[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 439-451]
[From the U.S. 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.


[[Page 440]]


  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:

     ``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

[[Page 441]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 442]]

  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.
       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.


[[Page 443]]


  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 to take 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 
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

[[Page 444]]

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 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

[[Page 445]]

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 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

[[Page 446]]

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 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.

[[Page 447]]




                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 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

[[Page 448]]

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 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:

[[Page 449]]

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.

  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

[[Page 450]]

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. 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,

[[Page 451]]

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.

                          ____________________