[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.

                          ____________________