[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 91 (Friday, July 14, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6813-S6817]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000--Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could alert the Senator from Delaware, 
we just received a phone call that perhaps--we do not know yet--Senator 
Kennedy may want to second degree an amendment offered by Senator 
Abraham. We would have the same agreement we had this morning. If the 
majority decides they want to file their second degree, they would have 
that right to do so, also.
  Mr. ROTH. That is satisfactory.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, when I entered the Chamber a few moments 
ago, one of our colleagues was speaking, and he, as I best understood 
it, came out in favor of love, in favor of marriage, and in opposition 
to taxing death. And I thought to myself, that is an interesting bit of 
debate.
  But one has to look at the public policies being espoused by those 
who are describing those positions to understand exactly how much they 
favor love and marriage and exactly how much they want to do with 
respect to our public laws and our Tax Code dealing with the taxing of 
death.
  So I thought maybe I could just, for a couple minutes, comment on 
that. And then I want to talk about the various tax penalties and about 
an amendment that I am going to offer today.
  In the Wall Street Journal of today, there is an op-ed piece written 
by Mr. George Soros, one of the more noted American financiers. He is 
chairman of the Soros Fund Management. I have no idea what Mr. Soros is 
worth, but suffice it to say that Mr. Soros is one of the more 
successful American entrepreneurs and financial gurus. He has made a 
substantial amount of money, and has been known as a very successful 
businessman. Here is what he writes in the Wall Street Journal of 
today. Mr. George Soros writes:

       Supporters of repealing the estate tax say the legislation 
     would save family farms and businesses and lift a terrible 
     and unfair burden. I happen to be fortunate enough to be 
     eligible for the tax benefits of this legislation, and so I 
     wish I could convince myself to believe the proponents' 
     rhetoric. Unfortunately, it just isn't so. The truth is that 
     repealing the estate tax would give a huge tax windfall to 
     the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. It would provide an 
     average tax cut of

[[Page S6814]]

     more than $7 million to taxpayers who inherit estates worth 
     more than $10 million.

  His last paragraph, in an op-ed piece I would commend to those who 
might want to get the Wall Street Journal today:

       So I say to the Republican leaders of Congress, thanks for 
     thinking of me--but no thanks. Please keep the estate tax in 
     place, and use the proceeds where it will really count: to 
     better the lives not of people who have already realized the 
     American dream but of people still seeking to achieve it.

  That is from George Soros.
  As you know, there was not a disagreement about whether to repeal the 
estate tax in a way that would protect the passage of family farms and 
small businesses from parents to children. There was no debate about 
that.
  We proposed a piece of legislation that would have provided up to $8 
million of value in a family farm or a small business--neither of 
which, incidentally, would be very small if they reached that $8 
million mark--but they could be passed without one penny of estate tax 
from parents to children.
  We proposed repealing the estate tax on the transfer of almost all 
small businesses and family farms in this country. That is what we 
proposed. The other side said: No, that is not enough. What we want you 
to do is repeal the estate tax for the largest estates in America, 
those worth hundreds of millions of dollars, those worth billions of 
dollars.
  They said: No, we want to provide the 400 wealthiest families in 
America, according to Forbes magazine, up to $250 billion in tax cuts, 
by removing the estate tax on the wealthiest estates in America.
  Now comes one of America's preeminent financiers, who has made a fair 
amount of that money, saying: Thanks, but no thanks. That would not be 
a fair way to do it.
  I think it is important, not only as we talk about the repeal of the 
estate tax, which we just had a significant debate on, and now talking 
about the marriage tax penalty and trying to provide some relief there, 
to talk about who is going to benefit from these proposals. Who will 
benefit?
  Repealing the estate tax on the largest estates in this country--a 
country in which our economy has done so well and so many Americans 
have done so well; a country in which one-half of the world's 
billionaires live--repealing the estate tax burden on the largest 
estates worth hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, is 
obviously a tax break for the very wealthiest Americans.
  Instead of using the money for that kind of tax relief, what about 
some tax relief for the people who go to work every day and pay a 
payroll tax on minimum income? What about the folks who could use a 
middle-income tax cut by perhaps having a tax credit for the tuition 
they are paying to send their kids to college? Or perhaps what about 
using that money to reduce the Federal debt?
  What about using that money to put a prescription drug benefit in the 
Medicare program?
  There are a whole series of alternatives one might consider in 
evaluating how we might want to use this money. I come down in favor of 
using some of it to reduce the Federal debt. What greater gift to 
America's children than to reduce our Federal debt during good times. 
If, during tough times, we run up the Federal debt because we must, 
then during good times let's pay down the Federal debt. That should be 
a priority use of funds that are available.
  We had a debate this week about the estate tax. The majority party 
said: We demand that the estate tax be repealed in its entirety.
  We said: No, what we think we should do is repeal the estate tax for 
a modest amount of income, accumulation of income over the lifetime of 
a family, and we proposed up to $4 million. That is more than modest 
and more than most families will ever see. We proposed an $8 million 
exemption for the passage of a small business and a family farm.
  The majority party said: That is not enough. We insist on more 
relief. We insist on relief for the biggest estates in America.
  That is where we disagreed. That is why at the end of this we have a 
bill that passed the Senate that will certainly be vetoed by the 
President, and the veto will certainly be sustained by the Senate.
  Now the question is the marriage tax penalty. There is no 
disagreement in this Chamber about the marriage tax penalty. We should 
eliminate it. Let me give an example of what is done with the marriage 
tax penalty. This is very simple, but it illustrates the problem.
  A husband and wife making $35,000 each have a combined income of 
$70,000. In the present circumstance, if they filed as single taxpayers 
and they were unmarried, they would pay about $8,407 combined in income 
taxes. But because they are married and file a joint return, they pay 
$9,532. Therefore, because they are married, these two individuals pay 
about $1,125 more in taxes. That is called the marriage penalty. We 
should eliminate that, of course. Let's do that.
  The majority party has offered a piece of legislation that in this 
circumstance would give $443 worth of relief. The couple had a $1,125 
penalty, and they only give $443 in relief. We have offered a proposal 
that says let's eliminate the marriage tax penalty simply, effectively, 
and completely.
  How would we do that? We would say to these people: File your income 
return as you choose, as married filing jointly or as individuals. You 
choose. You can file separately or jointly.
  It will eliminate all of the marriage tax penalty. That is what we 
propose.
  If I might use one additional chart that shows the difference, we 
allow all married couples to file separately or jointly. They make the 
decision. They can make the decision that would abolish any marriage 
tax penalty that exists in their circumstance. That is not true of the 
plan offered by the majority. If we eliminate all marriage penalty 
taxes for taxpayers earning $100,000 or less, if we reduce all 
penalties from $100,000 to $150,000; why don't we do it all the way up 
to people who are making $10 million or $20 million?
  The reason is this distribution chart. As is the case with the estate 
tax repeal and now with the marriage tax penalty, most of the benefit 
of this proposal will go to a very small percent of the taxpayers. 
Nearly 80 percent of the benefit of the majority party's proposal to 
reduce the marriage tax penalty will accrue to the top 20 percent of 
taxpayers, and the bottom 80 percent of the taxpayers will get less 
than one-fourth of the benefit. That is the problem, once again.
  I think there is substantial agreement in this Chamber about goals. 
If our goal is to eliminate the estate tax for the passage of small 
businesses and family farms, let's do that. We can do that together. We 
have proposed that. Join us. Don't continue to insist that we eliminate 
the estates tax for the largest estates in the country. There is a 
better use for those revenues.
  If the proposition is, let's eliminate the marriage tax penalty, we 
say fine. Join us. Do it the simple way. Allow people to file either as 
individuals, separately, or as married couples filing jointly. Their 
choice. That will eliminate all of the marriage tax penalty.
  The majority plan only eliminates about three categories of marriage 
tax penalty when, in fact, there are more than 60. We say, on these 
issues, while we philosophically agree on part of them, let's join 
together and do this.
  Of course, what we have discovered is there are some who would much 
prefer to have a political issue than to have legislation passed. The 
result is, they want to send it to the White House and have the 
President veto it.
  We could have had at the end of this week a very substantial 
exemption of the estate tax so that almost no small business or family 
farm would ever have been ensnared in the web of the estate tax. Why 
aren't we doing that? Because the majority party insisted on passing a 
complete repeal of the estate tax which was going to cost a substantial 
amount of money in a manner that would give the largest estates the 
biggest tax benefit. That is not fair and not the right thing to do.
  I hope as we finish this reconciliation bill and move to other 
appropriations bills and also deal now in July, and especially 
September and October, with a range of these issues, that we find a way 
to pass legislation that represents the best of what both political 
parties have to offer. Instead of getting the best of both, we often 
get the worst of each because there is so much energy fighting each 
other's proposals that we

[[Page S6815]]

forget that there is philosophical agreement.
  Yes, there is a marriage tax penalty. Yes, we ought to take action to 
remove it and eliminate it. There is no reason at all that we couldn't 
do it together. There is more common interest here than most people 
think. I hope in the coming weeks we can find ways that we can bridge 
the gap across the political aisle in the Senate and send the President 
some good legislation.


                           Amendment No. 3877

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3877.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat payments 
  under the Conservation Reserve Program as rentals from real estate, 
expand the applicability of section 179 expensing, provide an exclusion 
   for gain from the sale of farmland, and allow a deduction for 100 
  percent of the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 7. TREATMENT OF CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM PAYMENTS AS 
                   RENTALS FROM REAL ESTATE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1402(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining net earnings from self-employment) is 
     amended by inserting ``and including payments under section 
     1233(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3833(2))'' after ``crop shares''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made before, on, or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. EXPANSION OF EXPENSING TREATMENT FOR SMALL 
                   BUSINESSES.

       (a) Acceleration of Increase in Dollar Limit.--Section 
     179(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     dollar limits on expensing treatment) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Dollar limitation.--The aggregate cost which may be 
     taken into account under subsection (a) for any taxable year 
     shall not exceed $25,000.''
       (b) Expensing Available for All Tangible Depreciable 
     Property.--Section 179(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (defining section 179 property) is amended by striking 
     ``which is section 1245 property (as defined in section 
     1245(a)(3)) and''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

     SEC. 9. EXCLUSION OF GAIN FROM SALE OF CERTAIN FARMLAND.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items 
     specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by adding 
     after section 121 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 121A. EXCLUSION OF GAIN FROM SALE OF QUALIFIED FARM 
                   PROPERTY.

       ``(a) Exclusion.--In the case of a natural person, gross 
     income shall not include gain from the sale or exchange of 
     qualified farm property.
       ``(b) Limitation on Amount of Exclusion.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of gain excluded from gross 
     income under subsection (a) with respect to any taxable year 
     shall not exceed $500,000 ($250,000 in the case of a married 
     individual filing a separate return), reduced by the 
     aggregate amount of gain excluded under subsection (a) for 
     all preceding taxable years.
       ``(2) Special rule for joint returns.--The amount of the 
     exclusion under subsection (a) on a joint return for any 
     taxable year shall be allocated equally between the spouses 
     for purposes of applying the limitation under paragraph (1) 
     for any succeeding taxable year.
       ``(c) Qualified Farm Property.--
       ``(1) Qualified farm property.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `qualified farm property' means real 
     property located in the United States if, during periods 
     aggregating 3 years or more of the 5-year period ending on 
     the date of the sale or exchange of such real property--
       ``(A) such real property was used as a farm for farming 
     purposes by the taxpayer or a member of the family of the 
     taxpayer, and
       ``(B) there was material participation by the taxpayer (or 
     such a member) in the operation of the farm.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     terms `member of the family', `farm', and `farming purposes' 
     have the respective meanings given such terms by paragraphs 
     (2), (4), and (5) of section 2032A(e).
       ``(3) Special rules.--For purposes of this section, rules 
     similar to the rules of paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 
     2032A(b) and paragraphs (3) and (6) of section 2032A(e) shall 
     apply.
       ``(d) Other Rules.--For purposes of this section, rules 
     similar to the rules of subsection (e) and subsection (f) of 
     section 121 shall apply.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part 
     III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding after the item relating to 
     section 121 the following new item:

``Sec. 121A. Exclusion of gain from sale of qualified farm property.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to any sale or exchange on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such 
     date.

     SEC. 10. FULL DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS OF SELF-
                   EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 162(l)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to special rules for health insurance 
     costs of self-employed individuals) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Allowance of deduction.--In the case of an individual 
     who is an employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1), 
     there shall be allowed as a deduction under this section an 
     amount equal to the amount paid during the taxable year for 
     insurance which constitutes medical care for the taxpayer, 
     the taxpayer's spouse, and dependents.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will explain what this amendment is.
  If on the floor of the Senate we are discussing a reconciliation bill 
that carries reductions in taxation, especially, in this circumstance, 
the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, I want to have considered 
several other pieces of tax law that I think are long overdue for 
consideration. This particular amendment combines four ideas.
  One, we have a current problem with virtually all farmers in this 
country who are receiving income from their conservation reserve 
program acres. The Internal Revenue Service has now decided that income 
is from self-employment and therefore subject to self-employment tax. 
That is one of the goofiest interpretations of tax law I have ever 
heard, but nonetheless that is the IRS's position. They have the 
opportunity to make it stick unless we tell them that is not what we 
intended; that is not the way the law ought to be read. That is not the 
way Congress intended it, so we will legislate to tell the IRS how they 
ought to view this issue.
  It is clear that the conservation reserve program, for which the 
Federal Government gives payments to farmers for the retirement of 
certain acreage into conservation, is not self-employment income and 
therefore subject to self-employment taxes. Yet that is exactly the way 
the IRS has ruled. All farmers across this country are going to get 
caught in this web. We must fix it. That is one provision.
  The second is a provision that applies to expensing opportunities for 
small business. Under current law, small businesses can generally 
expense or immediately deduct up to $20,000 of the cost of equipment 
and other items. This maximum amount will increase to $25,000 over the 
next several years. I propose that we allow, under those expensing 
provisions, opportunities for small businesses to fix up their 
storefronts on Main Streets. Many of our small towns desperately need 
reinvestment in the storefronts on Main Street. They are 50, 60, 70 
years old. Yet when they do that these days, small businesses find they 
must depreciate the costs of those investments over 39 years for tax 
purposes. They ought to be able to expense that under the expensing 
provisions. My proposal would allow that to happen.
  The third proposal in this amendment fixes a problem with the issue 
of capital gains exclusions. If you are in a town someplace and you 
sell a home, you know there is an exclusion of up to $500,000 on all 
capital gains on the sale of that home. If you go out of town 15 miles 
and run a family farm someplace, your house has zero value except that 
value to which it inures to the farm you are farming. So if you sell 
that house, you sell it for almost nothing. The only value that home 
has is the ability for somebody to live in that home and operate farm 
equipment around that farmstead.
  The fact is, when farmers sell their home and their home quarter, 
they are not able to take advantage of the capital gains exclusion that 
the folks in town are taking advantage of when they sell their home. I 
would fix that in this legislation, as well, to give farmers that 
opportunity.

  Fourth, my amendment provides for the full deductibility immediately 
of

[[Page S6816]]

health insurance costs for the self-employed. There is no excuse in 
this country to have a business on one side of Main Street be able to 
deduct only a fraction of their health insurance costs as a business 
expense and a corporation across the street that can deduct 100 percent 
of that as a business expense. That is not fair. Both parties have been 
working to try to bridge that gap. All of us have talked about that--
Republicans and Democrats--for some long while. We are making progress 
in closing the gap. Well, let's not just make progress, let's just 
close it and say self-employed will be treated exactly the same as 
large corporations. If you have health insurance costs for your 
employees in a business, it is a business expense and it ought to be 
fully deductible, and it ought to be fully deductible right now.
  Those are the four provisions I have offered to this reconciliation 
bill, and I hope for its consideration next week.
  As I conclude, we are not talking about tax issues. We have, 
according to economists, some good years ahead of us. The best 
economists in this country can't see beyond a few months. God bless 
them, and I don't mean to speak ill of them when I talk about 
economists this way. As I have said, I actually taught economics for a 
couple of years in college, but I was able to overcome that experience 
and go on to other things.
  Economists can't see very far into the future. They just can't. Adam 
Smith, one of the great economists, of course, in modern history, they 
say, used to get lost walking home; he could not find his home. God 
bless his memory as well. We are told now by economists today--the best 
in the country--that the next 10 years is likely to bring unprecedented 
economic growth, with 10 years of surpluses. I don't have any idea 
whether that will be the case. I hope it is. It would be terrific. But 
I don't know, nor do economists.
  The year before the last recession in this country, 35 of the 40 
leading economists predicted the next year would be a year of continued 
economic growth. So 35 of the 40 leading economists had no idea what 
would happen in the next year. The same is true with respect to the 
future that we now discuss. We don't know what is going to happen. If 
we are fortunate enough to have continued, recurring budget surpluses, 
then we ought to begin this discussion about tax reductions. Yes, I 
think there is room for some tax cuts, but the question is, What kind 
and who benefits from them?
  We ought to begin the discussion about tax cuts relative to other 
issues: Reducing the Federal debt, providing a prescription drug 
program under Medicare, and a range of other needs in this country, 
including our investment in education, which represents our real 
future. We can do all of these things this month and in September and 
in the first half of October, before this Congress finishes its work.
  I think, in many ways, there are more common interests among Members 
of the Senate than most people realize. We can accomplish a lot of 
things together, and we ought to do more of that in the coming months. 
I hope to work on this range of issues. We are talking about the estate 
tax and the marriage tax penalty which, combined in the second 10 
years, cost about $1 trillion in lost revenue. We have to evaluate this 
relative to other needs and interests--the needs, especially, of 
working families. It is true that we have had a wonderful economy and a 
robust bit of economic growth. But it is also true that some people 
have not benefited so much in this economy. We need to worry about them 
as well.
  Having said all of that, I look forward to the coming several months. 
I know this is an election year, a political year. But this country has 
much to be thankful for, and there is much to be gained by having an 
aggressive, robust debate about the future, the projected surplus, 
about our tax system, the needs in the Medicare program, prescription 
drug prices, and a whole range of issues that are important to most 
families.

  When they sit around their supper tables in this country, families 
are asking these basic questions: What kind of a job do I have? What 
kind of income do I get paid? Do I have security in my job? What kind 
of health care do I have for my kids? Do my parents get adequate health 
care? Do we live in a safe neighborhood? What about the issue of crime? 
All of those issues are important. Do we send our kids to a good 
school? When our kids walk through the door of the school, are we proud 
of the classroom and the teachers? Are we committing enough resources 
to make sure the kids are getting the best education they can get?
  Those are the issues that people are concerned about and that ought 
to be the center of our discussion in the coming 3 and a half or 4 
months, before America makes political choices once again in this 
election.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will soon send two amendments to the desk 
on behalf of Senator Wellstone. This has been cleared with the 
majority.
  Under the order, he is only entitled to offer one amendment on this 
subject. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to withdraw one of 
these amendments on Monday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendments Nos. 3879 and 3880, En Bloc

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Wellstone, 
     proposes amendments numbered 3879 and 3880, en bloc.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3879

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the restoration 
  of reductions in payments under the medicare program caused by the 
                      Balanded Budget Act of 1997)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REDUCTIONS IN 
                   MEDICARE PAYMENTS RESULTING FROM THE BALANCED 
                   BUDGET ACT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Since its passage, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
     (Public Law 105-133; 111 Stat. 251) has drastically cut 
     payments under the medicare program under title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) in the areas of 
     hospital services, home health sevices, skilled nursing 
     facility services, and other services.
       (2) While the reductions were originally estimated at 
     around $100,000,000,000 over 5 years, recent figures put the 
     actual cuts in payments under the medicare program at over 
     $200,000,000,000.
       (3) These cuts are not without consequence, and have caused 
     medicare beneficiaries with medically complex needs to face 
     increased difficulty in accessing skilled nursing care. 
     Furthermore, in a recent study on home health care, nearly 70 
     percent of hospital discharge planners surveyed reported a 
     greater difficulty obtaining home health services for 
     medicare beneficiaries as a result of the Balanced Budget Act 
     of 1997.
       (4) In the area of hospital care, a 4 percentage point drop 
     in rural hospitals' inpatient margins continues a dangerous 
     trend that threatens access to health care in rural America.
       (5) With passage of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP 
     Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1501A-372), 
     as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(6) of Public Law 106-
     113, Congress and the President took positive steps toward 
     fixing some of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997's unintended 
     consequences, but this relief was limited to just 10 percent 
     of the actual cuts in payments to provider caused by the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
       (6) Expeditious action is required to provide relief to 
     medicare beneficiaries and health care providers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) by the end of the 106th Congress, Congress should 
     revisit and restore a substantial portion of the reductions 
     in payments under the medicare program under title XVIII of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) to providers 
     caused by enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
     (Public Law 105-133; 111 Stat. 251); and
       (2) if Congress fails to restore a substantial portion of 
     the reductions in payments under the medicare program to 
     health care providers caused by enactment of the Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1997, then Congress should pass legislation 
     that directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
     administer title XVIII of the Social Security Act as if a 1-
     year moratorium for fiscal year 2001 were placed on all 
     reductions in payments to health care providers that were a 
     result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

[[Page S6817]]

     
                                  ____
                           AMENDMENT NO. 3880

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the restoration 
  of reductions in payments under the medicare program caused by the 
                      Balanded Budget Act of 1997)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REDUCTIONS IN 
                   MEDICARE PAYMENTS RESULTING FROM THE BALANCED 
                   BUDGET ACT OF 1997.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Since its passage, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
     (Public Law 105-133; 111 Stat. 251) has drastically cut 
     payments under the medicare program under title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) in the areas of 
     hospital services, home health sevices, skilled nursing 
     facility services, and other services.
       (2) While the reductions were originally estimated at 
     around $100,000,000,000 over 5 years, recent figures put the 
     actual cuts in payments under the medicare program at over 
     $200,000,000,000.
       (3) These cuts are not without consequence, and have caused 
     medicare beneficiaries with medically complex needs to face 
     increased difficulty in accessing skilled nursing care. 
     Furthermore, in a recent study on home health care, nearly 70 
     percent of hospital discharge planners surveyed reported a 
     greater difficulty obtaining home health services for 
     medicare beneficiaries as a result of the Balanced Budget Act 
     of 1997.
       (4) In the area of hospital care, a 4 percentage point drop 
     in rural hospitals' inpatient margins continues a dangerous 
     trend that threatens access to health care in rural America.
       (5) With passage of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP 
     Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1501A-372), 
     as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(6) of Public Law 106-
     113, Congress and the President took positive steps toward 
     fixing some of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997's unintended 
     consequences, but this relief was limited to just 10 percent 
     of the actual cuts in payments to provider caused by the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
       (6) Expeditious action is required to provide relief to 
     medicare beneficiaries and health care providers.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that by the end of the 106th Congress, Congress should 
     revisit and restore a substantial portion of the reductions 
     in payments under the medicare program under title XVIII of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) to providers 
     caused by enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
     (Public Law 105-133; 111 Stat. 251).

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
proceed in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________