[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 6 (Monday, February 4, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S263-S274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOPE FOR CHILDREN ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of H.R. 622, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 622) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to expand the adoption credit, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Daschle/Baucus amendment No. 2698, in the nature of a
substitute.
Reid (for Baucus) amendment No. 2721 (to amendment No.
2698), to provide emergency agriculture assistance.
Bunning/Inhofe modified amendment No. 2699 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to provide
that the exclusion from gross income for foster care payments
shall also apply to payments by qualified placement agencies.
Hatch/Bennett amendment No. 2724 (to the language proposed
to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the carryback of certain net
operating losses for 7 years.
Domenici amendment No. 2723 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 2698), to provide for a payroll tax
holiday.
Allard/Hatch/Allen amendment No. 2722 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the
research credit and to increase the rates of the alternative
incremental credit.
Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2732 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to provide a
waiver of the early withdrawal penalty for distributions from
qualified retirement plans to individuals called to active
duty during the national emergency declared by the President
on September 14, 2001.
Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2733 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to prohibit a
State from imposing a discriminatory tax on income earned
within such State by nonresidents of such State.
Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2734 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to provide
that tips received for certain services shall not be subject
to income or employment taxes.
Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2735 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to allow a
deduction for real property taxes whether or not the taxpayer
itemizes other deductions.
Sessions amendment No. 2736 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for economic
recovery and provide for the payment of emergency extended
unemployment compensation.
Grassley (for McCain) amendment No. 2700 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for
members of the uniformed services and Foreign Service in
determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a
principal residence.
Kyl amendment No. 2758 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 2698), to remove the sunset on the
repeal of the estate tax.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, pursuant to the previous order, the
Democrats now will offer the next two or three amendments that are in
order.
Amendment No. 2764
Mr. REID. Madam President, on my behalf, that of Senator Kyl, Senator
Nelson of Florida, Senator Hatch, and Senator Zell Miller, I send an
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. Kyl,
Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Miller, proposes an
amendment numbered 2764.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a
refundable credit for recreational travel, to modify the business
expense limits, and for other purposes)
At the end, add the following:
TITLE ____--PERSONAL TRAVEL AND BUSINESS EXPENSES
SEC. ____01. PERSONAL TRAVEL CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by
redesignating section 35 as section 36 and inserting after
section 34 the following new section:
[[Page S264]]
``SEC. 35. PERSONAL TRAVEL CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the
qualified personal travel expenses which are paid or incurred
by the taxpayer during the 60-day period beginning on the
date of enactment of this section.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed a taxpayer under
subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed $600
($1,200, in the case of a joint return).
``(2) Per trip limitation.--The expenses taken into account
under subsection (a), with respect to any trip, shall not
exceed $200.
``(c) Qualified Personal Travel Expenses.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified personal travel
expenses' means reasonable expenses in connection with a
qualifying personal trip for--
``(A) travel by aircraft, rail, watercraft, or commercial
motor vehicle, and
``(B) lodging while away from home at any commercial
lodging facility.
Such term does not include expenses for meals, entertainment,
amusement, or recreation.
``(2) Qualifying personal trip.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualifying personal trip'
means travel within the United States--
``(i) the farthest destination of which is at least 100
miles from the taxpayer's residence,
``(ii) involves an overnight stay at a commercial lodging
facility and
``(iii) which is taken on or after the date of the
enactment of this section.
``(B) Only personal travel included.--Such term shall not
include travel if, without regard to this section, any
expenses in connection with such travel are deductible in
connection with a trade or business or activity for the
production of income.
``(3) Commercial lodging facility.--The term `commercial
lodging facility' includes any hotel, motel, resort, rooming
house, watercraft, or campground.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Denial of credit to dependents.--No credit shall be
allowed under this section to any individual with respect to
whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another
taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in
which such individual's taxable year begins.
``(2) Expenses must be substantiated.--No credit shall be
allowed by subsection (a) unless the taxpayer substantiates
by adequate records the amount of the expenses described in
subsection (c)(1).
``(e) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction shall be
allowed under this chapter for any expense for which credit
is allowed under this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or
from section 35 of such Code''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking the last item and inserting the
following new items:
``Sec. 35. Personal travel credit.
``Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. ____02. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS
MEAL EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (n) of section 274 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of
meal and entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Temporary increase in limitation.--With respect to
any expense for food or beverage paid or incurred on or after
the date of enactment of this paragraph, and before the date
that is 180 days after such date, paragraph (1) shall be
applied by substituting `80 percent' for `50 percent'.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. ____03. TEMPORARY RESTORATION OF DEDUCTION FOR SPOUSES
ACCOMPANYING TAXPAYER ON BUSINESS TRAVEL.
(a) In General.--Section 274(m) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to limitations on travel expenses) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Temporary repeal of limitation.--With respect to any
travel expense paid or incurred on or after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, and before the date that is 180
days after such date, paragraph (3) shall not apply.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Mr. REID. Madam President, prior to September 11, the travel and
tourism industry employed more than 18 million people, with an annual
payroll of about $160 billion. The industry was the first, second, or
third largest employer--I should say the most, not the largest
employer, but the first, second, or third most important----
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Industry.
Mr. REID. Industry in some 30 States. I appreciate the Senator from
Florida coming up with that word. It is the No. 1, 2, or 3 driving
economic force in those States. It is estimated that travel and tourism
generated $93 billion in tax revenue during 2000 for Federal, State,
and local governments. When our Governors and other State officials
find themselves strapped for cash to pay for such basic services as
education, $93 billion, and the figure has in the past been going up
every year in tax revenues, it takes on increased significance.
During the past decade, travel and tourism has emerged as the
Nation's second largest service export, generating an annual trade
surplus of about $14 billion. This, of course, is no surprise to the
people of the State of California, the State of Florida, and certainly
the State of Nevada. Those Senators who are present now recognize the
importance of the travel and tourism business.
In the year 2000, 36 million people came to Las Vegas through the
airport. It may be surprising, but McCarran Field is busier than L.A.
International Airport. It has more people come and go through it than
L.A. International. It is the sixth busiest airport in North America,
and last year some 36 million people came to Las Vegas through the
airport. This contributed about $32 billion to our local economy,
sustaining approximately 200,000 hospitality- and tourism-related jobs.
Since September 11, these impressive numbers have declined
significantly. According to the Hotel and Restaurant Employees
International Union, 41 percent of the hotel and restaurant employees
in Washington, DC, have been laid off. In Las Vegas, the fastest
growing metropolitan community in America, 30 percent of hotel and
restaurant employees have lost their jobs.
There are similar cuts all over America: Phoenix, Orlando, San
Francisco. Around the country, more than 450,000 jobs directly related
to tourism have been lost, and the forecast for the industry from this
point is not much better.
The Travel Industry of America estimates travel by Americans will
decrease by about 8\1/2\ percent this winter as compared to the months
of December, January, and February a year ago, with a decline of 3\1/2\
percent for the entire year 2001 when compared to travel during the
year 2000. The Travel Industry of America estimates this will result in
nearly $43 billion in lost travel expenditures in 1 year.
Because travel and tourism is so important to Nevada and so many
other States, I believe that any economic security package must include
incentives and other stimulative proposals to get people traveling
again. That is why I have joined with Senator Kyl, Senator Nelson of
Florida, Senator Hatch, and Senator Miller to move this legislation.
I personally believe there are other things we could do to help
travel and tourism. I am one of the original cosponsors of and I am
supporting legislation Senator Dorgan has offered. I am supportive also
of legislation Senator Boxer has offered. But to have bipartisan
support we have this measure now before the Senate, and I think we
should move forward.
There are three key components in this legislation. First of all, a
$600 tax credit per individual and a $1,200 tax credit per couple, at a
maximum of $200 per trip, for the 60 days after date of enactment of
this amendment.
What this would mean is if someone is traveling to Miami for a
convention, they would get a $200 tax credit. This would stimulate more
travel. After the first trip, they would be eligible for a $200 tax
credit; after two trips, $400; after three trips, $600.
This proposal provides a genuine incentive to the leisure traveler to
encourage Americans to get back on airplanes, rent a car, to stay a few
nights in their favorite hotel, enjoy a few meals at their favorite
restaurant. Moreover, by capping each trip to $200, our amendment
provides an additional incentive for travelers to make multiple trips.
The tax credits would be temporary and provide immediate results.
[[Page S265]]
People need to feel good about traveling. I personally feel safer
today flying in an airplane than I ever have. It is somewhat
inconvenient at the airports. We were at an airport yesterday and I saw
someone take off her shoes. My wife said: That has happened to me.
It does not take long to take one's shoes off, and they do not do it
to everybody. It is a random search. I think it is good they are doing
that.
In short, I think we are really getting it down better at airports. I
think we are moving people through more quickly. I was in one of our
National Laboratories on Friday at Sandia, and they have a booth that
you can walk in and in 5 seconds they can determine if you have been in
contact with any type of explosives for many days in the past. The
whole walk-through takes 12 seconds, actually takes 5 seconds to do the
check to find out if there are any explosives.
We are going to start putting some of these techniques in place at
various places around the country, and someday we will have them
everyplace.
We have a machine for sniffing explosives. It is like a little scoop.
What they have now looks like a shovel.
We are getting things down very well. People should feel good about
traveling. We want this legislation to cause people to feel better
about traveling.
The second part of this legislation would be an increase in the
deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses. It increases
the deduction from 50 to 80 percent for 6 months after the date of
enactment of this amendment.
I can use, again, myself as an example. After I practiced law for a
couple of years, the people who ran the law firm I worked for said they
thought I could develop some business and have an expense account. What
that meant to me was I could go out and try to get business for my law
firm. I could take people to dinner. I did not have the money to do
that except for this expense account. With the expense account, I did
that. It generated business for the hotels and the restaurants in Las
Vegas. As a result of that, people had to prepare meals for me and my
prospective clients or clients we already had who we were trying to
keep happy.
People had to serve that food. The restaurant had to buy that food.
It generated business for everybody. That is what this legislation is
about. I never liked that we reduced the meals tax deduction, but it
was done, first from 100 percent, to 80 percent, to 50 percent. We want
to raise it to 80 percent for 6 months. We call for a temporary
increase in the deduction, as I indicated. It would be temporary, but
it would be stimulative.
I believe we got this going--people wanted to make it permanent
because of the entertainment industry. The restaurant industry would
think it was helpful. Increasing the business meals deduction will have
an enormous and positive impact on our Nation's restaurants and the
millions of Americans they employ.
As I indicated, third, restoration of the spousal deduction provides
100-percent deduction for spouses on business trips 6 months after the
date of enactment. This proposal will encourage more spouses to travel.
They will spend additional dollars in restaurants, hotels, rental car
agencies, and travel-related expenses.
This proposal encourages spouses to travel. It is not only family
friendly, but it also encourages the business traveler to spend
additional dollars to help stimulate the economy in Nevada and
throughout the country.
This has wide-ranging support. I have a letter I received recently,
dated February 1. This is from Jonathan Tisch, chairman of the Travel
Business Roundtable. Let me name a few of the participants in this
Roundtable: Detroit Metro Convention Visitors Bureau, National
Restaurant Association, National Hockey League, Omega Travel, United
Airlines, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Las Vegas Visitors & Convention
Authority, Four Seasons Regent Hotels & Resorts, American Airlines,
Greater Fort Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce, Six Continents Hotels,
Diners Club International, IBM, Wyndham International, American
Express, American Resort Development Association--literally dozens of
organizations are part of this Roundtable. They have signed on to what
we are trying to do.
I ask unanimous consent this letter and the attached member list be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Travel Business Roundtable,
February 1, 2002.
Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: On behalf of the 70 members of the
Travel Business Roundtable, I would like to thank you and
Senator Kyl for your leadership in offering an amendment to
the economic stimulus bill to provide much-needed stimulus
for the travel and tourism industry. We deeply appreciate
your efforts over the past several years to call attention to
the contributions our diverse industry has brought to the
U.S. economy, and we are particularly grateful for your
tireless work in recent months to ensure that our concerns
are addressed in any economic stimulus package that moves
forward in the Congress.
You saw first-hand in your own state the upheaval and
economic crisis that hit the hotels, restaurants, casinos,
resorts, convention centers, rental car agencies, shopping
centers, amusement parks and attractions that make up our
industry in the days and weeks following the September 11
terrorist attacks. While there are signs that the U.S.
economy as a whole is recovering somewhat, a forecast of the
TBR Index of Leading Economic Indicators shows that recovery
for our history will be slow over the next two years, and we
will still be unable to regain 2000 levels by the end of
2003. Naturally, one of our deepest concerns is the toll this
may take on our employees.
While we are still assessing the fourth quarter of 2001,
the most recent projections for the U.S. industry show losses
of $43 billion for the year in traveler expenditures and the
loss of more than 450,000 travel and tourism jobs nationwide.
And all the indicators show that there will be further
layoffs in the industry this year. A recent Milken Institute
study of the impact of the September 11 attacks on the 315
U.S. metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) shows that areas
across the U.S. stand to lose more than 1 million jobs this
year in the travel and tourism sector. In the hotel sector
alone, PricewaterhouseCoopers is projecting 18,000 layoffs
this year--that is on top of the 257,000 hotel workers laid
off in the wake of September 11. In addition to those who
lost their jobs outright, there are countless other travel
and tourism employees who are working reduced hours--and
therefore taking home less pay--due to the slowdown in
business, and often their willingness to work shorter shifts
so that their colleagues will not lost their jobs.
As you are acutely aware, local governments and states are
feeling the slowdown in business and leisure travel as well--
both because their coffers are emptying from the drastic
reduction in tax revenues that tourists provide and because
they are struggling to assist displayed workers. A December
2001 report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors showed that
requests for emergency food assistance climbed an average of
23 percent, and requests for emergency shelter assistance
increased an average of 13 percent in the 27 cities surveyed.
They note in their report that declining tourism since
September 11 is one of the factors that is driving up these
numbers.
Clearly, we must differ with those who say that the urgency
for the passage of an economic stimulus bill has passed.
Congress' quick enactment of airline assistance and airport
security measures have gone a long way toward keeping
travelers flying and helping restore traveler confidence.
However, keeping the airlines in business alone is not
sufficient to stimulate travel spending. We believe that an
economic stimuls bill that includes tax incentives for
leisure and business travelers and tourism promotion
assistance will help provide the final boost that our
industry and our workers so badly need.
Again, we thank you, Senator Kyl and your colleagues in the
Senate Travel and Tourism Caucus for your diligent efforts on
this matter, and we are happy to provide our assistance as
the process moves forward.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Tisch,
Chairman.
Attachment.
Membership
Dieter H. Huckestein, President, Hilton Hotels Corporation.
George L. Hundley, Jr., President & CEO, Northstar Travel
Media, LLC.
Noel Irwin-Hentschel, Chairman and CEO, American Tours
International, Inc.
Robert E. Juliano, Legislative Representative, Hotel &
Restaurant Employee International Union.
Jacki Kelley, Senior Vice President Advertising, USA TODAY.
Brian J. Kennedy, Executive Vice President, The Hertz
Corporation.
Thomas A. Kershaw, Owner, The Hampshire House Corporation.
George D. Kirkland, President & CEO, LA. Convention &
Visitors Bureau.
Fred Kleisner, Chairman and CEO, Wyndham International.
Werner G. Kunz, Vice President-Marketing and Sales,
Lufthansa Systems North America.
[[Page S266]]
Jonathan S. Linen, Vice Chairman, American Express Company.
Joseph A. McInerney, President, American Hotel & Lodging
Association.
David Meyer, Editor-In-Chief, Business Travel News.
Scott D. Miller, President, Hyatt Hotels Corporation.
Sandy Miller, Chairman & CEO, Budget Group, Inc.
Marc Morial, Mayor, City of New Orleans.
Steven C. Morris, President and CEO, Seattle's Convention
and Visitors Bureau.
Patrick B. Moscaritolo, President and CEO, Greater Boston
Convention & Visitors Bureau.
Devon Murphy, President and CEO, Carey International
Limousine.
Craig M. Nash, Chairman & CEO, Interval International.
David G. Neeleman, CEO, Jetblue Airways Corporation.
Curtis Nelson, President & CEO, Carlson Hospitality
Worldwide.
Cristyne L. Nicholas, President & CEO, NYC & Company.
Howard C. Nusbaum, President, American Resort Development
Association.
Michael S. Olson, CAE, President and CEO, American Society
of Association Executives.
William J. Overend, Dir., Global Travel Ind. Sales &
Marketing, The Coca-Cola Company.
Paul S. Pressler, Chairman, Walt Disney Parks and Resort.
Lalia Rach, Associate Dean, New York University.
Barbara J. Richardson, Executive Vice President, Amtrak.
John T. Riordan, Vice Chairman, International Council of
Shopping Centers.
Robert Rosenberg, President and CEO, Newport County, CVB.
Fred Schwartz, President, American Asian Hotel Owners
Association.
Lamar Smith, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs,
Visa U.S.A. Inc.
Randell A. Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Smith Travel
Research.
Barry Sternlicht, Chairman & CEO, Starwood Hotels &
Resorts.
Paul Tagliabue, Commissioner, National Football League.
William D. Talbert, III, President & CEO, Greater Miami
CVB.
Robert S. Taubman, CEO/President, Taubman Centers, Inc.
Jonathan M. Tisch, Chairman & CEO, Loews Hotels.
Daniel R. Tishman, President & COO, Tishman Construction
Co.
Ron Wagner, President, Association of Corporate Travel
Executives.
Paul Whetsell, Chairman & CEO, MeriStar Hotels & Resorts,
Inc.
Tom Williams, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Universal Studios Recreation Group.
Scott Yohe, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs,
Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Tim Zagat, Co-Chair and Publisher, Zagat Survey, LLC.
Larry Alexander, President and CEO, Detroit Metro
Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Steven C Anderson, President and CEO, National Restaurant
Association.
Sean Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, WH Smith USA Travel
Research.
Adam M. Aron, Chairman & CEO, Vail Resorts, Inc.
Gary Bettman, Commissioner, National Hockey League.
Gloria Bohan, President, Omega World Travel, Inc.
Christopher Bowers, Senior VP, North America, United
Airlines.
Melinda Bush, President & CEO, HRW Holdings, LLC.
Chris J. Cahill, President & COO, Fairmont Hotels &
Resorts.
Sila M. Calderon Serra, Governor, Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
Thomas J. Corcoran, Jr., President and CEO, FelCor Lodging
Trust.
Manuel Cortez, President/CEO, Las Vegas Convention &
Visitors Authority.
John F. Davis, III, CEO & Chairman of the Board, Pegasus
Solutions, Inc.
William Diffenderffer, Vice President, Global Travel and
Transportation, BIS, IBM.
Roger J. Dow, SVP, General Sales Manager, Marriott
International, Inc.
William H. Friesell, Chairman, Diners Club International.
Michael Gehrisch, President and CEO, LACVB.
Laurence S. Geller, CEO, Strategic Hotel Capital
Incorporated.
Vicki Gordon, Senior Vice President, Americas
Administration, Six Continents Hotels, Inc.
Nicki E. Grossman, President, Greater Fort Lauderdale CVB.
Michael W. Gunn, Executive Vice President, American
Airlines.
Bjorn Hanson, Global Industry Leader--Hospitality and
Leisure, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP.
Wolf H. Hengst, President & COO, Four Seasons Regent Hotels
& Resorts.
Stephen P. Holmes, Vice Chairman, Cendant Corporation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I had the privilege of being
a cosponsor of the amendment with the Senator from Nevada. It is
instructive to lay out the reasons as to why so long after September 11
that the Senator from Nevada and others, including myself, are offering
such an amendment with regard to stimulation of the economy and
tourism.
Travel and tourism encompasses 5 percent of the GDP. It generates
more than $578 million in revenues. Travel and tourism, as an industry,
supports more than 17 million jobs. It provides more than $14 million
in trade surplus, and more than 95 percent of the businesses in travel
and tourism are small- to medium-sized businesses. That begins to tell
the story of why this amendment is important to the economy.
Do we think we are in a recession? Yes. All economic indicators are
pointing to the fact that we are in a recession right now. What would
this amendment do, and why is the travel and tourism industry suffering
a recession right now?
Take, for example, the No. 1 tourist destination in the world which
happens to be Orlando, FL. Last week, National Public Radio reported
since September 11 unemployment in the Orlando area of central Florida
has doubled to a 7-year high and that it is likely to continue rising
for some period of time. At the same time that tourism is down, the
corollary central Florida convention business faces a 5- to 15-percent
drop in convention attendance as companies are cutting back in their
travel budgets.
If we want to do something about stimulus, this amendment helps with
a tax credit to encourage people take a leisure trips just for the next
2 months after the enactment of the bill. That, to me, is clearly a
stimulus-type activity for the economy.
If, for 6 months, the bill says we are going to encourage people to
go into the restaurants by being able to deduct business meals as a
stimulus, not just at the 50-percent level but at an 80-percent level,
then clearly that is stimulus in the short time frame of six months.
With regard to the matter before the Senate, I add to the remarks of
the Senator from Nevada my support for this amendment to the stimulus
bill. This is of limited duration. Part of this amendment lasts just 60
days. It will give us an economic jolt as we attempt to jump-start the
economy and get us out of the recession and back into economic
recovery.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I want to repeat something that I
stated over the weekend. It will be my intent to vote against any large
stimulus package at this time. I do so because I believe a stimulus
package right now is not necessary. I believe, when compounded with the
President's budget and other items, it actually works as a significant
detriment to us doing what we need to do, which is have a balanced
budget.
In his remarks last month before the Senate Budget Committee, Federal
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said an interesting thing. I would like
to quote him. He said:
There have been signs recently that some of the forces that
have been restraining the economy over the past year are
starting to diminish and that activity is beginning to firm.
And it appears the economy is stabilizing without the need for a
stimulus.
Among the positive signs the distinguished Mr. Greenspan cited are
that businesses are working off their inventories of unsold goods,
freeing them to increase production and hire more workers.
According to the latest economic reports, the moving 4-week average
of jobless rates continues to dip while the pace of manufacturing
activity throughout our country surges. Unemployment appears to have
stabilized. The manufacturing index is up. The consumer confidence
index is up. Orders for durable goods are up. Most importantly, we
notice a slight increase in gross domestic product. Although it may not
be much, it signals that the worst may well be over.
I agree with Chairman Greenspan's assessment that ``while 3 months
ago, it was clearly a desirable action'' to pass a stimulus measure, we
did not, and, ``fortunately, it turned out we didn't need that
particular [action].''
If you sort of put this in context, the House has passed a very large
stimulus package. The debate is going on in this Chamber on two
stimulus packages. They then need to go to conference, and the
differences would have to be resolved. It is very clear to me that by
[[Page S267]]
the time the stimulus package goes into effect, it really would have
negligible effect.
Although there is still a ways to go before the economy is fully
stabilized and is growing again, I believe we are moving in the right
direction.
I want to point out that now the President's budget has come to the
Hill with very large increases in defense, the end program, if we begin
them, is that we must continue them over the next 5-year period, and
large increases in homeland security, some of which will be new
expenditures and will need continuation in this post 9-11 era. Making
large cuts in many domestic programs with dollars being spent on a so-
called stimulus, to me, becomes even more questionable.
In fact, many of the measures which have been proposed by the
President and which have been under discussion in the Congress over the
past few months are not, to my mind, well calibrated to provide a real
stimulus impact. They add to the tax package we passed this past June.
I voted for it because I felt at the time it was well deserved. The
economy was strong, the surplus was up, and it is not unreasonable to
expect when both of those are present that the taxpayers should be
enabled to keep more of their money. I basically believe that is good
public policy.
However, in September we began to see an unprecedented event add to
our problems. That unprecedented event, of course, has brought on the
need for homeland security and increased defense allocation.
Downstream, this means that these two items can well crowd out also
vitally needed domestic programs. The transportation budget has been
cut dramatically, I understand. Transportation is a stimulus.
Transportation puts people to work. The transportation budget provides
good jobs. I suspect, if that cut goes through, we will find those jobs
will diminish.
There are many elements of the plan the majority leader has proposed
which I believe are important--not for their stimulative impact but as
an issue of basic fairness and past practice for those of us in this
body.
The first is the 13-week extension of unemployment insurance. I would
support this as, again, a matter of the practice of this body. I was
present in the 1990s when we extended unemployment insurance at least
twice that I can remember. That was during the periods of recession.
According to the Department of Labor, every dollar used for
unemployment benefit results in a $2.15 increase in the gross domestic
product. That is the sum total of goods and services in our country.
Today, over 1 million people are unemployed. In my State, that is
over 13 percent of the country's total unemployment. Since September
11, unemployment benefits have run out for 190,000 Californians. Since
September 11, over 900,000 Californians have started receiving
unemployment benefits, which shows the impact of that dastardly event
on September 11.
It is estimated that 300,000 people in California alone would be
helped by this 13-week extension. Nationally, extending unemployment
coverage will benefit more than 600,000 people, and again continue to
revive the economy.
I think we should do it because we have done it before, because it is
the right thing to do, and because it is the fair thing to do.
There is one other part of the leader's package that I would support.
That is the temporary change in the Federal Medicaid Assistance
Program, known as FMAP. That is a formula that provides States with
additional funds to make sure that health care is available to those in
need. It is a measure supported by virtually all of our country's
Governors. It is supported because the recession essentially has pushed
more people into Medicaid. In fact, one study has found that just an
increase in unemployment from 4.5 to 6.5 percent, which is what
transpired last year, adds 800,000 adults, 260,000 disabled, and 2.1
million children to the Medicaid rolls of our 50 States.
I would support the 1-year increase in the Medicaid assistance, or
FMAP, by 1.5 percent to every State, and an additional 1.5 percent to
States with higher than average unemployment. This is essentially the
same proposal that is in the majority leader's stimulus package.
I have submitted an amendment which would do only those two things. I
hope, if the time is appropriate, that I will be able to offer that
amendment. I think these are two elements of the Daschle package which
are worthy of support.
Madam President, I say these words because I have said them in other
places, and I think I ought to say them in this Senate Chamber. It
would be my hope that we could pass the extension of unemployment
insurance and the FMAP Medicaid changes--the FMAP amounts to about $5
billion--and do so as a matter of fairness.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as people who are watching know, we
are in debate on the economic stimulus package with Members on both the
Republican side, as well as the Democratic side, offering amendments to
the underlying bill the Senate majority leader put down about a week
ago. We are going to work our way through those amendments.
I go back to what I call square one and remind our colleagues and the
people of this country there has already been a bill passed in the
House of Representatives, a bill the President said he would sign, a
bill I hope we get a chance to vote on before we finish work on the
economic stimulus package, a bill I hope will become the law of this
land, one that is truly bipartisan and truly is a stimulus. I call that
the White House-centrist stimulus plan.
This bill that has passed the House of Representatives, that the
President said he would sign, is something for the most part that has
been worked out by Members of this body, not the other body, people who
are Republican and Democrat, in the middle of the political spectrum of
the Senate. Since it is bipartisan, since the President had an
opportunity to meet with a bipartisan group and said he would sign it,
before the holidays the House of Representatives went ahead and passed
the bill. We did not have an opportunity to vote on it before the
holidays because of the fact the majority leader sets the agenda for
the Senate, and he did not see fit to bring it up. I will explain this
plan so people know we do have a bipartisan proposal, not only a
bipartisan proposal that would have bipartisan support in the Senate
but one that has passed the House of Representatives and that would be
signed by the President of the United States.
As we think of the 800,000 people who are unemployed since the
September 11 terrorist attacks, there would be some hope for those
people in this legislation. I will name just a couple before I go into
greater detail. One, a 13-week extension on unemployment benefits,
beyond the 26 weeks that States otherwise provide. Second, provision of
health insurance benefits for those people who would have had health
insurance where they were last employed, even for people who did not
have health insurance before they were laid off. They would get some
benefit of that program, as well.
If we can get this passed, it will take a lot of anxiety out of the
daily lives of those unemployed people. A bipartisan benefit is needed
to help dislocated workers. Another has tax provisions and investment
provisions that would actually stimulate the economy to create jobs.
The plan's unemployment insurance proposal represents an
unprecedented commitment to American workers. It provides up to 13
weeks of additional unemployment benefits to eligible workers. An
estimated 3 million unemployed workers would qualify for benefits,
averaging $230 a week. These benefits would be 100-percent federally
funded, meaning the States and the businesses in the respective States
that support the unemployment trust fund would not have to have any tax
increase as a result of what we are doing in mandating an additional 13
weeks.
The plan transfers an additional $9 billion from Federal funds to
State unemployment trust funds. This transfer
[[Page S268]]
provides the States with the flexibility to pay administrative costs
and provide these additional benefits. Obviously, the intended purpose
is to avoid raising their unemployment taxes during the current
recession. We know it is bad to have a policy of a tax increase during
a recession. That tends to make the recession worse.
Also, in regard to the bipartisan White House-centrist plan is the
plan's commitment to provide health care for dislocated workers. This
is something that has never been done at a time this country has been
in recession. This would be quite a departure from past social policies
of our Government for a social contract with our people. It goes
further and wider than any other proposal and gets more help to more
people more quickly than any other proposal. When I say ``any other
proposal,'' I mean all of these proposals are precedent-breaking for
social policy of our Federal Government in helping unemployed people
get partial payment or support for their health insurance.
Several proposals have been put forth before the body. This White
House-centrist proposal actually gets help almost immediately to those
people who need it by getting a certificate at the time they apply for
unemployment that can be used kind of like a voucher to buy health
insurance. It commits over $19 billion to this health insurance
assistance. This is over six times as much money for the temporary
health insurance assistance that was provided under the original
stimulus proposals.
The White House-centrist plan takes a three-pronged approach to
getting health insurance assistance to the people in need. First, the
plan provides a refundable, advanceable tax credit to all displaced
workers eligible for unemployment insurance. This goes beyond the
present policy, COBRA insurance, that people can pay out of their own
pocket once they are laid off, continuing, though, the insurance they
had where they last worked for 18 months. We are through this
legislation allowing the unemployed who had insurance where they
previously worked to continue that health insurance and to have some
help for the first time in paying for it, but it will go to those who
were not covered by the COBRA policy, as well.
The value of the credit would be 6 percent of the premium. The credit
has no cap, so regardless of what the cost was to the employee and the
employer where they previously worked, they will be able to continue to
pay that full policy. Of course, this is available to individuals for a
total of 12 months during their unemployment if that should happen
anytime between the years 2002 and 2003. Individuals can stay with
their employer COBRA coverage or they can choose policies in the
individual market that may better fit their family needs. Obviously,
this makes sense. If you want to lock people just into their COBRA
policies, it forces people to stay with those policies that could be
too expensive to keep when they are unemployed, even considering
subsidy.
The White House-centrist bipartisan bill also includes a major new
insurance reform to protect people who have had employer-sponsored
coverage and go out into the private market for the first time after
being laid off. It makes COBRA protections available to people who have
had only 12 months of employer-sponsored coverage rather than 18 months
as under current law. By doing this, we greatly expand the group of
displaced workers who cannot be turned down for coverage or excluded
because of preexisting conditions. The new 12-month standard is
especially important for people with chronic conditions who have
difficulty affording coverage on their own without the Federal law
helping these people get coverage that perhaps they otherwise would not
get.
The second prong of the White House-centrist bipartisan proposal is
$4 billion for the States for enhanced national emergency grants which
can be used to help all workers, not just those eligible for tax
credits, to pay for health insurance.
Finally, the third prong of the proposal includes $4.3 billion for
one-time temporary State health care assistance payments to the States
to help bolster their Medicaid Programs. We know the Medicaid Program
is an important safety net for low-income children and families and
disabled individuals.
I detract a bit for a moment from my remarks, specifically about the
White House-centrist bipartisan proposal that I hope we get a vote on,
to speak about this $4.3 billion one-time temporary State health care
assistance to help the Medicaid Program. We had a debate last week on
two amendments that were put forth to supplement Federal Medicaid
payments to the States because States in financial trouble are having
difficulty keeping their commitments under the Medicaid Program. Even
though the amendments offered last week were a little bit more money
than what we are talking in the bill that passed the House, and that
the President would have signed if the Senate acted on it before
Christmas, the fact is that the States would have $4.3 billion in their
treasuries right now to take care of some of these needs, except for
the fact that we were not able to bring this bill up on the floor of
the Senate prior to the Christmas holidays.
This seems to be very important because, at the time before the
holidays, the National Governors Association was asking for $5.1
billion of temporary help to the States for their Medicaid Programs.
Obviously, $4.3 billion is not $5.1 billion. But the fact is, we could
have had this $4.3 billion in the State treasuries right now, rather
than having to debate that either in the White House-centrist
bipartisan bill or in the amendments that were offered to the
underlying bill last week.
For instance, I met with legislators in my State of Iowa during the
interim between adjournment on December 21 and our reconvening on
January 23. During that period of time, they were bringing this up with
me, speaking with me about the problems they were going to have keeping
their Medicare commitments and that they really wished they had help
from the Federal Government in this regard.
I had an opportunity to remind them that I had a telephone conference
call with a lot of Republican and Democrat legislative leaders, along
with some administration people of my Governor, Vilsack, as well as
Governor Vilsack himself, to discuss this very issue early last
December at the time the National Governors Association was lobbying
for that $5.1 billion of Medicaid supplement.
I obviously had sympathy for our legislators, knowing that we had an
opportunity to pass this bipartisan White House-centrist plan with the
$4.3 billion in it that would have been in the treasuries of the States
at that particular time. I reminded them that maybe Governors, instead
of working with those of us in Congress who were sympathetic to their
cause, probably should have spent their time talking to the
Senate majority leader about bringing that bill up before Christmas so
this $4.3 billion could have already been in the State treasuries.
With that parenthetical on a very small issue of this White House-
centrist bipartisan plan--that could have passed the Senate because it
had bipartisan support, if we would have been able to bring it up last
Christmas--I now move to discuss the individual income-tax reductions
in this White House-centrist plan.
This is really the stimulus part of this bill. The other part
obviously addressed the need to help dislocated workers, people who are
anxious because they are laid off. There are about 800,000 people who
would probably not otherwise have been unemployed except for the
September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.
This White House-centrist plan would accelerate the reduction of the
27-percent income-tax rate to 25 percent. Otherwise, this 25-percent
rate is not scheduled to go into effect until the year 2007. Remember,
the President signed a tax bill on June 7, last year, which was the
largest tax reduction passed by the Congress in 20 years. That bill,
signed by the President, did reduce some rates immediately. But it also
scheduled various rate reductions in the year 2004 and 2006, both for
all the rates except for the 10-percent rate and also the 15-percent
rate, which were already low and had the benefit of other tax
reductions, such as marriage penalty and child credit, and the
refundable tax credit as well.
So what we do as an economic stimulus in the White House-centrist
plan is speed up from the year 2007 to immediately, the year 2002, that
25-percent
[[Page S269]]
bracket but only that bracket. We do not touch the 35-percent bracket,
for instance, which will not materialize until the year 2007.
The reduction of the 27-percent rate is going to benefit singles with
taxable incomes as low as $27,000, heads of households with taxable
income as low as $36,000, and married couples with taxable incomes as
low as $45,000.
Obviously, what we are trying to do by gearing this rate reduction to
make it permanent immediately, from 27 percent down to 25, is to make
sure that people with incomes as low as $27,000, $36,000, and $45,000
have an opportunity to have less money taken from their paycheck. They
would have that money in their pocket. They could spend it or invest
it. Whatever they do with it, it would be a stimulus to the economy and
probably much more beneficial as a stimulus to the economy than any of
the other things we are doing, particularly including speeding up the
accelerated depreciation for corporations and even small businesses.
I hope it is very clear from my concentrating on the lowest income
that this is applicable to, for the 25-percent bracket, that these are
not wealthy individuals. These are middle-class, working Americans. The
Treasury Department has estimated that the White House-centrist plan's
acceleration of the 27-percent rate reduction will yield $17.9 billion
of tax relief in the year 2002 for over 36 million taxpayers, or
approximately one-third of all income level taxpayers.
Also, business owners and entrepreneurs account for about 10 million
of those benefiting from rate reduction. When you can do things to help
small businesses, particularly small businesses that are not
incorporated, you are helping the people who create jobs in America. So
these small business people will benefit from this rate reduction from
27 percent down to 25 percent as well.
The White House-centrist plan also provides cash supplements to lower
income persons who did not participate in last year's tax rebate. The
amounts would be the same as the rebate that was signed by the
President on June 7 last year: $300 for each individual, $600 for
married filing jointly, and $500 for heads of household.
The advantage of the tax rebate in this instance, on the stimulus
plan, is philosophically exactly the same as we had in mind last spring
when we passed the bill signed by the President with the tax rebates in
it. That was to get money out immediately, particularly to lower income
people who maybe have a tendency to spend it more than people who get
rebates--people who have higher incomes, and stimulate the economy for
the benefit of the demand side of the equation because that also
creates jobs.
So we are talking about individual rate reductions for middle-income
people as a stimulus to the economy, we are talking about tax rebates
for lower income people as a stimulus to the economy, and soon I am
going to be speaking about bonus depreciation for businesses to
encourage investment in businesses, large and small, to have another
way of stimulating the economy.
The 30-percent bonus depreciation is one way of doing it. The small
business expensing amount from $24,000 to $35,000 is the second way of
doing it through business investment. This will further stimulate
purchasing by small businesses.
The bipartisan White House-centrist plan also expands the net
operating loss carryback period from 3 years to 5 years. This will
allow businesses that are experiencing losses to improve their cashflow
by reclaiming taxes paid to prior profitable years.
The plan also eliminates components of the alternative minimum tax
that most often causes corporation taxes to increase during an economic
downturn. Oddly enough, under the alternative minimum tax, when a
corporation's income goes down, it can actually be penalized through
having additional taxes applied to them through the alternative minimum
tax.
I want to make very clear that this bill does not refund any
alternative minimum tax credits that were accumulated over prior years.
For instance, last fall you heard about the first bill to pass the
House of Representatives. That bill has been shoved to the side. It is
not the bill I am talking about here--the White House-centrist plan
that for a second time passed the House of Representatives before
Christmas. But that first proposal in the House of Representatives
would have given cash refunds all at once for the alternative minimum
tax credits.
You have recently been reading--and have discussed, I presume--about
that plan which would have given Enron hundreds of millions of dollars
for previous alternative minimum tax credits.
The White House-centrist plan, which passed the House of
Representatives, as I said, as differentiated from that first bill that
passed the House of Representatives, does not have the refund of those
accumulated tax credits. So Enron would not benefit to the great extent
you have been reading about in the papers. That is not stimulative. We
didn't leave that out because of Enron. Enron was not an issue at the
time this White House-centrist plan was written. We did it because
refunding those tax credits is not a stimulus to the economy. We want
this bill to be a stimulus to the economy as well as to dislocated
workers through their time of anxiety and unemployment.
The White House-centrist package is a solid economic stimulus plan.
It is a compassionate plan that puts displaced workers first, and it is
a bipartisan plan that has votes of enough Republicans and Democrats to
pass. Albeit, I confess, if somebody wants to say they don't want
anything going through the Senate that doesn't have at least 60 votes
to stop a filibuster, this would not have 60 votes. It seems to me that
should not have been an issue prior to the holidays when we weren't
allowed to bring this bill up, when you consider that the former
Secretary of Treasury under the Clinton administration was saying we
ought to have a stimulus package. Alan Greenspan, Fed Chairman, was
saying we ought to have a stimulus package. The President of the United
States and leaders of both political parties in the House of
Representatives and in the Senate were saying we ought to have a
stimulus package. Albeit, what kind of a stimulus package? There was
some disagreement over that. But at the time of adjournment just before
the holidays we had a bipartisan vote to get this bill to the
President, and we weren't able to bring it up.
That was a time of anxiety. We could have put that anxiety behind for
all of these people who are unemployed and we would not be debating
this issue right now.
We have lost, I suppose, 5 or 6 weeks since our adjournment prior to
Christmas. Here we are debating a stimulus package. I hope we have a
chance to reach an agreement and get this completed and hopefully avoid
a conference with the House. But if we have to go to conference with
the House, we will have a stimulus package.
Quite frankly, there are Members of this body who probably thought
before Christmas that we would definitely need a stimulus package who
now may have some question about it, considering the fact that
unemployment last month was stable and because of the fact that we had
a two-tenths percent growth of gross domestic product the last quarter
of last year. Economists tell us they think the economy is turning
around. I tend to see those as good prospects for the continued growth
of the economy.
But the reason I want a stimulus package even in light of all of that
is the fact that most recessions after an uptick--in other words, in a
recovery, there is growth but then there is a downtick somewhere along
the line. Two or three-quarters out, there is a downturn in the
economy, not having an official recession, which is a two-quarters
downturn. If we can pass a stimulus package even in light of what we
hope is an improving economy, it seems to me that we could have an
insurance policy against having a downtick in the recovery as we have
had in most recoveries in recent decades.
We have an opportunity to do for the unemployed workers two things:
One, help them during this time of unemployment with additional
unemployment compensation of 13 weeks, and to help with their insurance
costs that they might not otherwise be able to keep during their time
of unemployment. But most importantly, because workers would rather
have a job than have unemployment checks, we have an opportunity
through the tax rebate
[[Page S270]]
for low-income people, through the 25-percent bracket for middle-income
taxpayers, and through the accelerated depreciation for corporations
and the expensing for small businesses, to create jobs. These workers,
then, would get their paychecks from their own productivity. That is
what the workers of America want.
That is why we should have an opportunity to pass this White House-
centrist bipartisan bill that has passed the House of Representatives.
It can be brought up in the Senate at any time, and we can get it to
the President with the assurance that the President will sign it. That
is what the President said he would do.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2766 to Amendment No. 2698
(Purpose: To provide enhanced unemployment compensation
benefits)
Mr. REID. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk--this is
the Democrats' next in order--on behalf of Senators Durbin, Wellstone,
Dayton, Landrieu, and Lincoln.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Durbin, for
himself, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Dayton, Ms. Landrieu, and Mrs.
Lincoln, proposes an amendment numbered 2766 to amendment No.
2698.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2767 to Amendment No. 2698
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], for herself, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Miller, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Dayton, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Clinton,
and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 2767 to
amendment No. 2698.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To delay until at least June 30, 2002, any changes in
medicaid regulations that modify the medicaid upper payment limit for
non-State Government-owned or operated hospitals)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. DELAY IN MEDICAID UPL CHANGES FOR NON-STATE
GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR OPERATED HOSPITALS.
(a) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in
regulations promulgated on January 12, 2001, provided for an
exception to the upper limits on payment under State medicaid
plans so to permit payment to city and county public
hospitals at a rate up to 150 percent of the medicare payment
rate.
(2) The Secretary justified this exception because these
hospitals--
(A) provide access to a wide range of needed care not often
otherwise available in underserved areas;
(B) deliver a significant proportion of uncompensated care;
and
(C) are critically dependent on public financing sources,
such as the medicaid program.
(3) There has been no evidence presented to Congress that
has changed this justification for such exception.
(b) Moratorium on UPL Changes.--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services may not implement any change in the upper
limits on payment under title XIX of the Social Security Act
for services of non-State government-owned or operated
hospitals published after October 1, 2001, before the later
of--
(1) June 30, 2002; or
(2) 3 months after the submission to Congress of the plan
described in subsection (c).
(c) Mitigation Plan.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall submit to Congress a report that contains a
plan for mitigating the loss of funding to non-State
government-owned or operated hospitals as a result of any
change in the upper limits on payment for such hospitals
published after October 1, 2001. Such report shall also
include such recommendations for legislative action as the
Secretary deems appropriate.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I offer this amendment along with
Senators Graham, Nelson of Florida, Miller, Corzine, Dayton, Kerry,
Murray, Torricelli, Clinton, and Schumer. Our amendment will place a 6-
month moratorium on the final rule issued last month with regard to
Medicaid upper payment limits.
On January 18, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
published a rule that would eliminate a critical payment source for
America's public safety net hospitals.
One year ago, we adopted a bipartisan legislative and regulatory
compromise on this matter. This new rule flys in the face of that very
compromise we made last year.
We have already closed the loopholes that some States were using to
abuse this aspect of the Medicaid Program. We accomplished this in last
year's Medicaid UPL rule by creating three separate aggregate upper
limits, one each for private, State, and non-State government-operated
facilities.
While ending abuses of the system, the rule also allowed a higher,
150-percent payment limit, for payments to non-State-owned government
hospitals. This policy was developed after a lengthy negotiation
process to allow States to pay these public hospitals a UPL of 150
percent of what the Medicare Program would pay for the comparable
services.
The intent behind this policy was to help compensate the safety net
hospitals for the added costs associated with treating the large number
of America's most vulnerable, low-income and uninsured patients.
CMS has the tools and the oversight authority to make certain that
Medicaid funds are spent appropriately. Current Medicaid UPL policy
requires State Medicaid Programs to submit detailed reports on how
these funds are to be used. Now CMS says it is curbing the payment
ceiling because of the potential abuse of the system, but no one--not
CMS, not the General Accounting Office, and not the Office of the
Inspector General--has reported any known abuse of the current 150
percent UPL policy. In fact, only a few States, Arkansas and
Mississippi among them, are operating under the new rule.
The 150-percent limit has strong support in Congress. We stated as
much in last year's Labor-HHS appropriations report, which pointed out
that eliminating the higher payment category compromise would be
disastrous for all safety net hospitals that participate in the
Medicaid Program. Congress also directed the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to refrain from issuing that regulation.
CMS is issuing this change in spite of clear opposition from
Congress, the National Governors Association, and the hospitals that
serve our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. As many of my colleagues,
I hold that the Senate should take a hard look at this issue before we
go back on the agreement we made last year.
The Senate Committee on Finance should have a hearing on this issue
as soon as possible, and we should work together quickly to consider
and enact alternative ways in which Congress can assist the public
hospitals that serve such a large percentage of low-income and
uninsured patients.
In fact, the second part of my amendment asks the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to tell Congress what measures we can take to
mitigate the lost funding that will ensue from this new rule. Simply
put, if we are cutting off the Medicaid UPL program, we must do more to
ensure Medicaid Programs that assist these hospitals are
[[Page S271]]
working properly and that their payments are adequate. With this
amendment, Congress will formally ask HHS for assistance in this task.
I do not know about other people's States, but I have had a multitude
of my smaller hospitals that are now covering even five and six
counties because other close-by hospitals have already closed. They are
in dire straits, and if we put one more thing on their back, which
would be to take away this 150 percent, we are going to put even those
hospitals out of business. This is something that is unbelievable in
light of the economic development in rural America.
I know Finance Committee Chairman Baucus is interested in holding
hearings on the Medicaid UPL. In fact, he had scheduled a hearing on
this issue on September 13. Unfortunately, the horrible events of
September 11 prevented us from having that hearing as we turned to more
immediate concerns.
Some may argue this amendment is not germane to an economic stimulus
package. I wholeheartedly disagree. The public safety net hospitals in
my State and across this country have told me that elimination of the
higher payment limitation or payment limit category will be disastrous.
The No. 1 cause of bankruptcy in Arkansas is unpaid medical bills. In
some parts of my State, such as the rural delta region, the uninsured
population among working adults is as high as 28 percent. What better
way is there to stimulate the economy than helping people avoid
bankruptcy, providing health care in an area where it may not otherwise
be provided?
What industry is going to locate in an area that has no health care
provider? They do not want that liability. Their employees do not want
that lack of quality of life. What better way is there to keep our
small towns and rural areas healthy than to ensure that these hospitals
stay open? In our rural communities, access to dependable medical care
is just as important as a strong public education system. Towns without
hospitals fail to attract a workforce for the economic growth necessary
to keep their economy vibrant and growing.
Last summer, CMS approved the Arkansas Medicaid UPL Program. The
supplemental payments flow directly to the participating hospitals
where they are used exclusively for health care and Medicaid purposes.
These payments have literally been the difference for some Arkansas
hospitals between continued operation or closing their doors. We cannot
tell these hospitals we are going back on our agreement at a time when
they face increased demands as a result of a slowing economy and a
rising unemployment rate and a rising uninsured rate.
Madam President, we depend on our hospitals in times of personal
crisis. We depend on our providers. Now they are asking for our help.
We must not turn our backs on them.
I urge all colleagues to join me today in voting for this amendment,
supporting this amendment; to look to your States and see how
desperately you will be affected if this is allowed to happen. I
encourage all colleagues to join me in this effort. Health care is
probably going to be, if not already, one of the foremost issues we
will deal with in this next year. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
Our hope is through this amendment we can do some good in beginning to
deal with the problems we will be facing in this new year.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I come to the Chamber to talk briefly
about our current circumstances legislatively and see if we might
clarify where we are. It is important for everyone to understand how we
reached this point.
Last fall, the Democratic and Republican leadership, in concert with
the administration, worked very closely together to come up with a
legislative agenda that addressed the needs in the aftermath of the
tragedy of September 11. We worked together and passed a supplemental
appropriations bill that dealt directly with the needs of our armed
services, as well as the needs of New York. We passed it virtually
unanimously.
We took up legislation to deal with the use of force authority that
the President felt he needed. Working on that, along with appropriate
Members in both the House and the Senate, Republican and Democrat,
working collectively, we passed the use of force resolution almost
immediately--and unanimously.
We then took up the airline subsidy legislation. Again, we had to
work through some very difficult questions regarding what kind of
assistance, how fast, and what the criteria would be. We passed along
with it a victims fund for the victims of New York and the Pentagon.
Again, working with that working group and those who were directly
involved legislatively, we passed that nearly unanimously. We had
suggested in addition, of course, we try to provide benefits for
dislocated workers. Our Republican colleagues said: No, let's save that
for another time. We are supportive, we just don't want to do it now.
So we backed away.
We then took up the airport security bill. Again, working
collectively, it came to the floor, and we passed it nearly
unanimously. Again, many of our colleagues raised the concern about the
degree to which employees were still at the end of the line.
We helped airlines. We helped airports. We helped the Defense
Department. We had done as much as we could to respond, but again our
Republican colleagues said: No, let's wait until the end of the line.
We said: OK, we will wait.
We did have a cloture vote, but we pulled the amendment after we
failed to get cloture.
We then took up the counterterrorism legislation. Again, we worked
collectively. It was beginning to be a model that seemed to work fairly
well as we responded to each and every one of the stated needs and the
agenda that both parties shared with regard to responding to the
disaster.
I recall vividly in early meetings at the White House, in discussions
with the joint leadership, that is what we needed to do on economic
stimulus: Let's take a model that worked. If it had worked for all of
those legislative items, it would work for economic stimulus as well.
So let's do it there as well. We could move ahead, we could negotiate,
we could come to the floor. If people had amendments, we could do that.
I recall vividly our Republican colleagues saying: No, on this one we
have to draw the line; we are not going to negotiate. We are going to
use what is called regular order. We are going to send you something
from the House, and you can take it up and deal with it here in the
Senate.
I felt it coming. I knew why we were going to go to ``regular
order.'' The reason is because there was an agenda. That agenda had
many pieces with which they knew we would not be in agreement. They did
not want to negotiate those out before they could roll out that so-
called agenda, and that is exactly what has happened.
The House acted. We had hoped we could get bipartisan consensus here
in the Senate before we moved to legislation. Those were blocked.
Negotiations broke off. We had no option other than to move forward
without the benefit of a bipartisan consensus even here in the Senate.
I find it all the more ironic that some of us are accused of
obstructing when it was we who clearly made the outreach effort at
every level, at every stage, with every group. Republicans refused to
negotiate for 3 weeks last fall. Time was wasting. We had no other
choice but to move forward with the hope that at some point our
Republican colleagues could join us. We now know that never happened.
In the negotiations after we began moving our legislation forward--
and, by the way, we talked to the experts, Alan Greenspan, Bob Rubin,
so many experts during that period from September through October. The
Budget Committee on a bipartisan basis was doing about the same thing.
I found it remarkable, and I remember commenting at the time, based
upon the negotiations and the discussions we had, how clear it was that
the economists, regardless of party, had specific recommendations on
which they were
[[Page S272]]
in agreement. It was clear that the stimulus package ought to be
temporary. It was clear that it ought to be cost contained. It was
clear that it had to be truly stimulative if it were going to be of any
value. Those were the goals. They specified with some frequency that
those goals had to be in place.
I found it all the more disconcerting that when we finally saw the
Republican proposal, there was very little temporary. It was all
permanent. There was very little immediately stimulative. A lot of it
was delayed many years. And while we had all agreed that maybe a $60
billion to $70 billion stimulus package made the most sense, theirs was
about $180 billion, more than twice what was the agreed-upon amount.
They insisted on eliminating the corporate alternative minimum tax.
That was one of those issues they were just determined would be in any
economic stimulus package. They insisted on rate acceleration, even
though the CBO has reported that both rate acceleration and alternative
minimum tax repeal have very little stimulative value. That is not a
Democratic Policy Committee review. That is not a partisan analysis.
That is the Congressional Budget Office. So overlooking the advice of
the economic experts, ignoring the evaluative report of the
Congressional Budget Office, our Republican colleagues have insisted on
a nonstimulative, permanent tax change that is very costly.
We were at this for several months last year. We laid down a bill.
They made a point of order stopping the process from going forward.
They could have amended it, but they made a point of order instead and
stopped the legislation from going forward. Yet Democrats were accused
of obstructing.
In as genuine an effort as I knew how to make, over the period
between the first and the second session, I thought: How are we going
to break this impasse? We could go back and have another rehash of all
the old debate of November and December. We could have brought a bill
to the floor that we knew didn't have the 60 votes. Some suggested that
we take up the House bill. We knew it didn't have 60 votes. That was
not going to break the logjam.
So the idea we came up with was simply to take the components--
admittedly, they were not word for word but they were components found
in both bills--components dealing with extending unemployment
benefits--both parties profess to be supportive of that. After all, in
1992 we extended benefits for up to 59 weeks. In 1982, we extended
benefits for up to 49 weeks. And in 1974, we extended benefits for up
to 65 weeks. Today, we are talking about extending benefits for an
additional 13 weeks. Both parties agreed to that.
Both parties agreed to a bonus depreciation. Both parties believed it
was important to have a bonus depreciation. We differed in the years,
but that was the second component.
The third component was a recognition about the rebate--that some got
it; others didn't. Why not provide a tax rebate to those who got no
help the first time, last year? Both parties addressed that as
something they could support.
And both parties acknowledged in different ways that States are going
to be exposed to huge costs, first, with the bonus depreciation, $5
billion, and, second, costs they will incur in additional Medicaid
benefits they are going to have to pay out as a result of people losing
their jobs and incomes going down. So there was a recognition, No. 4,
that we would provide some assistance to those States.
This is the third week on this bill. One of our Republican colleagues
said no bill is better than the bill Daschle laid down. Madam
President, I don't know where we go. Our colleagues have chosen not to
try to amend the pending legislation, this proposal, but the underlying
bill. Why? I don't know. And they are rejecting this common ground
proposal and have suggested, now, other amendments that have nothing to
do with stimulus in the short term--absolutely nothing.
A couple of examples: Some want to make the estate tax repeal
permanent. That takes place, not now in 2002, but in 2010. The Bush tax
cut passed last year. Some suggest we make that permanent.
That is not a stimulative approach to the economic circumstances we
are facing right now. You can argue philosophically whether they are
good or bad, but what that tells me is that our Republican colleagues
are not interested in an economic stimulus bill right now. I am not
sure why. If they were interested, we would come up with stimulative
proposals that do not permanently amend the Tax Code.
The economic experts told us: Don't do anything permanent, don't do
anything long term, don't do anything that takes place a decade from
now; do something that affects the economy now.
They also said: Try to contain the cost. But making the estate tax
repeal permanent costs $104 billion over 10 years. It would not take
effect until the year 2010. Making the Bush tax cut permanent costs
$350 billion over the first 10 years and $4 trillion over the next
10. That wouldn't take effect until 2011.
Here you have the economic experts saying do something stimulative,
do something immediate, do something that doesn't exacerbate the long-
term fiscal picture. Yet Republican colleagues are doing just the
opposite. They are doing something that takes effect in 2011. They are
not doing something temporary. They are doing something permanent. They
are racking up debt.
On those two issues alone, we are talking about $350 billion in the
first 10 years alone and $4 trillion in the second 10 years when the
baby boomers retire. That is just permanent tax cuts, and much of this
is Social Security and Medicare money that we are talking about.
We only have two choices. The first choice is to pass them. The
second choice is to block them. Those are the only two choices.
It appears the Republicans want to block them. You don't need to be
on an economic stimulus bill for 3 weeks. They all tell me it is
important for us to take up the agriculture bill. I am told it is
important to take up the election reform bill. We all heard the
passionate speeches about taking up the energy bill. The longer we are
on the economic stimulus bill, the longer it will be before we can take
up these other very important pieces of legislation.
I know there is plenty of opportunity for the blame game. How easy it
is to say, well, they haven't taken up these bills, and it is their
fault. We will take our share of the responsibility, but I don't want
to hear that in the Senate Chamber. It isn't us holding up this bill
for 3 weeks.
I have no other choice but to file cloture today for a vote on
Wednesday on this bill. That is the only way I know to bring this to a
close. If the cloture motion is agreed to, we will finish the bill this
week. Regrettably, it will probably take most of the week. If we fail
to get cloture, I will have no other choice but to pull the bill and to
move to other legislation. It will then become clear that we will not
have a stimulus bill in the short term. I believe it will become clear
who it is that doesn't want one.
We have done all we know how to do. In good faith, I have put a bill
down. In good faith, I offered it for debate. In good faith, we have
entertained amendments on both sides. In good faith, we have had little
schedule to accommodate Senators who have other scheduling priorities.
We have little time left and much to do. I am hopeful that beginning
Wednesday we will know what it is we will be able to do.
Cloture Motion
Madam President, I send the cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Daschle and
others substitute amendment No. 2698 for Calendar No. 71,
H.R. 622, the adoption credit bill:
Max Baucus, Mark Dayton, Richard J. Durbin, Harry Reid, Tim
Johnson, John F. Kerry, Daniel K. Inouye, Patrick J. Leahy,
Patty Murray, Byron L. Dorgan, Jack Reed, Deborah Ann
Stabenow, Thomas R. Carper, Maria Cantwell, John B. Breaux,
Jean Carnahan, Herb Kohl.
[[Page S273]]
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, pursuant to past practice, I ask
unanimous consent that the live quorum with respect to the cloture vote
be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, it is really above my pay grade to
respond to what the distinguished Senate majority leader said because
there are other Republicans who are likely to do that. I don't do it as
a leader, but I want to observe some things which have been said and to
respond to them kind of in the sense of how I see it as one Senator,
the Senator from Iowa.
I happen to be the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee
that has jurisdiction over tax legislation, tax credits, health
insurance, unemployment compensation, and most issues that deal with
the stimulus package.
My involvement, particularly with Senator Baucus as chairman of the
committee, and obviously the top Democrat on the committee, has been in
trying to arrive at some sort of bipartisan agreement on a stimulus
package. We are not given much credit for what we have tried to do, if
you compare the environment laid out by the Senate majority leader.
For instance, I don't think it takes into consideration the fact that
sometimes during our negotiations Senator Baucus was under an unwritten
rule laid down by the Senate majority leader that if two-thirds of the
Democrat caucus didn't agree with what he was negotiating or what he
had agreed to, then it could not be accepted. That probably wasn't
meant as a hard and fast rule, but it was surely interpreted as putting
Senator Baucus in an impossible position to negotiate.
If Senator Lott, as my leader, told me to not negotiate for anything
if you do not have two-thirds of the Republican caucus behind it,
effectively that would end negotiations. I wouldn't want to be
negotiating under those circumstances. I do not know how you can arrive
at agreement.
If both political parties had a rule that you couldn't negotiate
anything unless at least two-thirds of each caucus was behind it, that
would be like saying you ought to have two-thirds of the Senate to pass
any bill. We have some very conservative Members in the Republican
Party--one-third of our group would be about 16 or 17 people--who could
nullify anything I was negotiating because I am not as conservative as
they are. If they had a veto over it, nothing could be done. On the
same hand, there are probably 16 to 17 very liberal Members of the
Democrat Party. If they have a veto over some of the things we are
trying to get and which the center core of the Senate can agree to,
nothing is going to be negotiated on that side either. That was the
situation we had sometimes during the debate last fall.
Mr. REID. Madam President, could I ask my friend to yield for a brief
second?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield without giving up the floor.
Mr. REID. Of course.
Madam President, no one questions the fairness of the Senator from
Iowa. I was present in the LBJ Room when Senator Daschle explained to
the Democrat Senators the process that was taking place to try to come
up with a consensus on the stimulus package. He said he wanted to make
sure when negotiations take place it comes back here and by more than a
majority. I may be paraphrasing. The two-thirds was never mentioned.
That is something that just kind of developed. I was there, and I think
the Presiding Officer was there. But ``two-thirds'' has come up, and it
is really not valid.
Maybe Senator Daschle could be criticized for saying he needed more
than a majority, I say to my friend from Iowa, in that the procedure
was a little unique, but Senator Daschle--I really can't speak for him,
but I was at the meeting--wanted to make sure that everyone understood
that this was an unusual process, and he would make sure, when he
brought it back, that he would go over it with everybody before it was
approved.
Again, I say to my friend from Iowa, there was no two-thirds rule
that Senator Daschle set. I was at the meeting.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, whether it is a majority or whether it
is two-thirds, if I had to go back to my Republican caucus to find out
that I had a certain percentage of the caucus behind me, there would be
no point in negotiating.
I do not dispute what the Senator from Nevada just said, because he
is an honest person and he would state it as he sees it, but it was
widely interpreted and it was printed in the press as ``two-thirds.''
Even some people from the other side of the aisle seemed to indicate
that in the press. So that is what my statements are based on.
The point is, a caucus appoints people to negotiate something that
can get through the Senate. That means 51 votes. Whatever restrictions
were put on--the specific percentage aside--it is an impossible
situation in which to negotiate. That was the environment that was
present during these negotiations, during this period of time that the
Senate majority leader is trying to use as an excuse when nothing could
get done and saying that Republicans were holding it up.
Another comment that was made during the debate, within the last
couple weeks this bill has been up, is when the Senate majority leader
referred to Republicans offering amendments. We had this agreement
between the two sides to have an even number of amendments offered:
Republicans will offer amendments, Democrats will offer amendments. A
Republican would offer an amendment and then a Democrat would offer an
amendment. This is so we each have an equal opportunity to get our
ideas on the Senate floor for debate. That isn't something used just
for this bill. It is done quite often in this body, just so this body
functions and functions in a fair way.
There may not be, at this point, as many Democrat amendments filed as
Republican amendments, but under the procedure in which we are
operating there can surely be an equal number of amendments if the
Democrats want to have an equal number of amendments.
I would like to respond to the argument that Republicans are delaying
and not cooperating. I would like to put that proposition to the test
and look at each side and their movement.
We had a stimulus package, suggested by the President of the United
States, in early October, which was before there was a consensus even
within this body that the Finance Committee or those of us who lead
that committee ought to be working on one.
The President, as a Republican--but he did not do it because he is a
Republican; he did it because of the anxiety that had been in the
country at that time, and is still there because of the September 11
terrorist attack--needed to do what he could to stimulate the economy
as well as helping people who were unemployed and who had health care
problems. So the President put a proposal on the table.
I would like to have you look at the President's proposal. President
Bush took issues off the table that maybe just Republicans would want
more than Democrats. For instance, he took the capital gains reduction
off the table. At the same time he was taking issues off the table, he
purposely put some on the table that appealed to Democrats, such as the
extended 13 weeks of unemployment benefits and rebates for payroll
taxpayers.
What I am speaking about occurred in October when he first put his
proposition on the table. That was not well received in the Congress,
even among Republicans. So the President has moved a long ways to do
even more than what he suggested.
But I want to say upfront, the President of the United States was
trying to be as bipartisan as he could by suggesting things that he
knew Democrats would want.
In early December, he encouraged the centrists--they are a group of
Democrats and Republicans who are more in the center of the political
spectrum--to push to get a compromise package and indicated that he
would work with them. They came up with something.
[[Page S274]]
The President met with them, both before it was finalized and after it
was finalized. The President said: If the Senate passes it and if the
House passes it, I will sign it.
So I think the President of the United States--albeit he is a
Republican--was out in front on this issue, both from the standpoint of
the original proposals and from the standpoint of trying to get
something that could pass the Senate that he could sign.
We heard from the distinguished majority leader a little earlier
about how Republicans objected to help for unemployed workers and
having health insurance for unemployed workers coming up on the airline
bailout bill. But we were following the consensus of people who were
suggesting that if we were going to have a stimulus package, that there
should not be anything in it that was industry specific--industry
specific meaning helping just unemployed people in the airline industry
when you have other unemployed people who would not get help.
Consequently, we were following the advice of people such as Chairman
Greenspan to be very generic in our approach to helping business or to
helping individuals.
On the other hand, I do not like the accusation that somehow helping
the airline industry did not help the workers. If those airlines had
gone under, instead of there being 30,000 people unemployed, there
would have been 330,000 people unemployed. Keeping the airlines flying
kept workers on the job and less of them laid off.
We recognize that laid-off workers need help. Obviously, that is why
the President came out with a proposal. It was not an industry-specific
proposal but was a generic approach to help workers--and not just from
the airline industry but from all industries--with the additional 13
weeks of unemployment benefits.
It was also said that Republicans refused to negotiate for 3 weeks.
This was that period of time when there were shackles put on Democrat
negotiators when we negotiated with them. That was part of it. But also
that does not give credit to the hours and hours that Senator Baucus
and I spent negotiating prior to a bill ever coming up on the floor of
the Senate. It does not take into consideration, also, the fact that,
at the instigation of the majority leader, the Senate Finance Committee
met, and contrary to how we normally do our business in a bipartisan
way, there was a push to get a very partisan bill out of the Senate
Finance Committee. And it did come out on a party-line vote.
So it seems to me that if we are going to be accusatory, we ought to
take into consideration that when there was an opportunity to develop a
bill in a committee--the Senate Finance Committee, which almost always
does things in a bipartisan way--there was an effort to go strictly
partisan and the result was to go strictly partisan.
We have the President of the United States pushing more than anyone
else, and the House Republicans passed a bill in early fall. That was a
bill not very many people liked. The House accepted that. They scaled
the bill back and agreed to go to conference a quasi-conference, not a
formal conference such as we used to have.
The House of Representatives, in this informal setting, along with
representatives of the White House, made this deal with the Senate
centrists, what I call the White House-centrist bipartisan package that
would have a majority vote of the Senate, albeit not the 60 votes that
are required.
The bottom line is that the President of the United States, in saying
he would sign the bill, and the House of Representatives, in passing
it, took up the challenge and did what needed to be done. Here we are,
once again, in the Senate ignoring something that had a majority
bipartisan vote in December before we went home for the holidays. Here
we are again. Presumably, it has the same bipartisan votes we had then.
Look with me at the other side of the aisle. I already mentioned the
partisan bill in the Finance Committee. I already mentioned the
intractable position in conference over non-COBRA eligible, meaning
when you are unemployed, you only have to take the insurance from where
you were laid off, and if you did not have that insurance, you would
not be able to get any other insurance under that proposal.
We allow people to continue the insurance from where they worked with
60-percent credit, but we also allow people who are unemployed who did
not have insurance where they last worked to get the same 60-percent
credit. But there was an ideological block to that on the part of
Democrats who were negotiating. Then we had the refusal of a vote in
December on the White House-centrist agreement.
I think the Democratic leadership has resisted movement to the center
represented by a bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats who call
themselves the centrists. Even though I am more conservative, I have
bought into that plan as one we ought to pass in the Senate. Many
amendments have been filed, debated, and voted on, so we have been
trying to move this bill along.
I am going to finish where I started last December. Let's have a vote
on the White House-centrist agreement. If we pass it, the President
will sign it. The unemployed will get their unemployment checks,
payroll taxpayers will get rebate checks from the Federal Treasury,
middle-income taxpayers will get more money in their paychecks, and the
unemployed will get help with health care.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
____________________