[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.
____________________