[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.

                          ____________________