[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 138 (Saturday, October 28, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2614, 
     CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. TAMMY BALDWIN

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 26, 2000

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of H.R. 
2614. I am deeply disturbed that this legislation was assembled by the 
Republican leadership without consultation with either the President or 
the Democrats in Congress. It is a partisan package of tax breaks for a 
variety of special interests. It ignores the needs of middle-class 
families and does not appropriately deal with the struggles of rural 
and teaching hospitals under the Medicare program.
  This legislation does not contain the bipartisan school construction 
tax credit bond provision that would provide $25 billion in interest-
free school construction bonds to help our crumbling schools. Instead 
it provides far less help to school districts, while giving the 
greatest tax cuts to wealthy bondholders, not average taxpayers.
  This bill also fails to address the marriage penalty and reform of 
the estate tax to protect small businesses and family farms. Both are 
tax cut priorities around which there is broad bipartisan agreement.
  H.R. 2614 does not provide an adequate tax solution for people who 
lack health insurance. Instead, it offers a sham deduction that could 
lead to many families paying more for the health insurance that they 
already have. According to the Joint Tax Committee, the deduction for 
buying health insurance will only succeed in helping about 5 percent of 
the 43 million uninsured purchase health insurance. Furthermore, this 
provision could lead employers to either cut back their contribution to 
health insurance premiums or drop coverage completely for many 
employees. In short, this tax deduction is very costly at $10 billion 
per year, yet has very little positive impact.
  While this bill would increase the minimum wage 50 cents in 2001 and 
another 50 cents in 2002, all other provisions to help workers by 
altering overtime and other protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
have been dropped. Instead, the bill contains numerous small business 
and special interest tax breaks--such as $25 billion for an increase in 
the business meals deduction, repeal of 4.3 cents of the diesel fuel 
excise tax for railroads at a cost of $1.58 billion and a $250 million 
tax break for timber companies.
  Instead of providing relief for those health care providers who 
really suffered harm from the 1997 Balanced Budget cuts this 
legislation would pass along 41 percent of the increase in Medicare 
spending to HMOs. This money could otherwise be directed toward 
beneficiary and health care providers needs. There is not even a 
guarantee that HMOs will stay in the communities they now serve. Each 
dollar that goes to the HMO industry in this bill is a dollar that 
won't go to improve coverage for a Medicare beneficiary or go to help a 
rural hospital remain open.
  I cannot support this inappropriate use of increased Medicare 
dollars. I support meaningful assistance to health care providers and 
targeted managed care payment increases to low-reimbursement counties, 
like many in Wisconsin, in exchange for their commitment to remain in 
the communities they serve for at least three years and not abandon 
seniors like so many have.
  This Congress has failed to pass any meaningful health reform, such 
as the Patients' Bill of Rights or a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit, and instead has chosen to provide tax breaks for special 
interests and millions of dollars in Medicare spending to HMOs. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this bill.

                          ____________________