[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 123 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9923-S9927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  TAX CUTS AND THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I also come to the floor today to talk 
about an issue that came up the other night during the course of the 
Presidential debate. I did a television show last night called 
``Crossfire.'' Some people probably have seen it. It was typical. It 
was kind of a controlled shouting match, you might say, on 
``Crossfire,'' with Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other. 
Mary Matalin, who is from Illinois, and has been quite well known for 
her chairmanship of the campaign for George Bush's election as 
President, was there representing the Republican side. Of course, we 
had Bill Press on the Democratic side. We talked about the debate.
  The interesting thing to me was, the analysis of the debate by these 
commentators kind of came down to what I consider to be fairly 
superficial questions: Did George Bush show disrespect for Al Gore when 
he brought up the whole question about fundraising? Did Al Gore show 
disrespect for George Bush when he shrugged or was guilty of audible 
breathing?
  I thought to myself at one point, is that as good as it gets in a 
Presidential campaign in America? We can listen to 90 minutes of debate 
and wonder if someone perhaps cleared their throat at the wrong time, 
or shrugged their shoulders, or someone else brought up a word or two 
that might have crossed the line.
  I think it is worth a lot more for us to have these debates. I think 
it is important that all of us who are in this business--Republicans 
and Democrats--take it as seriously as the American people want to take 
it.
  What I hear from people across the country is, we are looking for 
political candidates who speak candidly, honestly, openly, and 
truthfully. Tell us what you believe, even if we might disagree with 
it, so we can draw a conclusion about you, not just our ideas about 
you.
  The issue that Al Gore came to the debate to talk about is one which 
was addressed a few moments ago by our colleague, Senator Pete Domenici 
of New Mexico. I listened carefully because I really respect this man. 
For years, when I served in the House of Representatives on the Budget 
Committee, and now on the Senate Budget Committee, I have watched Pete 
Domenici. He has gone after the deficit like a tiger and for years and 
years was admonishing Congress to cut spending, trying to bring down 
our deficit. He continues in that effort.
  As a consequence, I wish he were here on the floor. I told him I was 
going to bring up this issue. I wish he were here on the floor so we 
could have a little debate about the proposed tax cuts of the two 
candidates, Al Gore and George Bush, and the impact it would have on 
America.
  I think that is the point that Al Gore was trying to make the other 
night in the debate. There really are two clear choices. Both parties 
are for tax cuts, but they are entirely different approaches. The 
American people get to take their pick whichever they think is best for 
the future of this country and fairest for the taxpayers.
  Frankly, I think the choice is very stark and very clear.
  Let me show you, as an example, this chart, which demonstrates George 
Bush's proposal. It is true, we are at the point in our history where 
we are going to have a surplus; more money coming into the Federal 
Treasury than going out for the next 10 years.
  The amount of that surplus will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 
$4.8 trillion--a huge amount of money. It sure is a far cry from just a 
few years back when we had, year after year, deficit after deficit. 
But, thank goodness, we are now living in an era of projected 
surpluses. We can start thinking about doing things with that money 
that will be good for the Nation.
  The first thing you have to notice out of the $4.8 trillion surplus 
over the next 10 years is we have all agreed--Democrats and 
Republicans--that $2.6 trillion of the $4.8 trillion will not be 
touched. That is a surplus in the Social Security funds. We have said 
that is off limits. Nobody gets to touch the Social Security fund. So 
you start off with a 10-year surplus of $2.2 trillion, which I have 
indicated on this graph.

  Then we take a look at the projection, first from George Bush, as to 
what you might do with that. Well, there will be a surplus as well in 
the Medicare trust fund, the hospitalization plan for the elderly and 
disabled, of about $360 billion. We think that should also be off the 
table. We should not touch it. We know Medicare won't last forever, and 
we want it to be solvent. So if you take away that amount, you are down 
to $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Then, of course, you take the proposal of George Bush for tax breaks 
of $1.3 trillion, and you find that you have $500 billion left over the 
next 10 years.
  Then George Bush has also endorsed other Republican tax breaks, such 
as the estate tax, the marriage penalty tax, the telephone tax, a whole 
variety of tax breaks which total $940 billion. Now we find ourselves 
in short order in the deficit category again. If you do all these 
things, you are back in the deficit world.
  Then take a look at proposals by Governor Bush for additional 
spending on a variety of things--the military, education, whatever it 
happens to be--$625 billion, and that brings the deficit to a total of 
$1 trillion over the next 10 years. Then there is the proposal by 
Governor Bush that suggests we should privatize Social Security. That 
would cost $1.1 trillion. So add that to the $1 trillion, and now you 
have $2.1 trillion. With added interest costs of these additional debts 
of $400 billion at the end of 10 years, you started off with a $4.8 
trillion surplus and now, at the end of it, under the George Bush plan, 
you have a $2.5 trillion deficit.
  None of us wants to see a return to those deficits. So the 
alternative which has been proposed on the Democratic side by Vice 
President Gore suggests a much more reasonable approach: Start with the 
same $2.2 trillion, the non-Social Security surplus; protect the 
Medicare trust fund, $1.8 trillion; targeted investments, $530 billion. 
What is that for? Additional medical research at the National 
Institutes of Health, more money for our schools, environmental 
protection, cleaning up some of the environmental waste sites across 
America. Now add in the prescription drug benefit under Medicare, which 
we support on the Democratic side. You are now down to $943 billion.
  Then we bring in our tax cuts, $480 billion worth of tax cuts, which 
I will describe in a few minutes. Then after you have reduced interest, 
you have a net of $310 billion on the plus side. You are not back in 
deficit land again. You don't see the red ink on this chart. You are 
still above the line. You still have a surplus.
  The Vice President has suggested that we should put this in a rainy 
day fund because, frankly, all of these economic projections are just 
guesses about the future. If we guess wrong, we should have a rainy day 
fund for emergencies. The good news is, as we address this approach, by 
the year 2012, we will have eliminated, under Vice President Gore's 
proposal, the publicly held national debt in America.
  What does that mean? It means that the debt being held by folks who 
own treasuries and securities in the Federal Government will have been 
retired. And if that is retired, then it means less competition for 
capital, lower interest rates, more opportunity for businesses to 
expand and families to borrow money for mortgages. It also means that 
our kids will not be carrying the burden of the national debt on their 
shoulders. I don't think we can leave our children a better gift. Those 
who would suggest that a tax cut is a much better deal miss the point.

  The best deal is for us to eliminate the publicly held national debt, 
have targeted tax cuts, and end up with a surplus at the end. To find 
ourselves, as Governor Bush has proposed, running into all of this red 
ink from his proposals would be a recipe for disaster. We would not 
only still have our national debt, we would be adding to it. I don't 
think that does our kids and grandchildren any good whatsoever.
  When Al Gore said repeatedly the other night that the Bush tax cut 
spends more for the wealthiest 1 percent than the total that he wants 
to

[[Page S9924]]

spend on education, defense, health and prescription drugs, that is 
exactly what the figures show. The tax cuts proposed by George Bush for 
the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, $667 billion worth of tax cuts, 
are greater than the investments he wants to make in defense, health 
care, education, and prescription drug benefits combined. It is his 
choice. In this business of politics, it is a business of choices. I 
think it is important for us to reflect for a moment on the 
distribution of those tax cuts proposed by George Bush.
  This was a point raised earlier by Senator Domenici. I am sorry that 
we didn't have a chance to be on the floor together so we could explore 
what we are talking about.
  Who are the people who make the top 1 percent of income in America? 
They turn out to be folks who make more than $319,000 a year. That is 
$25,000 a month. I don't expect people to hold up their hands if they 
happen to be in that category. When you talk about those who need a tax 
cut, does it spring to your mind automatically that this is the first 
group we should care about, that 40 or 50 percent of all the tax cuts 
ought to go to people making over $25,000 a month? Boy, that sure 
doesn't calculate in my mind.
  And the Bush tax cut, the average tax cut for those people making 
over $319,000 a year, is $46,000 a year. That is the Bush tax cut for 
the top 1 percent. You go down to people in the lower income categories 
and you see that it is small change. If you are making less than 
$14,000 a year, George Bush thinks you need a tax cut, too, $42 a year. 
If you are making less than $24,000 a year, it is up to $187 a year; 
under $40,000 a year, $453 a year.
  As you look at this, you have to ask yourself a question: Is it 
really important for Members of Congress to feel the pain of the 
wealthiest people in America or perhaps to identify with a lot of 
middle-income and working families who are struggling with the 
necessities of life?
  I come to this job believing that our responsibility isn't to the 
wealthiest. I think they are doing pretty well. America has been pretty 
prosperous for the last 8 years, more economic prosperity than at any 
time in our history. And it shows. People are living better. They are 
saving more. They are enjoying a better lifestyle. To think they need a 
tax cut at this moment in our history rather than to eliminate the 
national debt, rather than to provide tax cuts for people in lower 
income categories, is beyond me.
  There are some interesting statistics, too, about what has happened 
to Federal tax rates since Bill Clinton and Al Gore took over. There 
was a statement made frequently by Governor Bush that he wants to cap 
the total Federal tax rate at 33.3 percent. He said no one should pay 
more than a third of their income in Federal taxes. That is an 
interesting proposal. But as you get into it, this is what it says. Let 
me give you an idea.

  For middle-income families, since the Clinton-Gore administration 
took office, the total Federal tax rate has dropped to 22.8 percent, 
the lowest rate since 1978. So telling those folks we are not going to 
let your taxes go beyond 33.3 percent, they are already doing well. Tax 
rates are coming down. We want to continue to see them come down with 
more targeted tax cuts. For families with incomes of $24,000, the tax 
rate went from 19.8 percent in 1992 to 14.1 percent in 1999, the lowest 
tax rate since 1968.
  So when the suggestion is made that the Federal tax rate won't be any 
higher than a third for anybody, it really goes back to the highest 
income categories. That is his shorthand version of saying: I want to 
give a tax cut not to working families but to people at the highest 
income categories. What George Bush is challenging is basically the 
idea of a progressive income tax, something that we really agreed on 
almost 80 years ago in America.
  We said, if you are well off and you are doing better, you should pay 
a higher tax rate than people who are struggling to get by. Every 
President has gone along with that from the beginning, Democrats and 
Republicans alike. But the arguments coming from Governor Bush at this 
point suggest he doesn't believe that. He believes we should reduce the 
rate for the wealthiest people in the country and not provide similar 
tax relief for those who are in lower income categories.

  It would be a virtual windfall, in terms of tax benefits, for some of 
the wealthiest people in America. Honest to goodness, should we be on 
the floor of the Senate and in the House dreaming up ways to make Bill 
Gates' life more comfortable? I don't think so. How about Donald Trump? 
I think he is doing okay. I watch the way he dresses and his lifestyle. 
I don't think he will need this $46,000 from George Bush. In fact, if 
he receives it, he may not even notice it.
  When we talk about tax cuts on the Democratic side, we are talking 
about things that working families will definitely notice. Let me give 
you some ideas of the things we have come up with that we think are 
targeted tax cuts consistent with keeping the economy moving forward 
and helping everybody, not just a few. The Republicans criticized 
these, but that is what campaigns are about.
  On the Democratic side we believe the No. 1 concern of working 
families is paying for their children to attend college. You can look 
at kids coming out of college who are $15,000, $20,000 in debt, and 
higher. Parents wonder, for goodness' sakes, how can we save up enough 
for this child to be able to go to college. I did a survey in Illinois. 
Over the last 20 years, college tuition in public and private 
universities in my State has gone up 200 to 400 percent. So it is 
understandable that there would be anxiety among parents as they try to 
think about how they are going to pay for college.
  Well, Vice President Gore and the Democrats have suggested that up to 
$12,000 of college tuition and fees should be deductible on your taxes. 
You can't do that now. We think you should. That would be a helping 
hand to working families who want their kids to go to college and 
acquire the best skills, but they don't want them loaded down with debt 
when they graduate. It is simple, straightforward, honest, and popular. 
I have been across my State, which is split down the middle 
politically. I have yet to run into a crowd that didn't applaud that 
suggestion. They know, either through their kids or their own life's 
experience, that this is the sort of thing that works. I went to 
Rockford College in Rockford, IL, and I asked them, ``What is the 
average indebtedness of your graduates upon graduation?'' They said, 
``It's $20,000 after getting out of school.''
  If the Gore plan for education expense deductions were in place, that 
student would graduate with a debt of $4,000 or $5,000, instead of 
$20,000. And if you have accumulated college debt, you will be able to 
claim a tax credit for the interest that you have to pay on it. So I 
think that is the kind of targeted tax cut that makes more sense, 
rather than giving Bill Gates $46,000 a year, which he won't even 
notice.
  Secondly, a lot of people are concerned about day care. I understand 
now with a grandson--and Senator Reid and I were talking about our 
grandkids earlier. I have a 4-year-old grandson, and my daughter and 
son-in-law are concerned about quality day care and the cost of it. We 
want Alex to have the very best. But it gets expensive. A lot of 
families can't afford the best. So we give a tax credit for day care, 
but it is not adequate. It doesn't meet the need. A lot of families 
struggle and worry. They are hoping that the kids they pick up at the 
end of the day will be better off than when they left them, but they 
are never sure.

  Wouldn't it make more sense for us to have a greater tax credit for 
day care? A lot of working families would applaud that. Kids in a 
better environment have a better chance to be healthy and safe and to 
succeed. So that is a targeted tax cut which has been supported by Vice 
President Gore and supported on the Democratic side.
  A third one relates to long-term care. This is one that virtually all 
of us face as our parents get older and need additional attention. We 
may find, perhaps, that a visiting nurse, or some sort of convalescent 
care, or assisted living situation is the key for happiness for a 
person you love very much, a parent who has given you their entire 
lives. But it is expensive, and there are a lot of out-of-pocket 
expenses involved when a conscientious family cares for an aging parent 
or grandparent.
  As the Democrats have proposed, I think a tax break for those engaged 
in

[[Page S9925]]

long-term care assistance for their parents and relatives is a sensible 
investment. Today, at a town meeting which we have every Thursday--
Senator Fitzgerald and I--for visitors from Illinois, a young lady 
talked about her little boy who suffered from autism and how, after all 
of the efforts by the school district and her health insurance, she and 
her husband still had to borrow from relatives and take out of pocket 
to care for their disabled little boy. She said to me: Why in the world 
can't I get help under the Tax Code for that?
  I think she is right. Doesn't it make more sense for us to make sure 
the Tax Code is sensitive to people's real needs in raising their 
families?
  When these folks are making a sacrifice for their children, shouldn't 
we be there to help them along? That is the difference. On the 
Democratic side, we target the tax cuts as I have just described. On 
the Republican side, they say, no, we think the wealthiest top 1 
percent in America should get 42.6 percent of the tax breaks; those 
making over $300,000 a year should get $46,000 a year in tax breaks. 
And, frankly, they disparage our approach as being ``too selective.'' 
Well, it is true; our tax cuts do go for specific purposes, but they 
are purposes with which real families can identify.
  So when the debate started disintegrating into a question about who 
was clearing their throat, or shrugging their shoulders, or glaring at 
whom, I thought there is much more at stake in this election. I hope in 
the closing weeks of the election--and the Vice Presidential debate is 
tonight, and the Presidential candidates will debate on two more 
occasions in the next few weeks--we can get down to business here. I 
think there is a clear choice on so many issues.
  I haven't mentioned prescription drugs, and I would like to do that 
for a moment. There is such a dramatic difference between the approach 
that George Bush proposed for prescription drugs and that by proposed 
by Vice President Gore. Did you know the Bush proposal, in the first 4 
years, would depend on each State enacting a prescription drug benefit? 
That's right. Every single State would have to enact the law and do it 
their own way. That means just a handful of people will be assisted. In 
Illinois, over a million people might qualify for prescription drug 
help, but because of the way the law is written, only 55,000 actually 
do. It is limited to a certain number of diseases and certain drugs. 
Frankly, that doesn't do the job. As a consequence of that, you will 
have a lot of people left behind.

  Governor Bush says for 4 years we will let the States take care of 
it, if they want to. Some States already have prescription drug benefit 
plans. Illinois is one of them, but Texas is not. So the State of 
Texas, where he is Governor, hasn't even enacted a prescription drug 
benefit plan. And now George Bush says we will leave it up to the 
States and they can show the initiative and leadership when it comes to 
prescription drugs for 4 years. Then, at the end of 4 years, things get 
very interesting under Governor Bush's plan. It is at that point he 
says we will take it away from the Governors in the States and put it 
in the loving and caring arms of a group which we know America trusts 
the most--insurance companies. Insurance companies.
  So the decisions on the prescription drugs won't be made by doctors, 
nurses, or health care professionals. Once again, they will be made by 
clerks at insurance companies, who will decide which drugs they are 
going to put in their formulary, their accepted prescription drugs, and 
which ones they will not. They will decide the premiums and how much 
the copay will be. You will decide on your own how much help you will 
get. If you happen to be making a certain amount of money, you may not 
qualify for any assistance whatsoever. That is the George Bush plan. 
That is his approach. He says it gives you maximum choice. You get to 
pick your own insurance company. What a break. Then your insurance 
companies get to pick the drugs which you may be allowed to take.
  Contrast that with the Democratic plan, supported by Al Gore. He says 
this ought to be a voluntary universal plan under Medicare. There is 
your choice. The private insurance companies versus Medicare. That is 
the choice I think a lot of people don't understand is really before us 
in this Presidential election. Gore believes in a prescription drug 
benefit under Medicare that is universal, voluntary, and available for 
everybody. Bush says to first give it to the States, let them work with 
it for a while, and then give it to the insurance companies and let 
them take it over. That is the choice. It is no choice at all. Under 
the Gore plan, the Medicare prescription drug benefit plan, your doctor 
will be prescribing your drugs. Medicare will help you pay for them. 
Under the Bush plan, the health insurance company will decide which 
drugs you can apply for and how much you pay in premiums.
  I don't think that is much of a choice. I think back to 1965 when I 
was a student. I can remember the debate under Medicare. The 
Republicans opposed the creation of Medicare. It was Lyndon Johnson's 
idea that they called socialistic, the Great Society, so forth and so 
on.
  Look at where we are today, 35 years later: A health insurance plan 
for the elderly and disabled which has lengthened the lifespan of 
senior citizens and which has brought dignity and independence to their 
lives. Medicare is a system they trust. When Al Gore suggests that 
prescription drug benefits should be under Medicare, seniors say: We 
feel at home with Medicare. We know how it works.
  Do seniors who voluntarily sign up have to pay a premium? Of course, 
they pay for Medicare now. It is understandable. They will be making a 
monthly payment. But look at the peace of mind they buy for $50 a 
month. They realize there is a maximum amount they will have to pay 
each year for prescription drugs. If a medical catastrophe comes along, 
they know they are not out on a limb and unable to fill those 
prescriptions if they need to.

  When it comes to tax cuts and prescription drug benefits, what a 
clear contrast between the two candidates for President of the United 
States. Elections are about choices.
  Many of our friends on the Republican side of the aisle, frankly, who 
didn't have much of an inclination toward these issues are now 
discovering these issues. They are now newfound converts to the idea of 
prescription drug benefits. They have come up with a plan, which is 
interesting, about the reimportation of drugs after they have been sent 
overseas. You know a lot of drugs made in the United States go to other 
countries and they are sold for a fraction of the cost. The question 
is, can you bring them back into the country, buy them at a fraction of 
the cost in Canada and Mexico, and bring them back in the United 
States? I support it.
  It really shows how far this system has disintegrated when the drug 
companies sell drugs in Canada for a fraction of what they cost 
consumers in the United States, where the drugs were developed with 
taxpayers' money through the NIH and inspection by the FDA and others.
  This reimportation of drugs from other countries, as appealing as it 
sounds, can't possibly solve the problem. It is impossible to believe 
that American drug companies will just be shifting drugs overseas on a 
wholesale basis and expect Americans to import them back into the 
United States. At some point, they will slow down the sales overseas 
and they will take control of the situation.
  The only real answer for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare 
is for the Medicare system to bargain with the drug companies for 
reasonable prices and costs for these drugs. That is really a key issue 
in this campaign and a key difference between the two candidates.
  I know this is likely to come out tonight in the debate between our 
colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, and the former Secretary of Defense, 
Mr. Cheney. But I don't believe this is the end of the debate. I think 
it will continue on the Senate and House floor in the closing days and 
weeks of this session. Ultimately, the American people will be the 
judge. We have asked the American people in many polls which approach 
they prefer, and they say, hands down, that the Democrats understand 
Medicare, understand prescription drug benefits, and understand how to 
bring tax cuts that work for working families so that prosperity is 
there for everyone and not just a few.
  (Mr. SMITH of Oregon assumed the chair.)

[[Page S9926]]

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator yields, may I ask the 
Senator a question? Did he say the top 1 percent of the people in the 
Bush tax cut get almost 50 percent of all the benefits?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Did the Senator also say there are a number of converts 
during the last few months on issues that we have developed? Take, for 
example, the Patients' Bill of Rights. Isn't it true that in this body, 
on a straight party-line vote, there was a Patients' Bill of Rights in 
name only? The majority, the Republicans, passed a Patients' Bill of 
Rights. But is the Senator aware of what is in the Republicans' 
Patients' Bill of Rights that is good for the American people?
  Mr. DURBIN. I can respond in this regard. I know the Republican so-
called Patients' Bill of Rights was so good that the insurance 
companies approved of it and embraced it and endorsed it. Frankly, it 
is supposed to be a law that protects consumers against the excessive 
attitude and conduct of these insurance companies. Excuse me if I am 
skeptical, but this bill is endorsed by the lobby that is supposed to 
be fighting for the Patients' Bill of Rights. I smell a rat. Maybe I 
shouldn't use that term in light of the political campaign that is 
going on. I suggest perhaps that it not a real Patients' Bill of 
Rights.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator also aware that a Republican Member of the 
House of Representatives, a medical doctor from the State of Iowa, who 
looked at the bill we passed in the Senate, which the Republicans 
passed over objection, denigrated that bill? I repeat: Is the Senator 
aware that a Republican House Member from Iowa who is a medical doctor 
has stated that the bill passed out of here by the Republicans is bad?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is Congressman Ganske of Iowa. There was a 
bipartisan coalition in the House that endorsed the Democratic bill, 
the one that really works, the only one endorsed by virtually every 
medical group in America that understands patients ought to have the 
benefit of a doctor's judgment, not an insurance company's judgment, 
when it comes to critical health care.
  They have created their own Trojan horse, this phony bill on the 
Patients' Bill of Rights. Honestly, I think the American people are 
going to see through it.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Illinois that it is possible to do 
work around here on a bipartisan fashion. That was demonstrated by 
Congressman Norwood, a Republican, and Congressman Dingell, a Democrat. 
Congressman Dingell is not a medical doctor. It is a good bill. Does 
the Senator agree?
  Mr. DURBIN. It is a good bill. It is almost identical to the bill the 
Democrats had in the Senate.
  I think the Senator from Nevada is also aware that we now have a new 
Member in the Senate from the State of Georgia who is committed to 
supporting our bill. We are now at a point where we believe that bill 
could pass.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware that we have not been allowed, through 
parliamentary maneuvers over here, to have a vote on the Patients' Bill 
of Rights? But we now have, obviously, a new Member who will vote in 
favor of it.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Republican leadership in the Senate doesn't want to 
allow a vote on the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights, almost the 
identical bill that passed in the House, because they know it would 
pass and it would be an embarrassment to them. The Democrats would win 
that battle. I don't think the people at home care whether the 
Democrats win or the Republicans win. They want families to win. This 
is an example where families would win, where you could have 
protection.
  Let me give an example. I am sure the Senator is well aware of this. 
If a woman in the course of a pregnancy is going to her obstetrician, 
and because there is a change of insurance companies at her employment, 
she is asked to go to a different HMO, we provide that she can continue 
with the same doctor's care, in whom she has confidence, through the 
completion of her pregnancy. I think it is common sense and good 
medical judgment. I think both sides could agree on it. That is part of 
our Patients' Bill of Rights.
  It says if you are going to the emergency room with a child, you 
don't have to check in the glove compartment, pull out the insurance 
policy, and go through it page by page to get the right hospital. It 
says if somebody at an insurance company makes a wrong decision and you 
lose your life or your health, they can be held accountable, as every 
business and person in America is held accountable.
  Those are some basics in the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights. The 
Republican leadership does not want that issue to come to the floor 
because they now know we have the votes to pass it. They have blocked 
us every step of the way.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator also aware--which I am certain he is, but I 
would like to hear his response--that the Democrats' Patients' Bill of 
Rights is something unusual as far as this Senator is concerned, 
because we have the support of literally every organization in America: 
the AMA and the American Bar Association? I can't remember these two 
organizations ever agreeing on anything. Virtually the only 
organization that opposes this legislation is a health insurance 
company.
  Does the Senator acknowledge that?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is the reason a Patients' Bill of Rights hasn't 
passed in the Senate. It is not a question of what is right and 
popular, what the people want, and what health care professionals say 
will be best for the future of health care. It is a question of 
political muscle. The insurance companies have more political muscle in 
the Senate. They have stopped us from bringing this bill to the floor 
for a vote.
  Shortly we will adjourn and go home with a lot of unfinished 
business. This is one of them. We came this close to doing it, but the 
Republican leadership said: No, we are not going to allow the Patients' 
Bill of Rights to come to the floor for a vote. That is an illustration 
of their insensitivity to what people in this country really care 
about: good health care. This Congress has not responded to it. In many 
respects, this Congress couldn't care less. That is sad because it is 
our responsibility, as representatives of the people of the States who 
elect us to listen to their needs and to respond to them. We have been 
totally unresponsive because of the efforts of the Republican 
leadership.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator would also answer this question; it was 
brought up indirectly by the Senator's last statement. One of the 
things we have not done here is do something about campaign finance 
reform. As we are talking all over America, there are 30-second and 1-
minute spots being run by this group, that group, the Democratic Party, 
Republican Party, and independent groups. The American public is 
beginning to get almost punch drunk as to who is advertising what.
  Does the Senator think it would be one of the most important things 
we could do as a body and as a Congress to get this campaign finance 
problem under control, such as getting rid of soft money? Does the 
Senator think it would help the body politic to have campaign finance 
reform? We have been prevented from this by the majority.

  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator is right. The efforts of our colleague, 
Senator Russ Feingold, and Republican Senator John McCain are well 
documented. Al Gore has said: As President, the first bill we will send 
the Congress is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. The first 
bill he will accept is a bipartisan bill to deal with campaign finance 
reform.
  If we cannot come to grips with the abuses of the campaign finance 
system, several things will occur. The special interest groups, which 
rule the corridors of Congress and continue to rule the campaigns, will 
set the agenda; and secondly, many good men and women will continue to 
refuse to get into this business because they don't want to mess with 
multimillion-dollar campaigns, these attack ads that come from every 
direction, and the attacks on personal lives and reputation which have 
become so commonplace in negative campaigning.
  It is interesting to me we have a bill so clearly bipartisan. The 
Republican Senator, John McCain, was very popular as a Republican 
candidate for President. In fact, he carried a few States in the 
Republican Presidential primary. Yet we can't even get that

[[Page S9927]]

bill to the floor for a vote in a Senate that is controlled by the 
Republican Party.
  I think the American people see through this. I think they understand 
that this is not a fight over the Bill of Rights, it is a fight over 
the rights of Americans to be well represented.
  Mr. REID. I say we need more people like the Presiding Officer. He 
has joined with us in many bipartisan matters. I hope the conversation 
we have had today does not in any way reflect upon the Senator from 
Oregon, who has worked with us on a number of issues. I am sure it has 
caused him a problem on the other side of the aisle.
  The reason I mention that is everyone thinks McCain-Feingold is a 
bipartisan bill, and it is, in the sense that John McCain has stepped 
way forward on this to talk about the need for campaign finance reform. 
But the people willing to help him on the other side of the aisle, the 
majority of them, are few and far between.
  On a number of issues we have talked about today, with rare 
exception, the Senator from Oregon has been willing to join in a 
bipartisan fashion to pass legislation. As my friend from Illinois has 
said, it is possible we could do this. All we have to do is what is 
right for the American people and get rid of these very high-pressure 
lobbying efforts--for example, the health insurance industry, which is 
preventing us from moving forward on something like a Patients' Bill of 
Rights.
  Mr. DURBIN. At this point, I acknowledge my colleague, Senator 
Fitzgerald of Illinois, who also voted for the Patients' Bill of 
Rights. He has publicly stated he thinks it is the best approach. I 
think it takes extraordinary courage sometimes to break from your party 
on these issues.
  The presiding Senator from Oregon has showed exceptional leadership 
and courage on the hate crimes issue. This was not an easy issue, I am 
sure, for him; it was not for any of us. He stood up on that issue. I 
will remember that for a long time. It was exceptional. We want to make 
sure we continue in that bipartisan spirit. I hope even in the closing 
days we might reach out and find some bipartisan common ground to deal 
with some of these important issues.
  I see some of my colleagues have come to the floor, and they have 
been very patient in waiting for me to finish my remarks. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary order before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business. Senators are 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am following up on the Presidential 
debates of the other evening. I was thinking about what Governor Bush 
was saying about his Medicare plan. He was referring to Vice President 
Gore and saying: You are engaging in ``Mediscare''--``Mediscare.'' You 
are trying to scare the seniors.
  The more I have looked at Governor Bush's Medicare proposal for 
prescription drugs, I have come to the conclusion that if his plan ever 
comes into effect, the senior citizens in this country ought to be 
scared. They ought to be scared about this.
  Here is the difference between what Vice President Gore wants in 
terms of prescription drugs and what Governor Bush wants. In my right 
hand I have a Medicare card. Under the prescription drug policies of 
Vice President Gore, this is all you need to get your prescription 
drug. You have a Medicare card, you go to your doctor, he prescribes 
the drugs, you go to your local pharmacy, and you get your drugs 
filled. That is all you need--your Medicare card.
  Under the Bush proposal, which goes out to the States, they have to 
pass legislation, and if you make over $14,600 a year, you get nothing. 
So in order to qualify for prescription drugs under the plan advocated 
by Governor Bush, you would basically have to meet all of the 
requirements for Medicaid in terms of showing your income, assets, 
everything else.
  I want to put together the sheaf of papers you would have to fill out 
if you were an elderly person and you wanted to get prescription drugs 
under the Bush plan. This is what you would fill out. It looks like 
about 40 pages of paperwork. First of all is the tax return. You have 
to take that in and show them how much you made. Then you have to do 
all the documents, including instructions, applications, certificates, 
estate recovery--of course, if you have some estate and you have some 
assets. There is an insurance questionnaire. This is the type of 
paperwork you would be faced with under the Bush proposal.
  Under the Gore proposal: One simple Medicare card.
  I sum it up by saying what the seniors of this country want is 
Medicare; they don't want welfare. That is exactly what Governor Bush 
is proposing in his Medicare prescription drug proposal.

                          ____________________