[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 164 (Thursday, November 18, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H12823-H12832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1800
  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1180, TICKET TO WORK AND WORK INCENTIVES 
                        IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 387, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1180) to amend the Social 
Security Act to expand the availability of health care coverage for 
working individuals with disabilities, to establish a Ticket to Work 
and Self-Sufficiency Program in the Social Security Administration to 
provide such individuals with meaningful opportunities to work, and for 
other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to House Resolution 
387, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 17, 1999, at page H12174.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the conference report H.R. 1180.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1180, the Ticket 
to Work and Work Incentives Act, which also contains an important 
package of tax relief for American workers and families.
  First, let me discuss the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Act. 
Most of those receiving disability benefits today, due to the severity 
of their impairments, cannot attempt to work. Today, however, the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, along with advances in technology, 
medicine and rehabilitation, are opening doors of opportunity never 
thought possible to individuals with disabilities. Now people can 
telecommute to work. There are voice-activated computers. And, as 
technology provides new ways to clear hurdles presented by a 
disability, government must also keep pace by providing opportunity and 
not just dependency. Government should be helping people to work, not 
building barriers to independence and freedom.
  This is one more victory in a string of health care achievements that 
the Republican Congress has guided into law. We strengthened Medicare, 
we made health insurance more portable, we passed tax breaks for long-
term health care and to cut health insurance costs for people who buy 
their own health insurance, unfortunately, only to see all those vetoed 
by the President. And now we have modernized a key program for people 
with disabilities so that the Government is a help and not a hindrance. 
Mr. Speaker, that is truly a record of achievement and progress.
  Another significant victory is the tax relief package in this bill. 
Because of our action, millions of families can now breathe easier 
knowing they will not get hit with a surprise tax hike for the next 3 
years because we fixed the alternative minimum tax. The AMT is

[[Page H12824]]

a perfect example of an out-of-control Tax Code. Under the AMT, 
taxpayers are not allowed to claim the full child tax credit, the 
dependent care tax credit, the Hope Scholarship tax credit, and other 
tax credits which Congress passed to help Americans make ends meet. So 
the Tax Code was giving on one hand while quickly taking away with the 
other. This bill, today, fixes that for middle-income families, 
hundreds of thousands of them, for the next 3 years.
  This bill also helps American companies maintain their cutting edge 
of research and development which will lead to new products, better 
medicines and a higher standard of living for consumers because it 
extends the most important R&D tax credit. For the first time in a long 
while, we have extended the tax credit for 5 years instead of hand-to-
mouth year after year, on which no one can fully depend. Now businesses 
can plan for the future.
  Another significant achievement of this bill is that Congress 
convinced the President that American taxpayers are paying too much and 
deserve some of their money back. Yes, it is only a small portion, but 
any amount of taxpayer funds that can be gotten out of Washington is 
money that cannot be spent on making government bigger. And that is 
exactly what this bill does.
  This is one more achievement for a Congress that keeps delivering for 
the American people. We have made historic progress in paying down the 
debt, $140 billion alone in the last 2 years. We are locking away the 
Social Security surplus so it cannot be spent on other things, and we 
are working on a long-term plan to save Social Security for all time. 
And now we have agreed to start returning a portion of the non-Social 
Security surplus to the taxpayers who send it here, and that is real 
progress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that on this last bill, that the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer) and I have worked on together, that we might 
have found a more bipartisan tone than the one which the gentleman has 
just expressed today.
  The gentleman talks about the accomplishments and what has been done 
for those people that are disabled as though his Democratic colleagues 
did not join with him to make this bill all that it is. The President 
presented this to the Congress and we worked together, and I agree that 
we do have a good bill.
  There are some things that the gentleman does not talk about, and I 
expect that there is good reason for it. The gentleman has a delay here 
for the President's program dealing with transportation network for 
organ procurements, and the gentleman delays this from going into 
effect. It is controversial; it has nothing to do with taxes, but 
somehow the gentleman got that in there.
  The gentleman has some other bill that came from the other side, a 
contractor that deals with NOAA. It has nothing to do with taxes or the 
disabled.
  And then, when we get involved with taxes, the gentleman talked about 
a Congress that produces. Well, I had hoped that we would not end on 
this note; but the last I heard from the majority, they were pulling up 
the Tax Code by the roots. True, that was 6 years ago, 5 years ago, 4, 
3, 2, 1, and continuously counting down. The closest the other side 
came to even dealing with the Tax Code, as I recall, was a $792 billion 
tax cut that never even got off the ground. And if we were to just 
weigh that bill, I hardly believe that even the staunchest conservative 
Republican would say that it simplified the Tax Code.
  Now, I would have to agree with the gentleman that on the expiring 
provisions, the extensions of legislation that is existing law, that 
the gentleman and I worked together not as a Democrat or a Republican, 
but we worked together as tax writers, and with the help of the 
administration we were able to get these provisions paid for. We were 
able to put it in in a responsible way.
  We could not stop all of the irresponsible things the other side 
wanted to do, so some people might want to focus on how the Republicans 
intend to make electricity out of chicken waste. But the gentleman 
insisted on the provision, we have it here, and God bless. The 
gentleman can join the wind and the closed-loop biomass, and if that is 
the way the other side wants to spend the credits, they are the 
majority and they can do it. But that is one of the things that we did 
not want to be associated with.
  But I agree with the gentleman on the other good provisions. What are 
they? The extensions of existing law; to say that this Congress will 
not be irresponsible and allow these provisions to expire without doing 
the right thing.
  So what I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) 
is that he has no idea the pleasure it has been working with him on 
these positive things. And the only reason I stand up to point out some 
differences with the gentleman is that I would appreciate the gentleman 
not calling them Republican initiatives. The good ones are the 
bipartisan initiatives; the bad ones belong to the other side.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
simply to say that I think that it is unfortunate that the gentleman 
from New York has sought to try to, through his rhetoric, create some 
degree of partisanship. I would have liked to have given him far more 
credit on this bill. Much of what is in here are things that he wanted, 
but he would not sign the conference report. And, frankly, that does 
take away from bipartisanship.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ramstad), a member of the committee.
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time, and I also thank him for his strong leadership on this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important bill. Helping 
people with disabilities live up to their full potential has been a top 
priority of mine ever since being elected to Congress, in fact, 10 
years before as a State senator as well. I also strongly support the 
tax extender provisions in this bill.
  I must say that I was disappointed, however, that the administration 
insisted that an important revenue-raising provision be dropped from 
the final agreement. This provision was based on legislation I 
sponsored, H.R. 3082, which was cosponsored by a strong bipartisan 
majority on the Committee on Ways and Means. This legislation would 
have protected employees' stock ownership plans, ESOPs for S-
corporation workers by preventing the abuse of tax rules that help them 
build retirement savings and equity in their company. But 
unfortunately, the administration wanted to impose a draconian scheme 
that would have effectively killed ESOPs; would have killed this 
savings opportunity for thousands of American workers.
  Thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and 
the bipartisan support for S-corporation ESOPs in Congress on the 
Committee on Ways and Means and in the full body, the administration's 
misguided proposal was soundly rejected in negotiations over this 
extenders package, and for that I am grateful. This was a victory for 
American workers and a victory for boosting America's dangerously low 
savings rate.
  Although these ESOPs S-Corporation legislation was not enacted in 
this bill this session, I am pleased that Congress resisted the 
administration's plan to dismantle ESOPs, because they are highly 
effective retirement savings programs.
  We are going to be back with this next year, and again I thank the 
chairman for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill before us. Helping 
people with disabilities live up to their full potential has been one 
of my top priorities even since I was first elected to public office.
  I also strongly support the important tax extender provisions which 
will save families from being unfairly penalized by the Alternative 
Minimum Tax and will keep U.S. businesses competitive, innovative and 
job-creating.
  I was disappointed the Administration insisted that an important 
revenue-raising provision be dropped from the final agreement. This 
provision was based on legislation I introduced (H.R. 3082) which is 
cosponsored by a

[[Page H12825]]

strong bipartisan majority of the Ways and Means Committee.
  H.R. 3082 would protect employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) for S 
corporation workers by preventing the abuse of tax rules that help them 
build retirement savings and equity in their company. But 
unfortunately, the Administration wanted to impose a draconian scheme 
that would have effectively killed this savings opportunity for 
thousands of American workers.
  Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Archer and the bipartisan 
support for S corporation ESOPs in Congress, the Administration's 
misguided proposal was soundly rejected in negotiations over this 
extenders package. That was a victory for American workers, and a 
victory for boosting America's dangerously low savings rate.
  Although H.R. 3082 was not enacted in this session, I am pleased 
Congress resisted the Administration's plan to dismantle these ESOPs, 
which are a highly effective retirement savings program. Thank you, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how long I have waited, along with many 
of my friends with disabilities in Minnesota, for this day. As many of 
my colleagues know, I have been working hard to help people with 
disabilities live up to their full potential since my election to this 
body in 1990, and as a Minnesota State Senator ten years prior. In 
fact, in 1993, Rep. Pete Stark and I introduced legislation to achieve 
the same goal we seek today.
  As I have reminded my colleagues before, it was nine years ago that 
many of us enacted the ADA. It was nine long years ago that president 
Bush signed it into law and said, ``Many of our fellow citizens with 
disabilities are unemployed. They want to work and they can work . . . 
this is a tremendous pool of people who will bring to jobs diversity, 
loyalty, low turnover rate, and only one request: the chance to prove 
themselves.''
  Mr. Speaker, despite the remarkably low unemployment rate in this 
country today, many of those with disabilities are still asking for 
this change to prove themselves in the workplace.
  Despite all the good that the ADA has done to date, there is still 
room for improvement. The ADA did not remove all the barriers within 
current federal programs that prohibit people with disabilities from 
working. It's time to eliminate work disincentives for people with 
disabilities!
  Eliminating work disincentives for people with disabilities is not 
just humane public policy, it is sound fiscal policy. It's not only the 
right thing to do; it's the cost-effective thing to do!
  Discouraging people with disabilities from working, earning a regular 
paycheck, paying taxes and moving off public assistance actually 
results in reduced federal revenues.
  People with disabilities have to make decisions based on financial 
reality. Should they consider returning to work or even making it 
through vocational rehabilitation, the risk of losing vital federal 
health benefits often becomes too threatening to future financial 
stability. As a result, they are compelled not to work. Given the sorry 
state of present law, that's generally a reasonable and rational 
decision.
  We must transform these federal programs into spring-boards to the 
workforce for people with disabilities. This important bill does just 
that.
  As I have said many times, preventing people from working runs 
counter to the American spirit, one that thrives on individual 
achievements and the larger contributions to society that result.
  I implore my colleagues to vote for this important legislation before 
us today!
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and would just like to say to the chairman that I understand that my 
signature was expected at midnight last night, and I am sorry I could 
not be with him, because then the gentleman might have treated me more 
gently this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. It contains some very 
important provisions. I want to applaud the Clinton administration for 
the initiative and bringing forward the Ticket to Work legislation. It 
removes impediments from disabled individuals being able to return to 
work. It will save us money. If we get people off of disability to 
work, as they want to work, this legislation is very important.
  Secondly, the tax extenders are very important. We all want to extend 
the tax provisions that would otherwise expire, whether it be for 
research and development or some of the other provisions that are in 
the bill.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I must express my concern about a provision that 
was added that deals with the fair allocation of organs that would 
block HHS's regulation in this area. I believe that that provision will 
jeopardize the health of critically ill patients, and it is also 
inconsistent with our last vote on the budget omnibus bill.
  The HHS regulation went through a process. It listened to the public; 
it listened to the Institute of Medicine and came forward with 
recommendations that tries to take geographical politics out of organ 
distribution and do it to people who are the most critically in need.

                              {time}  1815

  I hope we can follow the compromise that was in the last bill because 
that was a fair compromise that was reached that requires HHS to go out 
and listen and explain the regulations to the public. It is 
inconsistent with the provisions that are in this bill.
  I hope that HHS will not have to follow the language because it is 
inconsistent with the last bill because, otherwise, I think we are 
going to jeopardize the health of the critically-ill individuals.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Lazio).
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, for his fine work and for his leadership in getting 
this to the floor. Let me thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Bliley), the chairman of my committee, for holding hearings immediately 
and being the first to actually move the Work Incentives Improvement 
Act.
  This has been a remarkable achievement. I think there are many who 
believe that we would never get to this day. But, in fact, we are here.
  I want to thank people on both sides of the aisle, the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ramstad), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) for working in a bipartisan fashion on the 
Work Incentives Improvement Act.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we have the privilege of taking the most 
significant stride forward for rights of disabled people since the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. We are addressing the next great 
frontier when it comes to fully integrating disabled Americans into 
society, giving them the same economic opportunities that the rest of 
us enjoy.
  Mr. Speaker, many Americans with disabilities rely on Federal health 
care and social services, assistance that makes it possible for them to 
lead independent and productive lives. But, unbelievably, we condition 
this assistance on their destitution. People with disabilities must get 
poor and stay poor if they are going to retain their health care 
benefits. They have got to choose between working and surviving.
  That is why I introduced the Work Incentives Improvement Act, and 
that is why we have over 250 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle to 
end this perverse system of allowing Americans with disabilities to 
enter the workforce without endangering their health care coverage.
  Mr. Speaker, a 1998 Harris survey found that 72 percent of Americans 
with disabilities want to work, but the fact remains that only one-half 
of one percent of dependent disabled Americans successfully move to 
work. Each percentage point of Americans moving to work represents 
80,000 Americans who want to pay all or part of their own way but 
cannot; 80,000 Americans who are forced by a poorly designed system to 
sit on the sidelines while American businesses clamor for qualified 
workers.
  This bill, in the end, Mr. Speaker, is about empowering people, 
people like a 39-year-old Navy veteran from my district who used to 
work on Wall Street and hoped to become a stockbroker but an accident 
in 1983 left him a quadriplegic. And even though he requires assistance 
for even the most basic daily activities, he never gave up on his 
dream. And 10 years after his accident, he passed the grueling 
stockbroker licensing exam. But, like most disabled Americans, he 
cannot afford to lose his health care benefits. If it

[[Page H12826]]

were not for the current Federal rules, he would be a practicing, 
taxpaying stock broker today.
  The Work Incentives Improvement Act ends this injustice. It rips down 
bureaucratic walls that stand between people with disabilities and a 
paycheck. It is important to remember that a paycheck means a lot more 
than just money. For a disabled American or any American, it means 
self-sufficiency. It means pride in a job well done. It means dignity.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come a long, long way since the time when 
Americans with disabilities were shunted off to the farthest corners of 
our communities. Many Americans have been waiting for us to give them a 
chance to pursue the American dream. Today let us tell them that the 
wait is over. Let us get the Work Incentives Improvement Act passed 
today.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the disability provisions of this act are 
really important and are going to make a difference in the lives of 
many. But I want to talk about two other provisions that will make our 
country more prosperous, and that is the R&D tax credit and Section 127 
of the Tax Code.
  Our party's position, the Democratic position, as stated by our 
leader is that the R&D tax credit should be permanent. This 5-year 
extension is really in the right direction. I am happy to support it. 
But next year we are going to go for permanent.
  On 127, I was so pleased that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the ranking member, has taken so much time to work on this. It 
is important that we support employer-supported tuition reimbursement 
plans. In this day and age, when the best educated workforce means they 
will be competitive, encouraging employers to help employees to 
continue their education is essential.
  Again, I am happy to support this extension, and I look forward to 
extending this to graduate education. I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) whose understanding and support of high-tech issues 
in this bill comes through loud and clear. He really followed through 
on the commitments he made when he came and visited Silicon Valley and 
really understood the issue of competitiveness and technology and 
education.
  So kudos to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his 
wonderful work. I look forward to taking both of these provisions just 
a little bit farther in the next Congress.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do want to just correct a statement made by 
the prior speaker when she described their efforts to extend 
permanently the R&D tax credit.
  We can tell our colleagues from negotiations that Mr. Summers, the 
Treasury Secretary, vehemently opposed that permanent extension. So 
that, if that is the position of the party, we would like the Secretary 
of the Treasury to be informed of that position so that it would be 
much easier for the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to 
accomplish something he tried to do at the very outset of 
deliberations.
  I want to also suggest to my colleagues how proud I am to stand up 
and support this bill. Credits to Puerto Rico and U.S. possessions, 
minimum tax relief for individuals, permitting full use of personal 
nonrefundable credits, welfare-to-work tax credits, work opportunity 
tax credits, a number of initiatives that I think will stimulate the 
economy, continue us on our road to prosperity, continue to see 
additional revenues to the Treasury so we can continue to reduce the 
debt of the American taxpayers to increase and enhance investment in 
America.
  I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, for seeing this bill to the successful 
conclusion. Especially, I would like to note the ticket-to-work and 
Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999.
  So oftentimes some of our vulnerable citizens in society who have 
been stricken by illnesses and ailments have been unable to make the 
required choice of whether to stay employed and then forgo, if you 
will, the Social Security, the Medicare-Medicaid provisions. This bill 
now makes an attempt, to allow those capable and able individuals to be 
in the workforce, continue those vital health insurance needs provided 
by Medicaid and Medicare, and allow them to be productive, taxpaying 
citizens.
  So I applaud the bill and I urge Members to vote for passage of this 
bill as it comes to the floor.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the former 
chairman and now ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, my friend 
and distinguished colleague.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) for his kindness to me.
  We take one step forward and one back. The bipartisan agreement on 
organ allocations was reached during negotiations between Labor, HHS 
and on that appropriations bill.
  The revised regulation would not become final until 42 days after 
enactment, sufficient time to enable the comments on the revisions and, 
if necessary, to make further modifications. Now we are witnessing an 
end run by opponents to this proposal with regard to organ allocation 
policy.
  The legislation before us contains a moratorium of 90 days on any 
allocation regulation. This delay has a huge cost. The regulation calls 
for broader organ sharing. This is consistent with the conclusion of 
the National Academy of Sciences, which studied the allocation system.
  HHS has stated that approximately 300 lives per year could be saved 
through broader sharing. The math is simple. There is a difference 
between a 42-day delay and a delay of almost 90 days.
  Two more points to be made. First, blocking HHS oversight amounts to 
privatization of Medicare and Medicaid expenditures attributable to 
organ transplants. If my colleagues want to privatize Medicare, let 
them do it in the open and proper fashion.
  Second, blocking HHS oversight continues the proliferation of State 
organ allocation statutes, at least 12 by last count. That is directly 
in conflict with the current allocation criteria and with good sense.
  The same Members who decry political or bureaucratic involvement in 
organ allocation policy when they have HHS in mind are stunningly 
silent when politicians and bureaucrats involved in this are State 
officials.
  A lack of leadership on the issue is creating immense fragmentation 
of organ allocation policies, just the opposite direction of where IOM 
said the allocation policies should go.
  In like fashion, the Work Incentives Act of 1999 is a large step in 
the correct fashion. It will ensure that the disabled no longer have to 
choose between health care and their jobs. The bill also includes a 
demonstration project to provide health coverage to people who have 
serious conditions but are not fully disabled, these people who have 
multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy. This would enable them to remain 
as working members of society.
  Thanks to hard work and dedication on the part of the administration 
and the disability community, additional funding has been secured for a 
very important project here.
  During the past few weeks, controversy has swirled around proposed 
offsets in the bill. Parties from both sides have agreed to remove some 
of the most contentious payfors. However, I have heard objections from 
many of my constituents about two offsets that remain, a provision to 
change the way that students loans are financed and a tax on payments 
to attorneys who represent Social Security claimants.
  Although I am going to vote for this bill, I have substantial 
concerns for these offsets. And, very truthfully, the things that are 
done here are wrong.
  The Work Incentives Act has overcome many obstacles in its 
legislative history. The bill is on the floor today because it is based 
on good policy and because it will make a difference of lives of people 
with disabilities. For that reason, I support it.

[[Page H12827]]

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the respected chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about work. Its goal is to help 
individuals with disabilities work and support themselves and support 
their families.
  Today only three in ten adults with disabilities work, compared with 
eight in ten adults without disabilities. A big reason is Government 
programs take away cash and medical benefits if disabled individuals 
find and keep jobs. That must change. And it will change under this 
bill that is before us today.
  No one should be afraid of losing benefits if they do the right thing 
and try to work. We should reward and help especially those who 
struggle to overcome their disabilities. That is why we are offering 
the new tickets disability individuals can use to obtain whatever 
services they need in order to work.
  But we do not stop there. We extend health care coverage for a total 
of 8\1/2\ years so that no one has to fear losing their medical 
coverage if they go to work.
  Some may still not risk going to work for fear of having to wait 
months or even years to get back on the benefits if their health begins 
to once again decline. So we ensure disabled individuals can quickly 
get back onto the rolls if they try to work but their health 
deteriorates.
  That is the right kind of safety net, one that encourages work and 
protects those who need help along the way. From providing more help, 
finding and keeping a job, ensuring health care coverage, to 
strengthening the safety net to those who cannot stay on the job, this 
legislation does the right thing. This is another historic step to 
ensure that everyone can know the dignity that comes with work.
  I urge all Members to support this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health and 
Environment of the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress owes a debt of gratitude to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Lazio) and to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman). Thanks largely to their efforts, we have an opportunity to do 
something right. I wish I could say that more often.
  We owe a debt of gratitude especially to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) under whose 
leadership proponents of this legislation managed to defend repeated 
attempts to emasculate it.
  Finally, we owe a debt of gratitude to President Clinton. The 
President and his exceptional health team have demonstrated their 
commitment to the goals of this bill in a number of ways, lending their 
assistance again and again as this arduous process moved forward.
  The idea behind the bill is simple. If individuals want to work, let 
us help them work. For many disabled individuals, the ability to work 
hinges on reliable health care. Yet, under current law, work means 
losing access to that care. By providing continued access to Medicare 
and Medicaid, the Work Incentives Improvement Act enables individuals 
to leave the disability roles and go back to work.
  H.R. 1180 taps into the tremendous human potential that all of us 
have and takes us closer to a time where equal opportunity for disabled 
people is no longer an objective, it is a fact.
  Nothing is perfect. This bill could have been much closer to that 
ideal if the Republican leadership had not co-opted it with a self-
serving moratorium on the organ allocation bill. And there is a user 
fee provision that may reduce the number of attorneys willing to 
represent disabled clients. It is not a particularly well thought out 
provision. But overall, Mr. Speaker, the bill is a victory for the 
disabled and a much needed reminder that American values are, in fact, 
intact.
  I ask for support of the bill.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the respected chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I want to comment briefly on two parts of this 
bill. First of all, it is really a joy to know that people in my 
district who suffer from physical or mental disabilities and who want 
to work and are capable of work but cannot work because of fear of 
losing their health coverage are going to be able to work. And as the 
Christmas holidays approach and they are offered longer hours, I know 
that they are going to be able to realize their dream of being a real 
part of the work team at their place of business. It is really a 
wonderful thing that we have done in this bill, to enable Americans 
simply to realize the opportunity of self-fulfillment that work offers.
  But I also want to mention one other thing. How do we foster 
invention? Lots of times, we ask ourselves, how do we assure that there 
will be a strong economy for our children? In this bill is one of the 
keys. For the first time ever, we make the research and development tax 
credit in place and law for 5 years. Our goal is permanence, but we 
have never had 5 years. This will enable companies to plan and enable 
them to invest at a pace and at dimensions of dollars that we have 
never seen before. That drives new products. That drives state-of-the-
art inventions. That drives economic leadership. And that drives good 
jobs, high-paying jobs, and a successful America.
  I want to personally congratulate the gentleman from Texas for his 
dedication to the R&D tax credit that would be longstanding enough to 
foster the kind of growth and invention, support for an entrepreneurial 
economy that this R&D tax credit will achieve. I know that he would 
have preferred permanence as many of us would have. But this is a 
tremendous breakthrough. It is a real tribute to the gentleman from 
Texas and his dedication and to this Congress that we have extended the 
R&D tax credit for 5 years.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I guess I would like to focus on the dignity 
that this bill gives to many Americans who simply want a chance. I 
thank the ranking member. I thank the chairman of this committee. I 
could quarrel with the process in some of the extenders that we will 
also be including, but I want to respond with a focus on one of my 
constituents who saw me in the Heights, an area of my district in 
Houston, and spoke about her son. We were at a memorial giving tribute 
to those who had served in the military who lived in the Heights area. 
After the program, she came up and said, ``What is the progress, when 
will you pass the Work Incentives Improvement Act? My son wants to be 
independent. My son wants to get on his feet. My son who is disabled 
simply wants to have his day in the sun.''
  And so this particular bill is of great relief to her and her family. 
It is a ticket to work and self-sufficiency program. And in fact over 
the years that I have been in Congress, I have enjoyed meeting with 
some of the physically and mentally disabled or challenged who have 
come to my office and have asked simply to be allowed to work and then 
not to lose their health benefits. That is their greatest crisis. In 
order for them not to be dependent, they need to have this kind of 
support system. I support this effort that would expand beneficiaries' 
access to public and private vocational rehabilitation providers and to 
employment service providers acting as employment networks under the 
program, and I support particularly the aspect of this bill that allows 
the disabled to go off and work and then, for example, if there is a 
problem, they still have the ability to come back within a 60-month 
period and get the benefits that they need without filing a new 
application. This is long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this important measure that both 
allows disabled persons to retain their federal health benefits after 
they return to work along and authorizes extensions for several tax 
provisions.
  The conference report on H.R. 1180, Work Incentives Improvement Act 
is a true measure

[[Page H12828]]

of bipartisan efforts and includes a compromise version of the original 
House and Senate bills. This bill would establish the ``Ticket to Work 
and Self-sufficiency Program'' that would expand beneficiaries' access 
to public and private vocational rehabilitation providers and to 
employment service providers acting as employment networks under the 
Program.
  This bill will allow disabled individuals to receive an expedited 
reinstatement of benefits if they lose their benefits due to work 
activity. Disabled individuals would have 60 months after their 
benefits were terminated during which to request a reinstatement of 
benefits without having to file a new application. It is imperative 
that we protect these disabled individuals, and this bill would provide 
provisional benefits for up to six months while the Social Security 
Administration determines these requests for reinstatement.
  In addition to allowing disabled persons to retain their federal 
health benefits after they return to work, this bill also includes 
extensions of various tax provisions, many of which are scheduled to 
expire at the end of this year. The conference agreement provides 
approximately $15.8 billion in tax relief over five years ($18.4 
billion over 10 years) by extending certain tax credits.
  More specifically, this measure extends the Research and Development 
tax credit for five years (this credit would be expanded to include 
Puerto Rico and possessions of the United States), the Welfare-to-Work 
and Work Opportunity tax credits for 30 months, and the Generalized 
System of Preferences through September 30, 2001. Finally, the measure 
includes approximately $2.6 billion in revenue offsets over five years 
($2.9 billion over 10 years).
  This bill also delays the effective date of the organ procurement and 
transplantation network final rule. This rider provides people with 
more time to comment on the rule and for the Secretary to consider 
these comments. Our organ distribution system requires changes to 
create a more national system, to diminish the enormous waiting times, 
and to ensure that those people who are suffering the most receive help 
in time. The late, great Walter Payton's sorrowful death is just 
another sad reminder that far too many people in need of organs are 
trapped on waiting lists.
  Finally, the bill requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to continue existing contracts for its multi-year 
program for climate database modernization and utilization.
  This measure clearly is important to the American people on many 
fronts. It is imperative that we pass this important piece of 
legislation. It is a sign that we are unified on both sides of the 
aisle, and it proves to the American public that we have put their 
needs above political posturing.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1180, 
the Work Incentives Improvement Act. I want to express my sincere 
appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). We have heard much talk this 
evening about tax credits for R&D and the like and those are very 
important. But when I read this bill and I listen to the conversations, 
I hear freedom. I hear freedom for 5 million people who right now are 
confined or constrained because the law does not allow them to maintain 
their health benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could say one thing that just sends me home here 
soon with a light heart, it is that at the end of the 20th century as 
we did at the end of the 18th century, for over 5 million Americans 
this bill lets freedom ring. It lets them compete and participate. I 
applaud my colleagues.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), another respected member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Work Incentives 
Improvement Act of 1999. First and foremost I say to my committee 
chairman and ranking minority member that the provisions here on the 
extenders is one that is going to be of great assistance and help to be 
able to continue moving the economy forward. The R&D for 5 years is a 
great need for business and industries that do a lot of research.
  I would like to bring out a couple of things that are not 
highlighted, but I have had a chance of working personally with a 
number of individuals concerning this. One, the conference agreement 
would provide a 2-year open season beginning January 1 for clergy to 
revoke their exemption from Social Security coverage. This is something 
that a lot of ministers, and I have been associated with a lot of them 
through the fact that my former father-in-law was a minister, he is 
deceased now, but it is something I know he was concerned about back 
years ago.
  The other provision is even a little closer. My wife and I have had 
our home available, licensed for foster children over the years; and I 
have worked with a lot of foster children. In this bill we have had a 
simplification of the definition of foster child under the earned 
income credit program. It provides for the simplification. Under this 
particular provision, a foster child would be defined as a child who is 
cared for by the taxpayer as if he or she were the taxpayer's own 
child; two, has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for 
the taxpayer's entire taxable year; and, three, either is the 
taxpayer's brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister or descendant, 
including an adopted child, of any such relative.
  This is something that has been focused. I do not know if any of you 
have ever tried to work with a lot of the situation dealing with foster 
children, but it is a very cumbersome problem. This will help eliminate 
that.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), another respected member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin my comments by just again 
praising the leadership of our committee's chairman for his efforts in 
putting together this good package that we are voting on today, a 
package that deserves bipartisan support, as well as the good ranking 
member for his efforts in making this a bipartisan effort today.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a big victory for a lot of folks back home. The 
disabled are big winners with the ticket to work provisions in this 
bill, legislation that helps the disabled enter the workforce and keep 
their health care benefits. I really want to commend the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) for his hard work and efforts on this.
  It is also a victory for the taxpayers. This Congress said no to the 
President's $238 billion in tax increases. This Congress said no to the 
President's plan to raid the Social Security Trust Fund by $340 
billion. I do want to express my biggest disappointment for this year 
and that is when the President vetoed our efforts to help 28 million 
married working couples when the President vetoed our efforts to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  This legislation is good legislation. It helps folks back home in 
Illinois. There are three provisions I would like to highlight. Of 
course, the 5-year extension of the research and development tax 
credit. That is so important in Illinois, a multiyear commitment to 
providing this incentive for research into cancer, research into 
biotechnology, to increase food productivity, to increase the 
opportunity to grow our new economy, particularly in high technology 
since Illinois ranks fourth in technology. I also would note that 
Puerto Rico is included with this extension of the R&D tax credit, 
extension of the work opportunity tax credit.
  We want welfare reform to work. If we want welfare reform to work, of 
course we want to ensure that there is a job for those on welfare. The 
work opportunity tax credits help contribute to a 50 percent reduction 
in the welfare rolls in Illinois. We extend it for 2\1/2\ years.
  Third and last, I want to note the brownfields tax incentive, a 
provision that many of us worked on to include in the 1997 budget act. 
This is successfully working. Of course we extend it. I would point out 
that the district I represent on the South Side of Chicago, that the 
former Republic Steel property, the largest brownfield in Illinois, the 
largest new industrial park in Illinois benefited from this brownfields 
tax incentive. This is good legislation, and it deserves bipartisan 
support.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
would like to take this time to thank the gentleman from Texas for the 
courtesies he has extended to me. While we

[[Page H12829]]

have had major policy differences, he has always been a gentleman, he 
has been fair, he has been honest, and above all he has been sincere. I 
want to thank Mr. Singleton and the entire majority staff as well as 
Janice Mays. We have probably one of the best staffs in the House and 
they have worked hard and they have worked with us.
  While it is my opinion that we did not accomplish too much in this 
first year, I look forward to working with the gentleman side by side, 
hand in hand to see what we can do to restore confidence in the Social 
Security system, the Medicare system, and see what we can do about 
prescription drugs.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
thank the gentleman for his comments. We have much work to do next 
year, where we can work hopefully together on a strong bipartisan basis 
on Social Security, trade issues, and many other issues before our 
committee.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a provision relating 
to the rum cover over provision for Puerto Rico. The House-Senate 
conference agreement calls for an increase in the rum cover over for 
Puerto Rico from the current level of $10.50 to $13.25. It is my 
understanding that by an agreement between the Administration and the 
Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Pedro Rossello, one-sixth of the 
$2.75 increase in the rum cover over to Puerto Rico will be dedicated 
to the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust, a private, nonprofit section 
501(c)(3) organization operating in Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rico 
Conservation Trust was created for the protection of natural resources 
and environmental beauty of Puerto Rico and was established pursuant to 
a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of the Interior 
and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico dated December 24, 1968.''
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this 
legislation even though it is not paid for because added to the Ticket 
To Work program are important ``must pass'' tax provisions vital to all 
our constituents.
  The most important provision in this bill is the extension of the 
current waiver of the alternative minimum tax rules affecting 
nonrefundable personal credits. Without enactment of this provision, 
next April approximately 1 million taxpayers will find they owe more 
money to the federal government than they thought, for an average 
``stealth'' tax increase of about $900 each. Millions more will have to 
though the alternative minimum tax calculations, which can take 5 or 6 
hours, just to find out they don't owe any more money.
  In 1997 Congress approved new credits for children, and for 
education. We promised our constituents that the federal government 
would help them with these responsibilities. However, we subjected 
these credits to the alternative minimum tax. The result is that more 
and more middle income Americans will be forced into the AMA by our 
actions--and we will rightly get the blame.
  So now we have to fix it. This bill does that for 3 years. But what 
we really need to do is to fix this problem permanently, because no 
middle income American should ever by subject to the alternative 
minimum tax calculation simply because they decided to send their kids 
to college.
  Mr. Speaker, other members may focus their remarks regarding taxes on 
the research and development tax credit, or the Subpart F extension, or 
employer provided educational assistance. All important items. But not 
items that drive this bill--what is of paramount importance is the AMA 
fix, and I am pleased that we are finally taking steps to fix this for 
the immediate future.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise with regret to oppose what is being 
called the ``Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act 
Conference Report.'' This title would never pass the ``Truth in 
Labeling'' test if it were on a box of food, but you can get still away 
with such falsehoods here in Congress--especially in the waning hours 
of the session.
  The reason for my regret is that I have worked much of the year to 
encourage passage of the Work Incentives Improvement Act here in the 
House. This legislation is vitally important for disabled individuals. 
Our current system--which actively discourages disabled people from 
returning to the workforce--simply makes no sense. Allowing disabled 
people to maintain their health insurance through Medicare when they 
return to work is something that should have always been law, not 
something we are finally doing today.
  I support that component of this bill which we are here considering 
today. I am unhappy that it has been weakened from the version that 
originally passed the House. In that bill, we would have given disabled 
individuals the ability to keep their Medicare health insurance for 10 
years, while the bill before us today only extends that coverage for 
8\1/2\ years. But, there is no question that this would be a 
significant improvement from the status quo.
  However, there is much more to this bill than the title would 
suggest. Through late night negotiations, this bill changed. In 
addition to the provisions relating to the Work Incentive Improvement 
Act, the bill includes two completely unrelated provisions. The first 
of these is a 90-day moratorium preventing the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services from implementing a regulation to improve our organ 
allocation program in the U.S. Also included is a package of tax 
extenders that is not fully paid for.
  The moratorium on the organ allocation regulation is especially 
egregious. The regulation is a product of negotiations with the 
transplant community, patients, and the general public and ensures the 
sickest patients get organs first--instead of basing life and death 
decisions on geography.
  Republicans included this same 90-day delay of the HHS organ 
allocation regulations in legislation earlier this year. The President 
vetoed that bill and cited the organ allocation moratorium as ``a 
highly objectionable provision.'' After that veto, Congressional budget 
negotiators and the White House agreed to permit the HHS organ 
allocation rule to go into effect after a 42-day consultation period. 
Yet only a few days later, they have decided to renege on that 
agreement.

  Congress has already delayed the HHS rules for over a year--
permitting the Institute of Medicine (IoM) to study the current system. 
The IoM report strongly validates the HHS regulations by calling for 
broader sharing of organs and for HHS to exercise its ``legitimate 
oversight responsibilities.'' Twelve patients die every day while 
awaiting an organ transplant under the current system. The fact of the 
matter is this moratorium is a pork barrel project for members of 
Congress who either represent the federal contractor, or small 
transplant centers with poorer outcomes who stand to lose under the new 
regulations. The Secretary's regulation will save lives. This 
moratorium will cause people to die. Which side do you think is right?
  Just like every other bill the Republicans have tried to push through 
this Congress, the tax extender provisions in the bill give big tax 
breaks to big business. It includes tens of millions of rifle-shot 
give-aways to GE--certainly not one of the neediest taxpayers in this 
country. It also spends $13 billion to give corporations money for 
research. Most companies would conduct research on their own regardless 
of whether or not taxpayers foot the bill. Do you really think that 
corporations like Schering-Plough would have halted research for their 
highly profitable drug Claritin if Congress had denied a research tax 
credit? Companies must conduct research in order to create profits. 
They don't need tax incentives from Congress to make a profit.
  In addition, this bill throws money to the wind through the highly 
unsuccessful windmill tax credit. There are windmills up and down the 
highways of California in hopes that they might produce effective forms 
of electricity. Once again, we're extending $3 billion in tax breaks to 
energy companies so that they can continue pouring money into a lofty 
goal. Coupled with this tax break is one that will provide tax 
incentives to energy companies who can produce energy from poultry 
droppings. Why stop at energy? We should give them tax incentives to 
produce gold from chicken droppings!
  Because of these unrelated provisions that were snuck into an 
otherwise very worthy bill, I am forced to vote against this bill 
today.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1180, the 
Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. As Chairman of the Committee 
on Science, I would like to highlight a provision of the bill that is 
particularly important to our nation's research base: the Research and 
Development Tax Credit (R&D tax credit).
  H.R. 1180 includes the longest ever extension of the R&D tax credit. 
While I support a permanent extension of the R&D credit, this five-year 
extension is a step in the right direction. As federal discretionary 
spending for R&D is squeezed, incentives must be used to maximize 
private sector innovation and maintain our global leadership in high-
tech, high-growth industries that help keep our economy the strongest 
in the world.
  A long-term extension of the credit will aid the research community 
by creating incentives for private industry to fund research projects. 
Congress has extended the R&D Tax Credit repeatedly over a period of 18 
years. The credit again lapsed on June 30th of this year. This five-
year extension will put an end to the start-and-stop approach that has 
characterized this extension process.
  A 1998 Coopers & Lybrand study found that U.S. companies would spend 
$41 billion more (in 1998 dollars) on R&D as a result of extending the 
credit. This in turn would lead to greater innovation from additional 
R&D investment and would begin to improve productivity

[[Page H12830]]

almost immediately, adding more than $13 billion a year to the 
economy's productive capacity by the year 2010. The Coopers & Lybrand 
report went on to note that the R&D tax credit would ultimately pay for 
itself. ``In the long run,'' the report states, ``$1.75 of additional 
tax revenue (on a present value basis) would be generated for each 
dollar the government spends on the credit, creating a win-win 
situation for both taxpayers and the government.''
  Last year, the Science Committee released a National Science Policy 
Study entitled Unlocking Our Future: Toward A New National Science 
Policy. The Unlocking Our Future is the most comprehensive study of 
federal science policies ever conducted by Congress. And the full House 
passed a resolution adopting its recommendations. One of the study's 
primary recommendations was the permanent extension of the R&D tax 
credit. I am pleased that the House today is taking a concrete step 
toward enacting the study's recommendations.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1180, 
the conference report on the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives 
Improvement Act.
  This bill will provide a true ``Ticket-to-Work'' for disabled 
individuals by bringing them back into the workforce while still 
providing them with a safety net of government services that are needed 
to help make the transition. It is an important first step toward 
addressing the disincentives which exist in current law that discourage 
disabled individuals from working.
  According to a Washington Post article published earlier this year, 
6.6 million working-age Americans receive disability checks from the 
Federal Government every month. All too often, these individuals are 
unable to return to the workforce. Among the barriers they face upon 
returning to work is they risk the loss of important federal benefits 
such as Medicare health care coverage. Under this legislation, 
individuals would be eligible for up to four and a half additional 
years of Medicare benefits. While I would have preferred to have 
individuals eligible for Medicare for an additional six years, I 
believe this is a positive step forward and that further steps should 
be taken in the future.
  In addition, this bill provides a voucher that individuals can 
exchange for rehabilitation, employment or other necessary services 
with their provider of choice.
  The Ticket to Work bill will change the Social Security 
Administration's disability programs for the better. As Tony Young of 
the United Cerebral Palsy Association said in his testimony before the 
Ways and means Committee in March, these programs, ``are transformed 
from a safety net into a trampoline; not only catching people with 
disabilities as they fall out of work, but also giving them a boost 
back into work as they are ready.''
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which is an 
important step toward helping individuals with disabilities be 
independent, and to become a vital part of the workforce.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1180, the 
Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. I am a cosponsor of this 
important legislation and was proud to expeditiously move this proposal 
through my Subcommittee and support its passage through the House 
Commerce Committee.
  My Subcommittee held a hearing at which we heard from federal, state 
and local officials, as well as individuals living with disabilities. 
All of the witnesses emphasized the need for this legislation. They 
noted that the current system unfairly forces people to choose between 
work and health care.
  H.R. 1180 was introduced in March by our colleagues Rick Lazio and 
Henry Waxman, and this bill underscores the positive power of 
bipartisanship.
  The bill removes barriers for individuals who want to work. By 
encouraging work over welfare, it also promotes personal dignity and 
self-sufficiency.
  Two federal programs--Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)--provide cash benefits to people 
with disabilities. By qualifying for these benefits, individuals are 
also eligible for health coverage through Medicare and Medicaid. These 
programs provide comprehensive services that people with disabilities 
value and need.
  Ironically, individuals with disabilities risk losing these health 
protections if they enter the work force. Under current law, earnings 
above a minimal amount trigger the loss of both cash benefits and 
health coverage under Medicare and Medicaid.
  H.R. 1180 would allow states to expand the Medicaid buy-in option to 
persons with disabilities through two optional programs. The bill also 
creates a trial program to extend Medicare Part A benefits to SSDI 
recipients. Further, it provides infrastructure and demonstration 
grants to assist the states in developing their capacity to run these 
expanded programs.
  Finally, the bill creates a new payment system for vocational 
rehabilitation programs that serve individuals with disabilities. 
Similar provisions were passed by the House of representatives last 
year.
  As I have emphasized before, H.R. 1180 will help people help 
themselves. Approval of this bill by the House of Representatives today 
is an important step in improving the quality of life for millions of 
Americans who live with disabilities.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
conference report of H.R. 1180, the Work Incentives Improvement Act. 
This bill includes three separate bills, including the conference 
report for H.R. 1180, the tax extenders legislation, and a provision 
related to organ transplantation regulations. I strongly support all 
three of these proposals and urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I am pleased that the conference report for H.R. 1180 does not 
include certain provisions related to school-based health services. An 
earlier version of this bill, as approved by the House, included 
Section 407 to help offset the costs associated with this bill. Section 
407 would be detrimental to our local schools districts who have worked 
to screen children for Medicaid eligibility. According to the U.S. 
Census Bureau there are 4.4 million children who are eligible for, but 
not enrolled in, Medicaid. Under existing laws, public schools can 
receive reimbursements through the Medicaid Administrative Claiming 
(MAC) program to help screen for these Medicaid eligible children. I 
learned about these provisions through the efforts of a local school 
district, the La Porte Independent School District (PISD). PISD is the 
lead district for a consortium of 200 small and rural Texas school 
districts participating in the MAC program. After learning about this 
provision, I also organized a letter to Speaker Hastert in opposition 
to these offset provisions. I am pleased that the conference committee 
has removed all provisions related to school-based health programs that 
would have been harmful.
  I support passage of this measure because it ensures that disabled 
persons can keep their health insurance when they return to work. Under 
current law, disabled persons who are eligible for Social Security 
disability benefits are precluded from earning significant income 
without losing their Medicare or Medicaid health insurance. This bill 
would permit disabled persons to work while maintaining their health 
insurance coverage. For many disabled persons, this health insurance is 
critically important since they can neither afford nor purchase health 
insurance in the open market. This bill would provide SSDI 
beneficiaries with Medicare coverage for eight and \1/2\ years, instead 
of the current 4-year term. This legislation also provides vocational 
rehabilitative services to disabled persons, ensuring their access to 
the training they need to become more self-sufficient. As an original 
cosponsor of the underlying bill, I support all of these provisions.
  This bill also includes a critically important provision related to 
organ transplantation policy. This bill would impose a 90-day 
moratorium on the proposed Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS) regulations related to organ transplantation policy that would 
change the current allocation system from a regionally-based system to 
a national medical-need system. This provision also includes a 
requirement that HHS must reopen this proposal for public comment about 
this issue. I am very concerned about the impact of this proposed 
regulation on organ transplants done at the Texas Medical Center. The 
Texas Medical Center and the local organ procurement organization, 
LifeGift, have done an excellent job of encouraging organ donations in 
our area. The impact of this regulation would be to override the 
current system which was developed in consultation with our nation's 
premier transplantation physicians and practitioners. If this new 
regulation were implemented, many of these organs could possibly be 
transferred away from the local patients who need them. I am pleased 
that Congress has acted to provide itself with sufficient time to 
reauthorize the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). The House has 
already approved this bill, giving the Senate sufficient time to 
consider and approve a NOTA measure.
  This is an important bill which we should approve and I would urge my 
colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the basic 
provisions of H.R. 1180, the Work Incentive Improvement Act. The core 
program contained in this bill is designed to provide support and 
health care assistance to severely disabled people who want to work 
despite the obstacles their disabilities present, indeed who are 
determined to work and become productive and contributing members of 
society.
  These are people who need to keep their health care coverage through 
Medicaid and Medicare to enable them to stay in the work force. We owe 
them nothing less.
  It is a testament to the compelling nature of their case that this 
bill has had such broad and bipartisan support in both the House and 
the Senate. The President has also been

[[Page H12831]]

strongly committed to seeing it enacted, from his call to the Congress 
to enact this program in his State of the Union message last January to 
the final negotiations to bring this bill here today. And I want to 
particularly note the contributions of Rick Lazio, who I was pleased to 
join as the original sponsor of the bill, Nancy Johnson and Bob Matsui 
from the Ways and Means Committee, and John Dingell and Charlie Rangel 
who served on the conference committee.
  We can all be proud of its enactment. I am especially pleased that 
the conference report increased the funds available to support 
demonstrations by States to provide health services to persons with 
potentially severe disabilities in order to keep their health from 
deteriorating and to allow them to continue to work. Surely, this is 
one of the most sensible and cost-effective things we can do.
  But it is unfortunate that this exemplary piece of legislation has 
been used in the closing days of this session to pursue other agendas. 
The conference report includes a rider added to H.R. 1180 through 
stealth and political extortion which delays vital reforms of our 
national organ allocation system.
  The one-year moratorium on the Department of Health and Human 
Service's Final Rule expired last month. Last week, the Administration 
and the appropriators, including Chairman Young and Mr. Obey, agreed to 
a final compromise 42-day comment period on the Final Rule's 
implementation.
  But the defenders of UNOS and the status quo weren't satisfied. They 
twisted arms behind closed doors. They blocked passage of the Health 
Research and Quality Act of 1999 and the reauthorization of the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. They blocked 
enactment of critical medical education payments for children's 
hospitals. And they subverted the authority of the committees of 
jurisdiction.
  Now, the compromise is being abandoned by the Republican leadership. 
The commitments made to the Administration and to Members have been 
broken in bad faith.
  And what's the result? The 42 days becomes 90 days.
  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough.
  There is no excuse for this action. The Final Rule is the result of 
years of deliberation. It embodies the consensus that organs should be 
shared more broadly to end unjust racial and geographical disparities.
  Every day of delay is another day of unconscionable 200 to 300 
percent disparities in transplant and survival rates across the 
country--disparities which the Final Rule addresses.
  Every day delays action on the Institute of Medicine's recommendation 
``that the Final Rule be implemented'' because broader sharing ``will 
result in more opportunities to transplant sicker patients without 
adversely affecting less sick patients.''
  And every day condones a status quo of gross racial injustice and 
unjust, parochial self-interest.
  Mr. Speaker, the status quo is slowly killing patients who deserve to 
live, but are deprived of that right by a system that stacks the odds 
against them. But in spite of this rider, in spite of the delay and the 
back-room politics, reforms will come. Therefore, I urge my colleagues 
to support the Final Rule and to oppose the organ allocation rider.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax relief 
provisions which have been attached to H.R. 1180.
  This tax relief package renews several temporary tax relief 
provisions and addresses other time sensitive tax items.
  For example, we give at least one million American families relief 
from an increase in their alternative minimum tax that would occur when 
they take advantage of the child tax credit, the dependent care tax 
credit, or other tax credits. In addition, we renew and extend the 
exclusion from income for employer-provided educational assistance.
  For businesses, we are extending the very valuable research and 
experimentation (R&E) tax credit for five years while we extend the 
creditor to Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories for the first 
time. The R&E credit will allow U.S. companies to continue to lead the 
world in innovative, cutting-edge technology.
  In an effort to help get Americans off government assistance and into 
the workplace, we are extending the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the 
Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit through the end of 2001.
  One item that I was particularly grateful to have included in this 
package is an increase in the rum excise tax cover-over to Puerto Rico 
and the Virgin Islands from the current $10.50 per proof gallon to 
$13.25 per proof gallon. I was, however, disappointed that the 
provision did not include language to specifically state that a portion 
of Puerto Rico's increase is designated for the Conservation Trust Fund 
of Puerto Rico.
  Instead, I understand that an agreement has been reached with the 
Governor of Puerto Rico to provide one-sixth of the increase to the 
Trust Fund during the time of the increase of the cover-over (July 1, 
1999 through December 31, 2001). I appreciate the support of the 
Governor in this endeavor. The Conservation Trust Fund, which enjoys 
tremendous support from the people of Puerto Rico, plays an important 
role in the preservation of the natural resources of the island for the 
benefit of her future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of our Chairman, Bill Archer, in 
putting together this tax relief package and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the tax extender and 
Ticket to Work package. I commend the Chairman and my colleagues Rick 
Lazio of New York and Kenny Hulshof of Missouri for their leadership on 
this issue.
  So many people with disabilities want to work, and technological as 
well as medical advances now make it possible for many of them to do 
so. Unfortunately, the current Social Security Disability program has 
an inherent number of obstacles and disincentives for people to leave 
the rolls and seek gainful employment because they will lose cash and 
critical Medicare benefits.
  This proposal before us today is designed to eliminate those 
obstacles and allow beneficiaries to select from a wider choice of 
rehabilitation and support services. It also extends health benefits 
for disabled people returning to work, which has been one of the single 
biggest challenges for helping people to make this transition.
  Specifically, it expands state options under the Medicaid program for 
workers with disabilities, and it extends Medicare coverage for SSDI 
beneficiaries.
  Importantly, this bill not only will well serve the disabled, and 
also will save millions of Social Security dollars in the coming years. 
The key to this bill is that it will provide people with the 
opportunities and means they have asked us for to become productive 
members of society. This is a good and fiscally responsible bill.
  I'd also like to express my support for the important package of tax 
extenders contained in this legislation. These extenders--like the R&D 
tax credit and others--are essential elements in our effort to maintain 
our strong economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this responsible package.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the inclusion 
of the provision that stops the Department of Health and Human Services 
from improving the system of organ allocation in this country. The 
organ provision was only thrown into this bill at the last minute, and 
it has no place in this bill.
  The current system for organ sharing is not fair and needs to be 
improved. Organ sharing is a matter of life and death. The problem is 
that every year people die unnecessarily because the current organ 
allocation system is broken. We can do better and I urge my colleagues 
not to let parochial interests get in the way of fixing the problem.
  Whether or not you get the organ that will save your life should not 
depend on where you live. Organs do not and should not belong to any 
geographical or political entity. But, under the current system, 
depending on where the organ was harvested, it could be given to 
someone with years to live--while someone in the next town across the 
wrong border may die waiting for a transplant.
  The most difficult organ to transplant is the liver. Pioneered at the 
University of Pittsburgh, upwards of 90% of all the liver transplant 
surgeons today were either trained at Pittsburgh or by doctors who were 
trained there. Yet facilities like Pittsburgh, Mt. Sinai, Cedars-Sinai, 
Stanford and other highly regarded transplant centers which take on the 
most difficult and riskiest transplant patients are struggling with the 
longest waiting times in the country.
  While these centers are highly regarded, many of their patients do 
not come to them because of their reputations. The fact is that many of 
their patients only seek them out after having been turned down by 
their local transplant centers. There is strong evidence to suggest 
that many smaller transplant centers avoid the riskier transplants on 
the sicker patients because they are more difficult and would adversely 
impact their reputations should they not be successful.
  This isn't right. Whether you live or die should not depend on where 
you live.
  This debate is not about pitting big transplant centers against small 
ones, or about pitting one region against another. It is about making 
sure that the

[[Page H12832]]

gift of life goes to the person who needs it the most rather than 
someone who happens to have the good fortune to live in the right 
state, county or city. Its about helping at least 300 people each year 
to continue to live.
  The fact is that the current system discriminates against people who 
live near the highly regarded centers with the longer waiting lists. 
It's not their fault that their local center is willing to take the 
harder and sicker patients when other centers avoid the sicker patients 
in favor of patients who may be still able to work, go to school, or 
even play golf while patients elsewhere are near death without any 
opportunity to receive that organ because they have the misfortune of 
being on the wrong side of the Pennsylvania--Ohio line.
  All HHS wants to do is: (1) require UNOS to develop policies that 
would standardize its criteria for listing patients and for determining 
their medical status, and (2) ensure that medical urgency, not 
geography, is the main determinant for allocating organs.
  HHS should be allowed to proceed. The longer we delay the more lives 
are at risk. In this day of modern air travel and communications there 
is no good reason for an organ to stop at the border. There is no good 
reason why if I passed away while attending the Superbowl in New 
Orleans that my liver should go to a golfer in Louisiana when I may 
have a loved one who is in desperate need of a transplant at home.
  People are dying because they happen to live in the wrong zip code 
and because states do not want to share their organs. Nowhere else in 
society would we allow a monopoly like this to continue. We must put an 
end to this craziness. There is no room in this country for politics to 
affect who lives and dies. The patients who need the organs the most 
should get them. Period.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 418, 
nays 2, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 611]

                               YEAS--418

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--2

     Berry
     Stark
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Baker
     Brady (TX)
     Callahan
     Capps
     Conyers
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Frank (MA)
     McIntosh
     Nethercutt
     Radanovich
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Wexler
     Wilson

                              {time}  1903

  Mr. BERRY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________