are others interests that are involved. I
certainly hope that we will have a chance to come back and address this
matter, here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, sometime soon. We are
running out of time in terms of the patience of the American people. We
ought to be able to call the roll and have some degree of
accountability.
Perhaps over the period of this break calmer heads can prevail and we
can work out something that will move the legislation and permit a
reasonable kind of trial period. Otherwise, I hope we will come back
and we will just call the roll, and we will keep calling the roll until
we get some final resolution will provide protection for those 25
million Americans and permit portability.
Constantly, at the end of the day when the day is done and you drive
back home, you have to say to yourself, ``Why aren't we going ahead and
providing this protection for the American people?'' We can pass a bill
that everybody agrees on. Why should we be effectively held hostage to
those who want to include an untried and untested idea in the
legislation?
Mr. President, we will have more of an opportunity to revisit that
because the issue of MSAs is not going away. The health care issue is
not going away. We will look forward to the chance to debate it when we
return.
Thank you very much.
I, too, apologize, if that is appropriate, to our friend and
colleague. I did not know that she was about to give her maiden address
to the Senate, or I would have certainly looked for another opportunity
to address the Senate.
I thank you.
Mrs. FRAHM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. FRAHM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized to speak as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FRAHM. Thank you, Mr. President.

____________________