[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 137 (Friday, October 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11194-S11205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENACTMENT OF CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS, HEALTH, TAX, AND MINIMUM WAGE
PROVISIONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are beginning debate this morning on
what is ostensibly the conference report of the Small Business
Committee of which I have the pleasure to serve as the ranking member.
Obviously, nobody has any illusions that what the debate on the floor
of the Senate today is about is small business issues. This is the so-
called tax bill that has been attached to the Small Business conference
report. But let me say a word, if I may, about the process by which how
this package was made a part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act
of 2000.
Despite being named a conferee, and despite the inclusion of
provisions that are important to small business, and despite the fact
that this conference report contains the work of the Small Business
Committee and which I devoted a considerable amount of time effort and
energy to negotiating, I will be voting against the overall conference
report before us today.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts
will yield for a question at the beginning?
Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield.
Mr. KERREY. There are an awful lot of people wondering where is the
chairman of the Finance Committee, the ranking member of the Finance
Committee. We are going to be taking up a tax bill and a Medicare/
Medicaid bill. Why don't we see Chairman Roth and ranking member
Moynihan down here managing this bill? Why is it a Small Business
Committee that has the responsibility for a piece of legislation
dealing with targeted tax credits and Medicare relief?
Mr. KERRY. My good friend from Nebraska asked a very important
question. Let me, in defense of the Senator from New York, say that
Senator Moynihan will be here soon. By agreement, he is going to be
comanaging this report because of the tax provisions in this bill.
Mr. KERREY. This is a Small Business piece of legislation. This bill
references small business. This is not a Finance Committee bill. The
answer is, it is not a Finance Committee bill.
Didn't the majority do the legislative equivalent of stealth molasses
here? Didn't they take another piece of legislation, hollow it out, and
stuff in it targeted tax cuts that their Presidential candidate has
been opposing for the last 90 days, criticizing the Vice President,
saying Washington, DC, should not decide, we should not be deciding in
Washington, DC, who gets a tax cut? That is what I have been hearing
over and over.
I ask my friend from Massachusetts, first of all, is it correct that
they stuffed a tax bill and they have stuffed a health care bill inside
of some other bill that they hollowed out, that has not gone through
the normal process, and that the tax provision itself seems to violate
what their Presidential candidate wants to do? Basically, it seems to
me what our friends on the other side of the aisle are saying is Vice
President Gore is right; Governor Bush is wrong.
Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my colleague from Nebraska, he is absolutely
correct. That is exactly what has happened. That is exactly the state
of affairs. In point of fact, let me say as a matter of courtesy, in
terms of the process of the Senate, as ranking member of the Small
Business Committee, I was never called, never asked, never even
presented this conference report for signature, never even told as a
matter of courtesy what would go into this package and happen to the
hard work of the Small Business Committee. It was simply done in the
dead of night and presented to us, fait accompli, to the Congress.
I think all of us have the right to ask, as Senators, what kind of
courtesy is this we are being afforded as a matter of just collegial
relations within the Senate. I think this process shows a fundamental
disrespect for this institution, for the constitutional process and
members of the Senate.
But, let me say to my colleague from Nebraska, here is what has been
stuffed in this bill, to use the term by which he has appropriately
described it. This is a small business bill. But, without any hearings,
without any appropriate bipartisan decision, this bill is brought to
the floor of the Senate today with H.R. 5538, as it was introduced, the
Minimum Wage Act; H.R. 5542, as it was introduced, the Taxpayer Relief
Act, which goes to the issue of the tax cuts; H.R. 5543, the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, entirely
outside the purview of the Small Business Committee; it comes with H.R.
5544, the Pain Relief Promotion Act, an entirely controversial and, as
we will discuss through the course of this day, potentially very
dangerous and damaging measure with respect to the delivery of quality
medical care in this country; and, H.R. 5545, the Small Business
Reauthorization Act, which was already mentioned.
The Senator from Nebraska is absolutely correct about the impact, the
substance, and the process here.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
Mr. KERRY. I will be delighted to yield to my colleague.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is interesting to hear the discussion
of the process. Apparently there was no conference; there were no
conferees. This was a small business authorization bill that was laying
dormant, which they used as a large carcass to stuff a whole range of
bills in the middle of and throw it then on the floor of the Senate.
I am curious; if the Senator from Massachusetts had been accorded the
opportunity, as would normally have been the case, of being a conferee
and being a part of deliberations, I assume first we would not have
most of these provisions in a small business bill, but if we had, for
example, would a conferee coming from Massachusetts been concerned
about the massive quantity of money that would go to HMOs in response
to this balanced budget fix? Would there not have been an aggressive
debate saying you cannot do that in the dead of night, take bags of
money and give it to HMOs that are not deserving, when, in fact, small
hospitals, inner-city hospitals, and others who are desperately in need
of these resources do not get it? Would there not have been aggressive
debate on that, and probably the disinfectant of sunlight would have
given us the opportunity to dump many of these provisions?
Mr. KERRY. I say to my colleague from the State of North Dakota, he
is again absolutely correct, in that the only portion of this bill
discussed amongst the conferees was the Small
[[Page S11195]]
Business Reauthorization Act. I was never consulted as to what
additional measures were included. And, in many respects, it is even
worse than he has described. As I said, there was a conference on which
we worked hard with respect to small business legislation itself, but
that conference is not even properly reflected in the small business
bill that has been brought here because this is a changed small
business bill. It is not completely the Reauthorization package that we
had conferenced. It has been changed without the courtesy of involving
those of us on this side of the aisle, obviously without the debate
that would have had the impact the Senator from North Dakota cites.
I have here the letter from the President of the United States in
which he promises this report will be vetoed. I know the leadership on
the other side of the aisle has read this and notwithstanding that the
President has promised that this will be vetoed and notwithstanding the
fact that the President is making it very clear to the American people
and to our colleagues why it will be vetoed, they, nevertheless, have
seen fit to simply bring this to the floor and, so to speak, stuff it
through the Senate. Why? To create a political issue or perhaps simply
to be stubborn and try to set up the President for some possible
political gain.
This is precisely what George Bush himself has been talking about:
partisanship, bickering, the very kind of thing that supposedly he says
he could control here and on which he has been campaigning. He was
asked to make one phone call to stop this and he will not even make
that phone call. Here we are debating, and people are wondering why we
are here. Why debate this measure just so it can be vetoed. Why not
bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights, or provide a prescription drug
benefit for seniors under Medicare instead of wasting time?
I will share what President Clinton said before this catchall package
came to the floor, before we had to be put into this position of voting
against it. I am reading from the President's letter of October 26. I
ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The White House,
Office of the Press Secretary,
October 26, 2000.
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. Leader:) Thank you for your
letter yesterday responding to my proposed consensus tax
package. As I said yesterday, I believe we all have a
responsibility to make every possible effort to come together
on a bipartisan agreement on tax relief and Medicare/Medicaid
that will maintain fiscal discipline and serve the interests
of all the American people. That is why I put forward a good
faith offer yesterday that sought to reflect our differing
priorities in a balanced manner. I was disappointed, however,
that, without any consultation with me or Congressional
Democrats, you chose to put forward a partisan legislative
package that ignores our key concerns on school construction,
health care, and pensions policy. If this current tax and
Medicare/Medicaid package is presented to me, I will have no
choice but to veto it.
While we have already reached substantial agreement in
important areas, such as replacement of the Foreign Sales
Corporations regime, your legislation has substantial flaws
in several key areas.
As I stated yesterday, I believe it is absolutely essential
that we do as much as possible to meet America's need for
safe and modern schools. It is estimated that there may be as
much as a $125 billion dollar financing gap in meeting the
school construction and modernization needs of our children.
The bipartisan Rangel-Johnson proposal to finance $25
billion in bonds to construct and modernize 6,000 schools is,
quite frankly, the very least we should do, given the
magnitude of this problem and its importance to America's
future. Unfortunately, your proposal falls far short of the
mark. We should not sacrifice thousands of modernized schools
to pay for inefficient tax incentives that help only a few.
For example, the arbitrage provision encourages delay in
urgently needed school construction and would
disproportionately help wealthy school districts.
On health care, my offer sought to lay a path to common
ground by coupling both of our priorities on health and long-
term care. Unfortunately, your health care proposal
completely ignores our proposal to cover millions of
uninsured, working Americans. Instead you put forward a
series of tax cuts that, particularly when standing alone,
would be inequitable, inefficient, and even potentially
counterproductive health care policy. For example, while our
FamilyCare proposal would expand coverage to 4 million
uninsured parents at a cost of slightly over $3,000 per
person, your proposal would provide additional coverage to
one-seventh the people at six times the cost per person.
Moreover, your proposal would give the least assistance to
moderate-income families that need help the most, while even
raising concerns that those with employer-based coverage
today could lose their insurance.
Similarly, on long-term care, I offered to embrace your
proposed deduction for long-term care insurance in exchange
for inclusion of my proposal to give families, who are
burdened today by long-term care needs, a $3,000 tax credit.
Unfortunately, your legislation ignores the bipartisan
package I suggested and instead would provide half the
benefits of my proposal for financially pressed families
trying to provide long-term care for elderly and sick family
members. Surely we can agree on this bipartisan compromise
that has already been endorsed by a broad array of members of
Congress, advocates for seniors and people with disabilities,
and insurers. Similarly, I am perplexed that we cannot agree
to include the bipartisan credit for vaccine research and
purchases that is essential to save lives and advance public
health.
I also am disappointed that you have made virtually no
attempt to address the concerns my Administration has
expressed to you about the pension provisions of your bill.
By dropping the progressive savings incentives from the
Senate Finance Committee bill, you have failed to address the
lack of pension coverage for over 70 million people.
Moreover, employers may have new incentives to drop pension
coverage for some of the low- and moderate-income workers
lucky enough to have pension plans today.
Finally, I remain deeply concerned that your Medicare and
Medicaid refinement proposal continues to fail to attach
accountability provisions to excessive payment increases to
health maintenance organizations (HMOs) while rejecting
critical investments in beneficiaries and vulnerable health
care providers. Specifically, you insist on an unjustifiable
spending increase for HMOs at the same time as you exclude
bipartisan policies such as health insurance options for
children with disabilities, legal immigrant pregnant women
and children, and enrolling uninsured children in schools, as
well as needed payment increases to hospitals, academic
health centers, home health agencies, and other vulnerable
providers. Congress should not go home without responding to
the urgent health needs of our seniors, people with
disabilities, and children and the health care providers who
serve them.
A far better path than the current one is for Congressional
Republicans, Democrats, and my Administration to come
together in a bipartisan process to find common ground on
both tax relief and Medicare/Medicaid refinements.
Sincerely,
William J. Clinton.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the President said:
While we have already reached substantial agreement in
important areas, such as replacement of the Foreign Sales
Corporation regime, your legislation--
He is writing to the House and Senate Republican leaders--
your legislation has substantial flaws in key areas. As I
stated yesterday--
This is the President of the United States saying this--
I believe it is absolutely essential that we do as much as
possible to meet America's need for safe and modern schools.
It is estimated that there may be as much as a $125 billion
financing gap in meeting the school construction and
modernization needs of our children. The bipartisan Rangel-
Johnson proposal to finance $25 billion in bonds to construct
and modernize 6,000 schools is, quite frankly, the very least
we should do, given the magnitude of this problem and its
importance to America's future. Unfortunately, your proposal
falls far short of the mark.
So yesterday, and in prior discussions for weeks, the President made
it very clear this falls short; this will not be sufficient; he will
veto it. Nevertheless, we are here.
The President goes on to say:
We should not sacrifice thousands of modernized schools to
pay for inefficient tax incentives that help only a few. For
example, the arbitrage provision encourages delay in urgently
needed school construction and would disproportionately help
wealthy school districts.
Health care is perhaps one of the most important components of this
bill. The Senator from Nebraska raised this same point--we are talking
about the health care system of the country. It has been an enormously
divisive and complicated issue within the Finance Committee. Suddenly,
in the dead of night, it is just snatched out, a proposal is sent to
the floor as part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 and
people are surprised that the President may decide he is going to veto
it and that those of us on this side of the aisle might have objections
to that piece of legislation coming to the floor in this manner.
Nobody should be surprised about our concerns under these unusual
circumstances.
[[Page S11196]]
This is what the President says:
On health care, my offer sought to lay a path to common
ground by coupling both of our priorities on health and long-
term care.
In other words, the President sought to find the common ground. The
President sought compromise. The President sought to try to address the
needs of both Republicans and Democrats on health and long-term care.
He writes:
Unfortunately, your health care proposal completely ignores
our proposal to cover millions of uninsured, working
Americans. Instead, you put forward a series of tax cuts
that, particularly, when standing alone, would be
inequitable, inefficient, and even potentially
counterproductive to health care policy.
The reason they would be counterproductive to health care policy is
because the Republican proposal gives tax cuts to people who already
have health care, who already have a high level of income, who are
already covered by employers, and what you do by doing that is provide
an incentive for employers to turn to them and say: We do not need to
cover you anymore; you can go out and get your own health care because
you are getting a tax cut--while it leaves millions of Americans who
are uninsured without any insurance options whatsoever. That is so
patently counterproductive, as well as patently unfair, that it begs
our coming to the floor of the Senate to stand with the President
and suggest this ought to be vetoed.
Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for another
question?
Mr. KERRY. I will be delighted to yield to my colleague.
Mr. KERREY. One of the Presidential debates was in Massachusetts. I
know the distinguished Senator attended it. I suspect he watched the
other Presidential debates. One of the most important dividing lines
between the two candidates is that the Governor from Texas has been
saying Washington, DC should not decide who gets a tax cut and who does
not. The Vice President has been saying--not only for fiscal reasons
but also for reasons of fairness--that is precisely what we should do.
We should decide who is going to get a tax cut and target those tax
cuts rather than having across-the-board tax cuts predominantly for the
wealthiest Americans.
It seems to me what the Republican leadership in the House and the
Senate are saying that the Vice President is right; we should target
taxes and tax cuts. I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts sees it
that way.
Mr. KERRY. I say to my colleague from Nebraska, he is again
perceptive in seeing the extraordinary contradiction in the actions
taken by the majority party, the Republicans in Congress, compared to
what their own nominee for President is suggesting is the appropriate
way to proceed. Indeed, the very criticism leveled by George Bush
against Al Gore that he is, in fact, trying to target appropriately--
appropriately, I underline ``appropriately''--is really critical
because what the Republicans are doing here is targeting, which is
precisely what their candidate has criticized, but they are targeting
inappropriately. They are targeting, once again, to reward those
already most rewarded. They are targeting to reward those who already
have health care. They are targeting in a way that ignores the concern
of the President and most of us here, which is: How do you provide
coverage to those people who are without coverage or having the
greatest difficulty in providing for their health care with HMOs that
are cutting them out.
Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. KERRY. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. KERREY. Essentially, the argument is over. Our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are agreeing with us; their Presidential
candidate is wrong; we should target tax cuts.
Then you move on to the next question, which is, Who is going to get
the tax cut? What standards do we apply to make that decision? Would
the Senator from Massachusetts agree that it seems one of the missing
questions that was not asked was--it doesn't seem to me it was asked.
None of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle are here. I
look forward to asking them. I don't know who was in the room when this
was written. But whoever was in the room from the other side of the
aisle, there were no Democrats there. Does it appear to the Senator
that anybody in that room asked the question: Is this fair, given the
needs of this country? Is this package fair? Did they seem to apply a
standard or a test of fairness as they made their decision?
Mr. KERRY. Let me answer the Senator from Nebraska by saying, in the
16 years I have been in the Senate--in the debates we had in 1986 on
tax simplification--in almost every single tax proposal we have worked
on in those years, I have never heard the word ``fairness'' come from
that side of the aisle. I have never heard them suggest that the plan
they are offering America is based on a fundamental notion of what is
fair for all Americans.
Mr. KERREY. I wonder if the Senator----
Mr. KERRY. I will say this to my colleague. If you look at the
distribution here to the HMOs, and if you look at what happens to
community hospitals, to home health care delivery, to the nursing
homes, to those people who are part of a community and stay in a
community, and who are not there for profit, versus what they have done
to provide the lion's share of funding to those who work for profit but
at the same time have cut off 400,000 senior citizens from getting
health care, it is an extraordinary imbalance on its face.
Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield for one additional question?
Mr. KERRY. I will yield.
Mr. KERREY. And then I will wait to speak further after the Senator
finishes his opening remarks.
In this morning's New York Times, there is an article describing the
Texas Governor's speech in Pennsylvania yesterday. He does know how to
turn a phrase. It is very good language. But I wonder if the Senator
from Massachusetts sees a conflict in what the Governor of Texas is
saying that he wants to do and what is in this bill.
Let me read what he said:
In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal
but also what is right, not just what the lawyers allow but
what the public deserves.
He went on and said:
In my administration, we will make it clear there is the
controlling legal authority of conscience.
Does my friend from Massachusetts think this process and this
proposal meets the test that the Governor of Texas set yesterday in
Pennsylvania?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, the question he
raises should not be treated by my colleagues as simply political
posturing or somehow a statement that suggests that there is simply a
point to be scored here.
In the years I have been here, I have never seen the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd--who I think most people in the
Senate would agree is really the custodian of the institution--he is
the Senator who has written the most, thought the most, and perhaps
stood the strongest for the rights and prerogatives of Senators, and
the rights and prerogatives of this institution.
What the Senator from Nebraska is raising in his question really goes
to the core of the conscience, if you will, of the Senate, of what is
right, of what is the controlling legal authority for the Senate.
Is it appropriate to have a process that excludes and distorts and
diminishes the institution in the way this process has?
The distinguished minority leader is on the floor of the Senate. I
saw him as angry yesterday and as visibly upset as I think any of us in
our caucus have ever seen him because of his sense of this violation of
process, of the ways in which the rights of individual Senators are
being denied.
Now, people may not like a particular vote around here, and people
may not want to vote because they don't like the fact they have to
stand by that vote, but the fact is, this legislation that comes to the
floor of the Senate today is a violation of our rights, of the sort of
conscience, if you will, that the Senator is talking about, about doing
what is right.
I will go on, if I may, to underscore----
Mrs. BOXER. Before the Senator moves on any further, I ask him if he
will yield for a question?
Mr. KERRY. I am delighted to yield to the Senator.
[[Page S11197]]
(Mr. BROWNBACK assumed the chair.)
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for coming down here
and putting into words what so many of us are feeling--just this sense
of unfairness, not only about the process, which he described so well,
taking what is supposed to be a Small Business bill, hollowing it out
and stuffing it full of other issues, leaving out the people who are
supposed to be involved, but also the substance of what is actually in
this bill.
I want to probe him on one question. Is the Senator aware that tens
of billions of dollars in this bill are going to the HMOs, and there is
not one string attached that the HMOs have to serve the senior citizens
who they kicked out of Medicare?
We are giving bags of money to one of the most unpopular businesses
in America today because they do not treat people fairly, without one
requirement that they take these seniors home again and give them
health care again.
I say to the Senator, you have seen it in your State and I have seen
it in my State, where seniors were told: Join this HMO through
Medicare. You won't have any copayments. You will be fine, only to wake
up in the morning and be kicked out.
Could my colleague talk about the fairness or unfairness of that?
Mr. KERRY. May I say to my friend from California, she is one of the
champions in the Senate for that kind of fairness and for her
sensitivity to the notion of what happens to our seniors. Obviously in
California it is vital to have that kind of sensitivity.
Let me underscore what she just said, because not only do the tens of
billions of dollars go to the HMOs in a disproportionate share--one-
third in the first 5 years, 50 percent in the second 5 years--the
Senator from South Dakota, the distinguished minority leader, led an
effort in the Senate to try to secure $80 billion as the appropriate
balanced budget fix here, with a recognition that we would do away with
the 15-percent cut which has been mandated inappropriately by almost
everybody's agreement.
What we are winding up with is $30 billion, which has now been
divided by the majority party completely inappropriately to one of the
greatest sources of the problem in the delivery of health care in the
country.
What is absolutely extraordinary in this situation is that, as the
Senator from California mentions, there is only one sort of minor
requirement here about what kind of behavior the HMOs might be held to.
All of us in the Senate have been fighting for months to try to get a
Patients' Bill of Rights and establish a real set of principles and
standards by which people in the United States will know what they are
going to get from HMOs, what they can expect from HMOs, and how they
will be treated by HMOs. But here we are with a great big grab bag
giveaway to the HMOs, without any of those standards being embraced
here.
If you want to talk about the conscience, and doing what is right,
which is what the Senator from Nebraska talked about, here is an
incredible example of the way in which they have sort of flagrantly
chosen how to satisfy their constituencies, their sense of who ought to
get something, and have left out completely the rights we have been
fighting for that would have accrued-- the basic rights, a woman's
right to know she can keep her own OB/GYN she has had for a number of
years, a person's right to go to an emergency room of their choice, a
right to a second opinion. Think about that, to get a second opinion
and not to have some HMO bureaucrat in a State that isn't even
associated with your particular health care problem not make the
decision but have your doctor make a decision. We can't even come to
the floor of the Senate and do that here. We have to give away money to
the folks who already have health care rather than taking care of the
people who are uninsured which could be done cheaper.
In fact, what the President says in his letter is really interesting.
I will share this completely with my colleagues as we put it into the
Record.
The President said, before this came to the floor, before we were put
in the predicament of having to vote against something that has a lot
of good in it, many of us like components of what is in this bill. Many
of us worked hard to get components of this bill. We are going to be
forced to vote against it because of the fundamental unfairness. The
President of the United States makes that very clear in his letter. I
will continue to read what the President says to both leaders:
Instead you put forward a series of tax cuts that,
particularly when standing alone, would be inequitable,
inefficient, and even potentially counterproductive to health
care policy. For example, while our FamilyCare proposal would
expand coverage to 4 million uninsured parents at a cost of
slightly over $3,000 per person, your proposal would provide
additional coverage to one-seventh the people at six times
the cost per person. Moreover, your proposal would give the
least assistance to moderate income families that need the
help the most, while even raising concerns that those with
employer-based coverage today could lose their insurance.
Similarly, on long-term care, I offered to embrace your
proposed deduction for long-term care insurance in exchange
for inclusion of my proposal to give families, who are
burdened today by long-term care needs, a $3,000 tax credit.
That sounds pretty bipartisan to me. The President said: I offered to
embrace your proposed deduction if you would embrace my effort to give
families who have long-term care problems a $3,000 tax credit.
What happens? Rebuffed.
The President says:
Unfortunately, your legislation ignores the bipartisan
package I suggested and instead would provide half the
benefits of my proposal for financially pressed families
trying to provide long-term care for elderly and sick family
members. Surely we can agree on this bipartisan compromise
that has already been endorsed by a broad array of members of
Congress, advocates for seniors and people with disabilities
and insurers. Similarly, I am perplexed that we cannot agree
to include the bipartisan credit for vaccine research and
purchases that is essential to save lives and advance public
health.
Let me say a word about that, if I may, because I wrote that
legislation. We have been struggling in the Congress to get this
considered. I wrote it with Senator Bill Frist. This is an effort to
try to guarantee that the great AIDS crisis will be properly addressed.
Millions of people are dying in Africa, countless hundreds of thousands
are affected here in our own country by this ravaging disease.
Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical companies have no incentive because
people in those countries cannot afford to buy the drugs. It is much
more profitable to produce Viagra or any number of other drugs that are
advertised now--Claritin, whatever. There are a whole set of drugs that
have quick return and that make money. But poor countries cannot afford
to buy these drugs.
We have already passed into legislation funding of some $500 million
for AIDS vaccine distribution across the world. The problem is that
there is no vaccine today, and there won't be a vaccine unless the
companies have an incentive and a capacity to be able to develop it. It
is not only AIDS, incidentally, it is also for tuberculosis, for
malaria. There are infectious diseases for which we could have further
research in terms of vaccine development.
What we want to do is provide the companies with a tax credit and the
capacity to do that. It has broad bipartisan support. It is only $1.5
billion over 10 years. But that is not even in here. That is ignored in
here. The President of the United States is suggesting it ought to be
in here. They are perfectly prepared to take a huge percentage of the
$30 billion and give it to the HMOs, but they are not prepared to
provide the $1.5 billion in an effort to provide incentives foe AIDS
vaccine research.
The President also says:
I also am disappointed that you have made virtually no
attempt to address the concerns my Administration has
expressed to you about the pension provisions of your bill.
By dropping the progressive savings incentives from the
Senate Finance Committee bill, you have failed to address the
lack of pension coverage for over 70 million people.
Moreover, employers may have new incentives to drop pension
coverage for some of the low- and moderate-income workers
lucky enough to have pension plans today.
Finally, I remain deeply concerned that your Medicare and
Medicaid refinement proposal continues to fail to attach
accountability provisions to excessive payment increases to
health maintenance organizations (HMOs) while rejecting
critical investments in beneficiaries and vulnerable health
care providers. Specifically, you insist on an unjustified
spending increase for HMOs at the same time as you exclude
bipartisan policies
[[Page S11198]]
such as health insurance options for children with
disabilities, legal immigrant pregnant women and children,
and enrolling uninsured children in schools, as well as
needed payment increases to hospitals, academic health
centers, home health agencies, and other vulnerable
providers. Congress should not go home without responding to
the urgent health needs of our seniors, people with
disabilities, and children and the health care providers who
serve them.
I read the newspapers today, and I saw a fairly typical sort of
Washington response from someone on the other side of the aisle
suggesting that the President's veto of this bill was somehow going to
provide them with an upper hand in the last weeks of this election
cycle. This is not about the last week of the election. This is about
fundamental policy, which the President has described in this letter,
which goes directly to the question of how this country is going to
provide for health care for our citizens. There are 44 million or so
Americans who have no health care whatsoever. What about them?
Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a moment?
Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield to the distinguished leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank him and commend him for his powerful statement
and the eloquence with which he has described our current circumstance.
I appreciate especially his interest in reading into the Record many
of the concerns the President expressed in his letter to all of us
yesterday. I also appreciate his contribution to the caucus as we have
attempted to work through how we ought to respond to this very unusual
set of circumstances. He is our ranking member on the Committee on
Small Business. He indicated to me yesterday that there was no
consultation prior to the time this conference report was brought to
the Senate. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he could elaborate
first on what consultation, what degree of communication there was in
coming to the floor and in talking about this bill. To what extent was
his signature sought prior to the time we came to the floor?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will gladly respond to the distinguished
leader's question. I went into this a little bit before he came. Let me
repeat: The distinguished Senator from Missouri and I worked hard on
the small business components of this. But there was no consultation
whatsoever, no phone call, no request for signature, no meeting, no
discussion even about this bill being used, at least with this Senator,
as the vehicle for these components being put in it. We were not in the
room. We didn't know where the room was. We weren't even asked whether
or not this was something we might or might not object to or what the
impact might be on the bipartisan efforts that had taken place to have
a complete small business reauthorization bill.
Moreover, the bill that comes to the floor today is not even the same
small business reauthorization that we worked on. It has been changed,
again, we had no consultation and no part.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts this: Obviously,
there are many times when we are called upon to vote. But I have never
heard of a time when the ranking member of a conference was denied even
access to the text of whatever it was he was conferencing on.
Let me ask the Senator from Massachusetts, has he now seen a copy of
the conference report?
Mr. KERRY. I have it right here, Mr. President. I tell the leader I
do now have a copy of it.
Mr. DASCHLE. Is it the Senator's understanding that the entire
conference report is what we have in our hands--two pages?
Mr. KERRY. It is two pages with two signature pages, and the joint
explanatory statement of the committee--about five pages. I will show
it to my colleague. I had no input on this explanatory statement and it
is hard to explain, but it is just a small paragraph to describe the
hundreds of pages mention on by reference in this report.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am really amazed and somewhat amused.
As you look at this so-called conference report, one could almost read
it in less than a couple of minutes. I won't do that. But I find it
interesting, and I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he could share
his observations with regard to the way this conference report was
written. This is no conference report. This is nothing more than a list
of references to other bills proclaiming it to be a conference report.
This says:
The provisions of the bills of the 106th Congress are
hereby enacted into law: H.R. 5538, H.R. 5542, H.R. 5543,
H.R. 5544, H.R. 5545.
So ends the conference report. That is the most remarkable thing. I
just can't imagine that anybody would be willing to put their signature
to a conference report which does nothing more than reference other
bills. This is the conference report--or a representation of the
conference report. This is what it should look like. What I hold in my
hands is how thick the conference report should be. Yet as thick as
this is, they could not even get it right. We actually terminate the
minimum wage in this conference report. I wonder whether the Senator
from Massachusetts is aware of that and could respond to how that could
have happened.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished leader, I
only learned that this morning having had limited time to review it.
Well, it either happened purposefully or by accident. Either way, that
is not the intent of the Congress with respect to the minimum wage. I
understand that it is a 6-month termination of the minimum wage, which
I hope is by accident. But if it is, it represents the craziness and
the sloppiness of the way in which this has come to the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Well, as I say, I note in amusement, the Senator spent
some time talking about the President's veto letter, and I am amused in
part because the Speaker has already addressed the veto letter and was
asked yesterday if Republicans would be willing to rework the tax cut
bill after a veto. He responded--I hope colleagues will listen--that
any new legislation would have to go through committee, and anything
else would amount to half--I will call it ``half-baked'' legislation.
He has another term, but I don't think I want to dignify it this
morning.
Anything other than a committee process is half-baked, according to
the Speaker. Maybe that is how we leave out minimum wage
reauthorization. Maybe that is how we leave out Democratic proposals,
as the Senator from Nebraska had offered in the committee, along with
others, to make this more fair. Maybe that is how it happens. Maybe you
don't produce a bill this thick because you don't care about fairness;
you don't care about getting it right.
I ask the Senator from Massachusetts whether he would care to observe
whether he has had, in his experience as ranking member, a time when he
has ever seen legislation coming to the floor in this form, leaving out
provisions that literally nullify a law that has been standing now for
almost 70 years?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I voiced my concern about this to the
leader yesterday and a number of times previously--that this is not the
way to legislate. I think most of us understand that. I think it really
calls to question the sort of good-faith, bipartisan efforts our
friends often talk about. There is a simple matter of courtesy with
which this institution and any institution essentially needs to run. I
don't like to say this, but I have to say that it just sort of runs
roughshod over anybody's notions of decency that there isn't even a
phone call, there isn't even a discussion. Is there a way to work this
out? Can we sit down? Can we have a meeting? What is possible here?
None of those questions were asked--just an assumption that this is the
way we are going to do it and we are going to proceed forward. I just
think it is destructive and unfortunate.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts whether he shares
my observation that it comes down to a question, as he said, of
fairness. We are talking about whether or not this process is fair,
whether or not, with all of the talk of bipartisanship in the
Presidential campaign, there is any element of fairness or
bipartisanship in the way this process has unfolded; whether or not
there is fairness in a school construction proposal that leaves out
over 90 percent of the school construction opportunity and need we have
in this country; whether or not it is fair to provide more benefits to
the top 5 percent of all taxpayers than the bottom 80 percent as
represented in this bill; whether or not it is fair to give a third of
all the benefits we are
[[Page S11199]]
providing in BBA back to the HMOs as ransom payments to stay in States
that they have already proclaimed they will not do. I ask the Senator
from Massachusetts whether he doesn't agree that really the essence of
this argument, the essence of this debate is a question of fairness.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I believe the eloquent questions asked by
the Senator from South Dakota make their own answers. I think any
American dispassionately making a judgment about this process and
looking at this legislation and measuring its impact would come to the
conclusion that the fundamental sense of fairness, that the
distinguished leader is talking about, is absent.
I am sure the distinguished majority leader, who is standing here,
will have his response, and I understand that. He is going to suggest,
wait a minute, fairness is fairness. But here is a letter from the
President of the United States. The President of the United States says
if we do this, he is going to veto this. He has proven previously he is
prepared to veto bills when he says he will.
It seems to me that if we are not looking for a political issue, if
we really want to legislate, we would sit down with the President of
the United States and say, OK, Mr. President, we are prepared to offer
this; let's have an agreement. But the President says that even his
offer--I want to reemphasize this--even his offer was refused. The
President says on long-term care:
I offered to embrace your proposed deduction for long-term
care in exchange for inclusion of my proposal to give
families who are burdened today by long-term care needs a
$3,000 tax credit.
Let me ask my colleagues this: Long-term care, I have become
particularly familiar with that over the course of the last year and a
half. My father passed away last July and he had considerable care, as
my mother does today. It is expensive. We are fortunate that we can pay
for it. But it taught me firsthand what happens to those families who
can't and how extraordinarily expensive and difficult it is. We have
driven families out of hospital care and we have driven them out of
nursing home care. We have increasingly, through the creation of the
drugs we have in this country, made it easier for people to be treated
at home and be kept out of the hospital. But here we are denying people
the capacity to have a $3,000 tax credit for long-term care. Why? So
you can give more money back to the HMOs. Where is the fundamental
sense of fairness? The President of the United States offered to the
majority party the chance to say let's compromise. And what happens? We
get legislation coming to the floor that seeks to just stuff it to the
President of the United States and stuff it to the rest of us here and
stuff it to the American people.
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question, Mr. President?
Mr. KERRY. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mrs. BOXER. I am sitting here listening carefully to the Senator from
Massachusetts, to my Democratic leader, and others. I realize why the
Senator started out with the word ``fairness'' and why this bill is so
unfair. I wish to just ask one question. I wonder if my friend has seen
the Washington Post analysis of this particular tax bill entitled
``Businesses Poised To Benefit From Bills.''
I wanted to point out an irony and see if my friend doesn't agree,
the irony of calling this a small business bill; in other words, they
have hollowed out the small business bill. But let's look at what they
have done. And I will be very brief, but I think it is important. It
says, ``From the National Association of Broadcasters and defense
contractors to the racetrack industry, to tobacco companies, business
interests are poised to reap large benefits from the small print of
Republican-backed bills that were moving through Congress yesterday.''
Looking at several of the bills, it goes on to say--and again I will
be brief--``But those benefits pale''--those benefits pale--``in
comparison with the ones lavished on medical care providers,'' the
HMOs. Those pale. So they gave to the tobacco industry; they gave to
the defense contractors; they gave to the broadcasters. We know how
they are all suffering. And those benefits pale in comparison with what
they gave to the HMOs. So when the Vice President is out there talking
about fairness and talking about fighting for people, this proves his
point. When Democrats are locked out of the room--and we know they
were--who walks away with the sacks of money but the HMOs that have
been hurting our people.
So I think my friend has really laid out the case. And by the way,
the Post points out there are many other special interests hanging
around these corridors. They are unhappy they were left out of the mix,
and they are listed here--the lobbyists in their pinstripe suits
standing around here waiting to get in, waiting to get some of the
benefits.
So I just wonder at the irony of the situation. I notice my friend is
not wearing a pinstripe suit himself today. But the bottom line here is
giveaways to those who have, asking nothing in return, giveaways to
those who are hurting the senior citizens, kicking them out of the HMOs
because they say Medicare doesn't pay enough. They get billions of
dollars back. Nothing is really asked of them to walk away with those
sacks of money. And all they are doing with the so-called small
business bill is giving breaks to big business. I say to my friend, he
is right to be upset on this point.
Mr. KERRY. Well, I may say to the Senator from California--and I know
the majority leader is going to point this out to us--we have a rule
here, rule XXVIII, and I am confident he is going to talk about that
and he is going to say, well, the Senate created a situation whereby
this rule was replaced by a precedent allowing an unfortunate process
whereby a piece of legislation like this ``can happen.'' That goes to
what the Senator from Nebraska was talking about--the legal authority
versus the sense of conscience and the question of what is right and
what is wrong.
It also goes to the question of how one gets things done. I will
readily acknowledge that there is a ``precedent'' that allows last
minute things to happen in the context of a conference. But the
precedent and the rectitude with which it might be legitimately used
does nothing to wipe away the question of the sort of moral or
political legitimacy within the context of this institution or our own
politics. When the President of the United States sends a letter and
says: Don't do this; I will veto it because it is fundamentally unfair,
but nevertheless people go ahead and proceed to do it anyway, that
really calls into question motive, purpose, outcome, and why we are
here today in this situation.
So I am going to readily acknowledge, sure, you can use some
technicality of legitimacy to say it, but it is not legitimate in the
larger context of what we are trying to get done. It is not legitimate
when measured against the judgment of most Americans about what is fair
and right.
It is clear that we have a health care delivery system problem. We
have millions of Americans who have no insurance whatsoever. The
President offered a way, a far less expensive way than that which has
been exploited by the majority party, to provide care to those
citizens. In his letter--and I want to emphasize this--the President
says very clearly, ``Our family care proposal would expand coverage to
4 million uninsured parents at a cost of slightly over $3,000 per
person. Your proposal''--this is the proposal of the majority side--
``would provide additional coverage to one-seventh the people at six
times the cost.'' One-seventh of the people at six times the cost.
That is what this fight is about. It is about uninsured people versus
people who are insured. It is about unintended consequences, or maybe
vague results. If you give a health care tax credit to people who
already have coverage, you are giving an incentive to corporations that
provide that coverage to turn to them and say we don't need to provide
you with coverage anymore; you now have a handsome health care tax
credit from the Federal Government; go buy your own. And you wind up
reducing the number of those who are covered, not in fact encouraging
further coverage. So there is a complete reversal of policy in a sense
here, and I think it goes to the core of what this particular
legislation is about.
Now, I said earlier--and I want to complete the part of my statement
[[Page S11200]]
about what is going in this bill and why I think we could find a common
ground. It seems to me there is a common ground that could be found.
First of all, the small business provisions are good. We worked at
them, hard. I might also emphasize that the hard work is one of the
reasons that they are good--and I congratulate the Senator from
Missouri, Mr. Bond, and his staff for this--we worked together in order
to try to accommodate people. We accommodated the Senator from
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, on one component, which was a very important
part of expanding the reach of programs into low-income communities,
and that was how we came to a consensus agreement of bipartisanship
within our committee.
But, again, without my knowledge, without one Senate Democrat being
there, that entire provision was thrown and traded away in the middle
of the night, in a room that I still do not know where it was, with
those people who met without even inviting us. The consensus that had
been built for the small business bill was traded away in exchange for
other items that are in this legislation. I say to my colleagues,
respectfully, that is not the way to build consensus. That is not the
way to encourage the capacity to have agreement in the final results
here.
There are important provisions in this bill. Provisions which I
worked to include and worked with other members to get included. There
is a reauthorization of the National Women's Business Council at $1
million a year. That is important. We should be doing that together. It
enhances the procurement opportunities for women-owned businesses. We
built an important consensus on that. We should be doing that together.
It reauthorizes the very small business concerns program. We worked
hard for that. We should be doing that. It reauthorizes the Socially
and Economically Disadvantaged Business Program, it extends the SBA's
cosponsorship authority, and it has important provisions to increase
veteran owned businesses. There were important changes to the Microloan
Program, which I included, specifically provisions that increased the
maximum loan amount from $25,000 to $35,000, and increasing the average
loan size to $15,000. These are important provisions that we worked on
together. Its not a perfect document, but it has the support of nearly
all members, because we all had a stake in it and were a part of the
process.
There are good things in this bill. I regret the fact that I am put
in the unfortunate position of having this sort of nonlegislative
process crowd in on the legislative process and take away our ability
to promptly pass important legislation for small businesses in this
country. I regret that the Wellstone provision that would have created
a 3-year $9 million pilot project to build the capacity of community
development venture capital firms through research and training and
management assistance was stripped out without our knowledge or
consent. Again, without sort of our consent or participation
whatsoever.
But let me focus finally, if I may, on underscoring a couple of
aspects about the bipartisanship here. I introduced legislation earlier
this year, with my distinguished colleague from Maine, Senator Collins,
to try to address the lack of adequate funding for one specific service
on which seniors depend, and that is home health care. We both shared a
belief--shared by almost all of our colleagues in the Senate--that the
crisis in home health care is becoming so glaring that we ought to be
able to build a bipartisan consensus here to do something about it. And
we laid out a sense of how the Senate could do that.
Unfortunately, in this legislation, we see a reluctance to try to
properly address that home health care component, coupled with the
nursing home care component--again, in favor of the HMOs themselves
which have cut some 400,000 seniors from coverage in the course of the
year.
We laid out the picture for the Senate: Funding for home health care
has plummeted since enactment of the BBA of 1997. The original cuts in
home health care payments included in the BBA totaled $16 billion, but
estimates now show that the industry will sustain a cut in Medicare
reimbursement of more than 4 times that--$69 billion. According to CBO,
Medicare spending on home health care dropped 45 percent in the last
two fiscal years--from $17.5 billion in 1998 to $9.7 billion in 1999--
far beyond the original amount of savings sought by the BBA. The
draconian cuts in home health care services mirror the cuts in funding
for hospitals and nursing homes. These cuts have created a crisis in
our country.
And many of us worked across the aisles to do something about it. But
we didn't have a seat at the table when the BBRA was put together.
And I ask you, has the Majority responded adequately to this crisis?
Have they provided, in the BBRA, sufficient funds to strengthen our
local hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies. No, they have
not.
What, then, in spite of the obvious needs for remedies, what do the
Republicans, do with the $30 billion in funding that they provide in
the BBRA? Who benefits from this restoration of funding? Would you
believe that the primary recipients of the increased Medicare funds are
HMOs? That's right, the same HMOs who have dropped, this year alone,
400,000 seniors from their health plans because they could not turn a
profit caring for the aged. The same HMOs that fight tooth-and-nail
against adopting a Patient Bill of Rights which would ensure Americans
have basic rights to quality health care.
The $30 billion in Medicare this add-back package is too heavily
targeted at HMOs. Over the first 5 years, one-third of all of the
relief in this bill goes to HMOs; over the second 5 years one-half of
the relief goes to HMOs.
It is unconscionable to bolster Medicare funds for HMOs at the
expense of our community hospitals, nursing homes, and home health
agencies--providers that do not pick-up and leave a community just
because they are not making a profit. HMOs' treatment of seniors has
been deplorable--having dropped 400,000 from their plans this year--and
should not be rewarded.
Yet that's all this bill does--and my hope is that after this bill is
vetoed, when Congress returns, that we'll be able to do in home health
care relief what we should have been doing all along--providing a
meaningful lifeline to these home health care agencies which make such
difference in the lives of our seniors.
Vaccines for the New Millennium Act--Omitted from Final Tax Package.
I want to also talk about an issue that I have worked on for 2 years,
in one of the best bipartisan efforts I have been a part of in my 16
years here.
Democrats and Republicans have negotiated together for the past 2
years to create a strong bipartisan bill to provide assistance with the
development and purchase of vaccines for AIDS, tuberculosis, and
malaria.
I sat down with Bill Frist, with the distinguished Chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, and with numerous colleagues
on the Democratic side who wanted to address a global crisis having an
extraordinary impact particularly on sub-Saharan Africa.
The Administration was strongly supportive of our efforts--as were
our colleagues in the House.
And yet the Vaccines for the New Millennium Act was dropped from this
conference report.
Let me just share with you what our legislation would have done--
legislation dropped in favor of poison pill measures opposed by many
members on both sides of the aisle:
We aimed to provide a 30 percent tax credit on R&D into vaccines
against malaria, TB, AIDS and any other disease which kills more than
one million people per year. This provision expanded and targeted the
existing R&E tax credit.
It would also provide a tax credit on the sales of vaccines against
malaria, TB and AIDS. Vaccine manufacturers would receive a 100 percent
credit on the value of their sale of vaccine to qualified international
health organizations, like UNICEF, for distribution to developing
countries.
Let me emphasize again why we believed it was so critical to act now.
There is great need for further vaccine research. Every year, malaria,
TB and AIDS kill more than 7 million people. Preventive vaccines are
our best hope to bring these destructive worldwide epidemics under
control. The NIH is conducting vital research at the basic science
level, but private sector pharmaceutical companies have the lion's
[[Page S11201]]
share of expertise in bringing vaccines to the market place. But the
market fails in the case of vaccines against diseases which strike
primarily the developing world. This measure would have addressed this
market failure by reducing the high cost of R&D as well as by creating
a market for the vaccines once they are developed. The American Public
Health Association, the Global Health Council, AIDS Action, the
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy
Coalition, the Alliance for Microbicide Development and the President's
Advisory on HIV/AIDS all support the measure.
And yet it is nowhere to be found in a tax package that found room
for all sorts of complicated tax cuts for those who need them the least
in our society--while ignoring the needs of an entire continent
teetering on the brink of being entirely wiped out.
Our politics can be better than this. We can address the real needs
of a country in Medicare, in the health care crisis of our nation, in
the global pandemic of AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria--or we can play
politics.
This bill is headed for a veto. And it deserves it.
The American people deserve better than this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first, for the interest of all Senators, I
know they are wondering when a vote or votes will occur. It is
anticipated that there will be at least a couple, maybe three or four
votes, within the next 2 or 3 hours. We are not certain exactly what
time that will occur, but I will try to get it started shortly so we
can get to the votes that are needed.
For instance, once again we are going to need to set up a process so
we can get a vote on the very important bankruptcy legislation. As a
result of trying to get on the tax bill yesterday, I had to set aside
an action that had been taken earlier on the bankruptcy reform, and it
is my intention still to try to file cloture on that to try to get that
very important legislation addressed before the Senate completes its
work.
Also, we would need to vote on the continuing resolution that would
take us over into tomorrow.
Also, we would possibly need to move to proceed to the D.C.
appropriations conference report and the Commerce-State-Justice
conference report. Within a few minutes we will try to get those
started.
Mr. President, as to what has been said last night and this morning,
it has been interesting. You know, the American people understand this
is a political season and that tempers get a little short, people get a
little desperate in their actions, and I think that begins at the White
House with the President. I have tried to communicate with the
President, but it is not always easy. He was in New York City the night
before last. He was playing golf yesterday afternoon. He did return the
call I made to him yesterday afternoon, even though I placed the call
the day before to talk about some of this. But he has written this
letter threatening a veto.
So much of this is complaints about procedure, complaints about
``inside baseball,'' complaints about what may not be in the bill. Let
me say to the American people some very important things they need to
hear. Let's not get into all the brush of the way we do business around
here. Let's talk about the result.
First of all, some people may be surprised to learn--some people may
not even like it--but 80 percent to 90 percent of this bill has been
requested by the President of the United States. He wants these things,
and they have been negotiated with the administration. There have been
negotiations between the House and Senate. Once again, that is
procedure. But let me assure the American people there are a lot of
things in here that he wanted that I don't particularly like. Let me
also say there are some things that were taken out at his specific
request.
When you get down and analyze his complaints, it is because he
doesn't think we did quite enough to suit him on this school bond
construction tax credit. There are a lot of people over here who do not
think that what we have done should be in this bill. But there was an
effort made to accommodate a lot of different thinking. But he is not
opposed to what is in here necessarily; he just wants more.
On the Medicare adjustments, lots of people have had input on that.
The House of Representatives had an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote on
that subject. I don't know exactly what it was, but probably 300 or
more for the Medicare adjustments. The Finance Committee reported it
out, I believe it was 19-0. I will clarify for the record these exact
votes. So there has been an awful lot of bipartisanship.
But let's not get all wrapped up in that. Let's look at what is in
the bill. Let's look at what is in the bill that is overwhelmingly
good, that everybody is for, and we are reduced to complaining about
how it got here.
Once again, It's the old saying we are going to defeat the good--no,
we are going to defeat the excellent because we do not like the
procedure or because it is not perfect or everything that the President
wants. We are a coequal branch. He should not expect, and he will not
get, 100 percent of what he wants. No President will--none. But we
worked with him. When you get 80 or 90 percent of what you want, then
most people say that is pretty good. He sits over there or in
California or New York and says: Give me everything.
Let me talk to the American people about what is good about this
bill. Let's not get into the politics and the procedure and all that is
happening. Let us just go down the list and let's talk a little bit
about what is included.
Who among us is opposed to the IRA and pension reform provisions in
this bill? Who thinks we should not raise IRA contributions up to
$5,000 per year?
Who thinks we should not increase contribution limits for 401(k)s,
403(b)s and 457 plans from $10,000 to $15,000? And, by the way, with a
lot of bipartisan requests, another $5,000 I believe is available for
people over 50 for these 401(k) and other plans. There are some 50
modifications in this bill with regard to IRAs and pensions. We want to
encourage people to save, don't we? Who is opposed to this?
By the way, unfortunately, it has limits. This is really targeted at
middle-income and low-income people to encourage savings. The chairman
of the Finance Committee has become the hero of the IRA proposals, the
Roth IRA. Here again, we take one more small step to give people a
little opportunity to save for their needs, for their children, without
the Government saying: Oh, we will tell you how you may do that and we
will limit it. So I think there are pretty good provisions in there.
There is small business tax relief for the one group left in America
that may save us, the small business men and women, those young
entrepreneurs, men and women and minorities who take a chance, people
who start the little restaurant, as the Senator from Nebraska did. He
went out there; he found out about the restaurant business--it is
tough. You have to get people hired. You have insurance costs. You have
crime. You have management problems. You have food spoilage. It is
endless. Bless their hearts.
So we do a little something for small business men and women. I do
not apologize for that. My only complaint is we do not do enough. The
ridiculousness of the request from the administration that we take out
a provision that would have eliminated the .02 percent Federal
unemployment tax surtax--it doesn't take out the FUTA tax, just the so-
called surtax that was temporary, just stuck it on the small business
men and women to boost this fund which I understand now has $22 billion
in it.
So we had a proposal to take off that little .02. That is something
that will actually help the small business man and woman who is working
on the margins, barely making it, a little extra they can keep that is
not needed in this $22 billion trust fund.
Then the tip credit. The President threatened to veto this bill over
the tip credit issue. He is wrong. The Senator from Nebraska knows that
was a mistake. These are people who never had another job, couldn't get
another job. This is a little help for the people who are working on
tips. My Lord, we are taxing tips. If you work hard and you get a
bonus, you pay extra. If you work hard, you do a really good job, and
you get a little extra tip, you pay a little extra. The whole concept
is ridiculous.
[[Page S11202]]
But in an effort to accommodate that, in a conversation I had with the
President himself, we took out the FUTA and the tip credit. I apologize
to small business men and women. I apologize to the workers out there
busing those tables. That was unfortunate, but it was taken out at the
specific request of the President of the United States.
I wanted those taxes taken out, but he would not let us do it. So in
this spirit of cooperation--there is so much rain and so many dark
clouds here about how we do not have more cooperation. Next year, thank
goodness, we are going to have a different President. Hopefully, we
will have a better atmosphere around here. Maybe we can work together.
I believe George W. Bush means that, believes it, and will reach out
and try to bring us together. This is a classic case of where we tried
to accommodate the President of the United States, and he writes this
letter threatening his veto. He may veto it, but the American people
are going to know who did what needed to be done and who vetoed it.
We do have this package of small business tax relief that has been
negotiated by Chairman Roth, Chairman Archer, a lot of input from
Democrats in the House and Senate, and the administration. It also
includes above-the-line deductions for health insurance for employees
in small businesses. This is bad?
What about that restaurant owner who provides insurance for his
supervisory personnel, but he or she cannot provide it for all of their
workers because it would just eat up all the margin of profit he has?
Here you can allow the employees to deduct the cost of their health
insurance. This is a good idea. This would help entry-level workers,
minority workers, people who are carrying the load in this country get
a little break on health insurance. But, oh, no, ``We don't really like
that idea because it is above-the-line deductions''--once again,
explain that to the man and woman down there working in the trenches--
``We ought to have a credit or something.'' This is good, and it would
help people in that low-income area. By the way, we have been hearing
all year long that we have to have a minimum wage increase. A minimum
wage increase is in here: $1 over 2 years, raising it to $6.15. It is
in there. Is the President against that?
Then also there is a provision in here called community renewal. This
would allow rural areas, poor areas to have a chance for economic
development, to have a chance to recruit a little business. The
Mississippi Delta pops into my mind: poor people struggling to get a
little infrastructure, improve their education, get a few jobs in the
area.
Enterprise zones: There are 40 of those, 40 of the new community
renewals. This is a deal, by the way, asked for by the President and
the Speaker. I had reservations about a lot of the provisions, but we
worked through that. This was negotiated with the administration
interminably for weeks and months. It is in here. Some people on my
side think this is not a good idea, but I supported it.
The President made a deal with the Speaker; that is, President
Clinton, in case you do not quite understand, and Speaker Denny Hastert
made a deal they wanted to do it and, by the way, supported by J.C.
Watts passionately. This is a way we can help rural and poor
communities. Let's do this; let's do this. I have been in meetings when
there was an effort to kill this until J.C. Watts spoke up and
everybody went silent. It is in here. Are you against that?
I have tried on this floor for weeks to move the foreign sales credit
fix for WTO compliance. It came out of the Finance Committee
unanimously. I have asked unanimous consent to move it. For some
strange reason, it has been objected to by the Democrats in the Senate.
When you are in the leadership, you have to do some of these things,
and Senator Reid had to object on behalf of somebody; he would not
object. It has been objected to.
What are we going to do here? On November 1, we will have a problem
with our European allies. I do not think they are doing very good,
frankly, complying with WTO, and they are not reacting to sanctions. I
am not going to cry alligator tears over the Europeans and WTO, but
that provision is in this bill. Is the President going to veto that?
Those are four broad categories and a lot of subcompartments about
which I have talked.
The Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has been very supportive of
this concept of encouraging adoption. We should encourage more adoption
for people who are not only wealthy but people in the lower and middle-
income area. This bill doubles the tax credit for adoption to $10,000,
I believe is the number. Is that not good? No, no, that is good.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question on that?
Mr. LOTT. On that?
Mrs. BOXER. Just on that provision.
Mr. LOTT. I did not ask anybody to yield on your side. You all talked
for about an hour. I will be glad to respond later because I know you
care about that and you want to make sure it is available to others.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Mr. LOTT. I wanted to work on that. I told the President the other
day: Mr. President, if there is something in here you don't
particularly like, we can change that maybe in the next bill. Mr.
President, if there is something more you want, let's add it in the
next bill. This is not the be all to end all. This is not the end of
the world. This is a giant step for mankind though. And he is going to
veto it because he does not get every last dot and tittle that he
wants? I do not think that is defensible.
Let me go on down the list. For years, I have been an advocate under
pressure from the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, for farm savings
accounts. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee does not like
this sort of thing. He says it will never end. We have savings accounts
for education, for medical expenses, now for farms. My attitude is, why
not? I never met an incentive to encourage people to save for their own
needs I did not like, and to encourage farmers to save a little for the
bad times because, more than anybody else, they know the good times
when the crops are abundant, weather is good, prices are fine; they do
fine. And then rain, sleet, snow, drought, locusts--they have to deal
with all of it. Allow them to save a little for the bad times. Is that
a bad idea? No, that is a good idea.
Deduction for computer donations to schools and libraries: Businesses
and industries, big and small, are willing to give their 2- and 3-year-
old computers to schools and libraries to help with programs such as
Power Up. Let's power up these kids. Let's use these used computers to
teach them to read and to become computer literate. The Senator from
Michigan, Mr. Abraham, has been relentless in pushing for that. The
amazing thing to me is, why would anybody not be for that? This is
good. That is in this bill.
Deduction for long-term health insurance and long-term health
expenses: This is an interesting category. We have been worried
legitimately about the people who are worried about the long-term needs
they have with their health. We want to do something about it. We do it
in this bill, but when I talked to the President: Gee, I really prefer
a credit as opposed to a deduction, but if you make the deduction high
enough, maybe it will be OK.
When I talked to him yesterday, he said: Yes, you did go up higher.
We are going to nitpick a gnat to death. Should we have long-term
health insurance deductions or not? We have an opportunity here. The
President is going to veto it, flitter it away. I do not understand
that.
I have taken a lot of unkind commentary from my colleagues on this
side of the aisle about the Amtrak bonds credit. The Senator from
Massachusetts knows I have tried to be helpful to Amtrak. I believe in
America, if we are going to be a modern nation and lead the world, we
need a national rail passenger system. I think we need it, I think we
can have it, and I think it can be self-supportive. Maybe not. I think
it can.
I supported Amtrak reform. I stood on this floor--the Senator
remembers--and helped make that happen with some opposition. There were
people ready to pull the plug and say: Goodbye, adios, Amtrak. I do not
think that is wise.
I made a commitment, and I will keep it some day: If we have done
everything we can to get Amtrak in the position of providing the
service, making ends meet and paying for themselves, if we can get that
done, great. If
[[Page S11203]]
we cannot, at some point, we have to say Americans do not support a
national rail passenger system and we pull the plug.
I do not like tax credits, particularly. I prefer deductions. You can
argue this is not good, and I have heard that argument from the Senator
from Texas and others.
Again, Senator Roth from Delaware has made this one of his highest
priorities and so has, by the way--once again, proving the
bipartisanship of this legislation--the Senator from New York, Mr.
Moynihan, the ranking member on the Finance Committee. People come to
me and say: How in the world could you let that in there?
First of all, I am not a dictator. And secondly, how can anybody, any
leadership person, tell the chairman of the Finance Committee and the
ranking member of the Finance Committee that they cannot have in this
bill one of their highest priorities, the Amtrak issue? So it is in
here. Is that bad? No. I think it is pretty good.
We repealed the diesel barge tax. We have modes of transportation
other than Amtrak that are kind of having a hard time--rail and barge.
We have here a 4.3-cent tax we dumped on them. We ought to take it off.
We ought to take it off of the automobile gasoline also.
We expanded the qualified zone academy bonds for school construction.
The President says he wants this. I think we are starting down a track
that is not going to be very healthy where we eventually build all
schools in America with Federal funds. That is where we are headed.
That is where a lot of people want us to be. I do not think that is
good. I think that ought to be done at the local level.
I am willing to give them an incentive through bonds, where they have
to pay the principal, and they get some consideration on the interest.
I am willing to do that. But what some people want, once again, is they
want everything in school, in education, run from Washington. That is
what really is at stake.
Once we start building schools, local schools, from Federal funds,
let me tell you, Mississippi will have the nicest, newest schools in
all of America--all of America--because we have more poor people and
greater needs probably than anybody. But I do not think we should just
totally take over education.
I still trust parents, teachers, administrators, and students at the
local level. I do not trust bureaucrats in Washington at the Department
of Education or the IRS or anywhere else. So that is some of the good
stuff in this bill.
Let me also point out--and I did not even get very much into the
Medicare add-backs. Everything says we need them. What about hospitals?
What about rural hospitals? What about home health care? What about
hospice? What about managed care? What about the nursing homes? They
need some help. This bill provides that.
There has been a lot of bipartisan input on that. If I had my
druthers, I would mix it a little differently. I would put in more for
hospitals and rural hospitals, a little less for probably some other
categories, but it is not just about Mississippi hospitals; it is about
Massachusetts hospitals; it is about managed care facilities in New
Mexico; it is about nursing homes in Kentucky. You have to try to find
a blend. You also have to try to keep it from exploding totally out of
control because it could be $50 billion, $60 billion, $70 billion. I
think this bill is between $28 and $30 billion. It is enough to do what
is needed. And it has the endorsement of many organizations. I have a
list.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in
the Record, along with a letter to Congressman Thomas, signed by the
executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, Rick
Pollack.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Medicare, Medicaid & SCHIP Improvements Act of 2000--Letters of Support
Federation of American Hospitals.
National Association of Community Health Centers.
American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association.
HealthSouth.
National Association of Long Term Hospitals.
Acute Long Term Hospital Association.
National Association of Children's Hospitals.
Kennedy Krieger Institute.
National Association of Rural Health Clinics.
National Association of Urban Critical Access Hospitals.
American Medical Group Associates.
Mississippi Hospital Association.
Tennessee Hospital Association.
The University of Texas System.
National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems.
Healthcare Leadership Council.
National Association for Home Care.
American Association for Homecare.
American Federation of HomeCare Providers.
Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care.
American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.
Visiting Nurses Associations of America.
National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.
National PACE Association.
Association of Ohio Philanthropic Homes, Housing and
Services for the Aging.
John Hopkins Home Care Group.
Patient Access to Transplantation Coalition.
LifeCare Management Services.
American Cancer Society.
Alliance to Save Cancer Care Access.
Intercultural Cancer Center.
The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.
National Kidney Foundation.
The Glaucoma Foundation
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation.
National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
American College of Gastroenterology.
American Academy of Ophthalmology.
American Optometric Association.
American Dietetic Association.
American Association of Blood Banks/America's Blood
Centers/American Red Cross.
Association of Surgical Technologists.
AdvaMed.
GE Medical Systems.
Landrieu Public Relations.
National Orthotics Manufacturers Association.
American Orthotic and Prosthetics Association.
UBS Warburg.
____
Advancing Health in America,
Washington, DC, October 26, 2000.
Hon. Bill Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, House Ways and Means
Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Thomas: On behalf of the 5,000 members
of the American Hospital Association (AHA), I am writing to
express our views regarding the ``Beneficiary Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000'' (BIPA). We believe this legislation
will take another step forward in addressing the unintended
consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA).
Consequently, as we approach the remaining hours of the
congressional session, we are urging Members to vote in favor
of this legislation, and have recommended that the President
not veto the legislation.
As we understand the provisions of the legislation, it
includes a number of provisions that provide much needed
relief to hospitals and health systems throughout the
country. Such provisions include: a full market basket
inflationary update in FY2001, and elimination of half of the
reduction in FY2002; temporary elimination of the reductions
in Medicaid DSH state allocations in FY2001 and 2002, and
allow the program to grow with inflation in those years;
increase the adjustment for Indirect Medical Education to
6.5% in 2001 and 6.375% in FY2002, and establish an 85%
national floor for Direct Graduate Medical Education
payments; equalize payments to rural hospitals under Medicare
DSH; increased flexibility for critical access, sole
community, and Medicare dependent hospitals; increased bad
debt payments from 55% to 70% for all beneficiaries; and a
full market basket update for outpatient hospital services.
The bill will also provide relief to home health agencies
and skilled nursing facilities. As our members operate
approximately one-third of the home health agencies and one
fourth of the skilled nursing facilities, relief in this area
is also vitally necessary, and is an important feature in the
bill. In addition, the bill includes important beneficiary
protections, particularly the execrated reduction in
beneficiary coinsurance for hospital outpatient services.
At the same time, we are disappointed that certain
provisions we have advocated, such a full market basket
increase in FY2002 for both inpatient and outpatient hospital
services, complete elimination of the impact of the BBA's
reductions in Medicaid DSH, and maintaining the IME
adjustment of 6.5% beyond FY2001, were not included. We are
also concerned that additional reductions in the hospital
inpatient market basket in 2003 were included in the bill. We
look forward to working with you in the next Congress to
achieve these additional changes.
Again, we appreciate your efforts to achieve additional BBA
relief this year.
Sincerely,
Rick Pollack,
Executive Vice President.
Mr. LOTT. The list includes the Federation of American Hospitals, the
National Association of Community Health Centers, the National
Association of Long Term Hospitals, the National Association of
Children's Hospitals, the National Association of
[[Page S11204]]
Rural Health Clinics, the Mississippi Hospital Association--very
important--the National Association for Home Care, the Alliance for
Quality Nursing Home Care, the American Cancer Society, the Susan G.
Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the National Kidney Foundation, the
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society,
the American Association of Blood Banks, and so on down the line.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question on that?
Is the Senator saying that every one of those groups were presented
with and have read the conference report and are supporting the
conference report?
Mr. LOTT. I understand those associations are familiar with how this
Medicare add-back provision would affect them, and they are supporting
this conference report.
Mr. KERRY. Just for clarification.
Mr. LOTT. I have a letter from the American Hospital Association--I
believe that is correct; yes, here it is--
On behalf of 5,000 members of the American Hospital
Association, I am writing to express our views regarding the
``Beneficiary Improvement and Protection Act of 2000.'' We
believe this legislation will take another step forward in
addressing the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997. Consequently, as we approach the remaining hours
of the congressional session, we are urging Members to vote
in favor of this legislation, and have recommended that the
President not veto the legislation.
That is dated October 26, 2000, signed by Rick Pollack, executive
vice president of the American Hospital Association.
So you do not like the mix. You think maybe there is too much going
to managed care. But when you help hospitals and rural hospitals, there
is a passthrough provision that adds to the managed care provision.
You do have people in the Senate and from all over the country who
believe the Medicare+Choice is a very important provision. They worked
very hard in advancing their provisions--Democrats and Republicans.
So while it is not perfect--if we took that same $30 billion and gave
it to a Senator from Wyoming, and then a Senator from Pennsylvania,
they would come up with a different mix--after a lot of work, this is
close to being fair to everybody. And again, it is not the end of the
road. There will be another opportunity to work on it further.
I know the Senator from Idaho had wanted me to yield, perhaps on the
adoption credit, or any comments he would like to make.
Mr. CRAIG. Yes. I do appreciate the majority leader speaking to that.
I saw the Senator from California wishing to make a comment on it. I
cochair the Adoption Caucus with Senator Landrieu. We worked together
this year to change the character of the adoption tax credit.
We did not get all we wanted--and I know the Senator has been out on
the floor speaking of concern about it--but we got a great deal. We
went from a $5,000 to a $10,000 tax credit for a normal adoption. But
most importantly, we focused our efforts this year on children of
special needs, I say to our majority leader. And there we went from a
$6,000 to a $12,000 tax credit, and we phased it in more rapidly than
we did the normal adoption.
But what is important here is the character of the adoptions. For
children with special needs, oftentimes their costs up to adoption are
less than normal children because the Government fronts a lot of that
cost. To parents adopting children of special needs, it comes after the
adoption. We tried to characterize this provision a little differently.
And we will do that in the coming year.
No, we did not get all we wanted. But for any Senator to say it is
not good to double the adoption credit on children with special needs,
and to phase it in faster than we are doing for the children of normal
adoptions, somehow is really not understanding what we are
accomplishing.
This Senate, in the last 5 years, has taken a quantum leap to allow
Americans to form families through adoption and to render tax credits.
We did not even recognize it a few years ago. People forming families
the normal way could write off the expenses of their pregnancy and the
birthing of children, but people spending $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 to
adopt a child were on their own. We have said no to that.
Truly, for these children of special need, who are oftentimes almost
unwanted, we have now said to loving and caring people, we are going to
give you a $12,000 tax credit, and we are going to accelerate it.
Come on, folks. We ought to be cheering about this for the formation
of families through adoption. This is a major step in a loving and
caring direction.
No, Mary Landrieu and Larry Craig did not get everything they wanted,
but there is not a Senator on this floor who got everything they wanted
this year. But let me tell you, I am voting for this bill on that alone
because it shows that this Senate cares about children and about
families who want to form through adoption.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CRAIG. I cannot yield. This is the time of the majority leader.
But I think it is important, Mr. Leader, to clarify that. Let's be
proud of what we have done. It is a major and positive step for caring
and loving families who want children through adoption.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know a lot of Senators would like to
speak. I also know we need to again have some votes here in a
reasonable period of time. So I will try to get an agreement on how we
can get some further comments and then move to a vote. I know the
Senator from California had wanted me to yield on that particular
point.
Mrs. BOXER. Senator Landrieu and Senator Craig have worked so closely
together. I am not an expert on that. I just saw Senator Landrieu
deeply disturbed and upset in her view that rather than helping the
people who adopt the most difficult situations, in other words,
children who are disabled, children in foster care, we are going in the
other direction.
I only want to say, in good will, that it looks as if the President
will veto this bill for the many reasons we talked about. I am not
going to, believe me, go into that. But when he does that, maybe we can
go back and fix this problem so we can really celebrate passage.
I am only reflecting Senator Landrieu's distress that she feels that
the toughest cases here are not being helped. That is all I wanted to
say.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's comments on that.
It is something we should work on. We have made progress. It is a shame
we won't have it for the next 3 or 4 months. If the President insists
on vetoing this bill, then I guess we will come back next year and have
a chance to rework this whole area. I presume the tax bill next year,
no matter who is elected President, will look different than this one.
Maybe it would be better from my perspective, fairer overall, but
provisions such as that could be worked on next year. I just hate that
there are going to be adoptions that won't occur if the President
vetoes this bill, that would occur if they had this additional credit.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the
following Senators be recognized for times allotted, and that I be
recognized immediately following those Senators: Senator Gramm of Texas
for up to 15 minutes and Senator Wyden of Oregon for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, all I am trying to do is to make sure that
Senators who have been waiting to speak will have an opportunity, but
also we have a vote that we need to begin pretty soon. I would rather
not do that until Senators have had an opportunity.
I yield to the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished majority leader. I am happy to
allow Senator Gramm to speak before me. I would have to have unanimous
consent that at the conclusion of Senator Gramm's remarks, I be
recognized next to speak, and that I be allowed to address several
issues before there are any votes that go forward. I am concerned about
a number of issues. As the majority leader knows, I have dedicated my
service here to bipartisanship. I happen to agree with the
distinguished majority leader that no one
[[Page S11205]]
ever gets everything they want in a package. Senator Kerry showed that
Democrats are willing to bend over backward to be bipartisan in areas
such as small business. But on a number of issues that concern this
Senator, there has not been that level of bipartisanship. I am
compelled to object and will need to speak at some length this morning
on the several issues that are important to me.
Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will withhold a second, I think the way I
had asked for that consent is that he would be recognized immediately
following Senator Gramm. I was trying to ascertain how much time he
might need.
Mr. WYDEN. If the majority leader will yield further, I am going to
need the time that I intend to consume because one of the issues I am
going to talk about is one of the most sensitive bioethical decisions
of our time. It was stuffed into this legislation a little before
midnight, when a handful of conferees were meeting, and has never been
considered on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's explanation. I
yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for a question.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, with respect to the request, we would be
happy to try to cooperate in terms of order and allowing people to
speak. I am constrained on behalf of the minority leader not to agree
at this point to some kind of limitation on time for our colleagues. If
we could perhaps agree to this: I did want a couple of moments as
manager to respond to the majority leader's comments. I will not take a
long time at all. I know the Senator from Texas has been here and wants
to speak. I think it would be fair to perhaps establish an order. If
the Senator from Texas wants to live with the time, fine; I know the
Senator from Oregon is not prepared to at this moment in time. We can
at least establish an order.
Mr. LOTT. I wonder if we could do this: Maybe if the Senator from
Massachusetts would like a couple minutes to respond, I think that is
fair because he has some comments to respond to what I had to offer.
Then we could go ahead and have a vote on an issue on which we need to
proceed. Then when that is over or during that vote, we can work on an
order to make sure everybody has a chance to be heard, the time that
they need to speak, and we can continue on, having had one vote
disposed of.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, again, on behalf of the minority leader, I
would be constrained to object.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I object.
high speed rail investment
Mr. HELMS. I commend the able Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth)
for including the High Speed Rail Investment Act in this tax package.
I'm glad he agress that we need to develop a national intercity
passenger rail system.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) for his
support for these provisions. Intercity passenger rail service is a key
element of our Nation's multi-model transportation system.
Mr. HELMS. As the Senator from Delaware knows, the Southeast High
Speed Rail Corridor, designated in title 23 U.S.C., Section 104(d)(2),
is a vital part of the national transportation system. Within the
corridor the Charlotte-Greensboro-Raleigh segment plays a crucial and
essential role in linking the Northeast Corridor with other corridors.
New modern world class stations in Raleigh and Charlotte as well as
rail infrastructure investments linked to the Greensboro station will
enhance the safety and efficiency of the system. It is my understanding
that station investments are directly eligible projects under the
proposed legislation.
Mr. ROTH. You are correct. Station projects such as those you
described on the Charlotte-Greensboro-Raleigh line are important
examples of critical investments envisioned in this legislation.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chairman and commend him for his
leadership.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now withdraw the motion to proceed to S.
2557.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The motion is withdrawn.
____________________