THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
[Page: S11194] GPO's PDF---
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. INHOFE). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are beginning debate this morning on what is ostensibly the conference report of the Small Business Committee of which I have the pleasure to serve as the ranking member. Obviously, nobody has any illusions that what the debate on the floor of the Senate today is about is small business issues. This is the so-called tax bill that has been attached to the Small Business conference report. But let me say a word, if I may, about the process by which how this package was made a part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000.
Despite being named a conferee, and despite the inclusion of provisions that are important to small business, and despite the fact that this conference report contains the work of the Small Business Committee and which I devoted a considerable amount of time effort and energy to negotiating, I will be voting against the overall conference report before us today.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts will yield for a question at the beginning?
Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield.
Mr. KERREY. There are an awful lot of people wondering where is the chairman of the Finance Committee, the ranking member of the Finance Committee. We are going to be taking up a tax bill and a Medicare/Medicaid bill. Why don't we see Chairman ROTH and ranking member MOYNIHAN down here managing this bill? Why is it a Small Business Committee that has the responsibility for a piece of legislation dealing with targeted tax credits and Medicare relief?
Mr. KERRY. My good friend from Nebraska asked a very important question. Let me, in defense of the Senator from New York, say that Senator MOYNIHAN will be here soon. By agreement, he is going to be comanaging this report because of the tax provisions in this bill.
Mr. KERREY. This is a Small Business piece of legislation. This bill references small business. This is not a Finance Committee bill. The answer is, it is not a Finance Committee bill.
Didn't the majority do the legislative equivalent of stealth molasses here? Didn't they take another piece of legislation, hollow it out, and stuff in it targeted tax cuts that their Presidential candidate has been opposing for the last 90 days, criticizing the Vice President, saying Washington, DC, should not decide, we should not be deciding in Washington, DC, who gets a tax cut? That is what I have been hearing over and over.
I ask my friend from Massachusetts, first of all, is it correct that they stuffed a tax bill and they have stuffed a health care bill inside of some other bill that they hollowed out, that has not gone through the normal process, and that the tax provision itself seems to violate what their Presidential candidate wants to do? Basically, it seems to me what our friends on the other side of the aisle are saying is Vice President GORE is right; Governor Bush is wrong.
Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my colleague from Nebraska, he is absolutely correct. That is exactly what has happened. That is exactly the state of affairs. In point of fact, let me say as a matter of courtesy, in terms of the process of the Senate, as ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I was never called, never asked, never even presented this conference report for signature, never even told as a matter of courtesy what would go into this package and happen to the hard work of the Small Business Committee. It was simply done in the dead of night and presented to us, fait accompli, to the Congress.
I think all of us have the right to ask, as Senators, what kind of courtesy is this we are being afforded as a matter of just collegial relations within the Senate. I think this process shows a fundamental disrespect for this institution, for the constitutional process and members of the Senate.
But, let me say to my colleague from Nebraska, here is what has been stuffed in this bill, to use the term by which he has appropriately described it. This is a small business bill. But, without any hearings, without any appropriate bipartisan decision, this bill is brought to the floor of the Senate today with H.R. 5538, as it was introduced, the Minimum Wage Act;
H.R. 5542, as it was introduced, the Taxpayer Relief Act, which goes to the issue of the tax cuts; H.R. 5543, the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, entirely outside the purview of the Small Business Committee; it comes with H.R. 5544, the Pain Relief Promotion Act, an entirely controversial and, as we will discuss through the course of this day, potentially very dangerous and damaging measure with respect to the delivery of quality medical care in this country; and, H.R. 5545, the Small Business Reauthorization Act, which was already mentioned.
The Senator from Nebraska is absolutely correct about the impact, the substance, and the process here.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
Mr. KERRY. I will be delighted to yield to my colleague.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is interesting to hear the discussion of the process. Apparently there was no conference; there were no conferees. This was a small business authorization bill that was laying dormant, which they used as a large carcass to stuff a whole range of bills in the middle of and throw it then on the floor of the Senate.
I am curious; if the Senator from Massachusetts had been accorded the opportunity, as would normally have been the case, of being a conferee and being a part of deliberations, I assume first we would not have most of these provisions in a small business bill, but if we had, for example, would a conferee coming from Massachusetts been concerned about the massive quantity of money that would go to HMOs in response to this balanced budget fix? Would there not have been an aggressive debate saying you cannot do that in the dead of night, take bags of money and give it to HMOs that are not deserving, when, in fact, small hospitals, inner-city hospitals, and others who are desperately in need of these resources do not get it? Would there not have been aggressive debate on that, and probably the disinfectant of sunlight would have given us the opportunity to dump many of these provisions?
Mr. KERRY. I say to my colleague from the State of North Dakota, he is again absolutely correct, in that the only portion of this bill discussed amongst the conferees was the Small
[Page: S11195] GPO's PDF
I have here the letter from the President of the United States in which he promises this report will be vetoed. I know the leadership on the other side of the aisle has read this and notwithstanding that the President has promised that this will be vetoed and notwithstanding the fact that the President is making it very clear to the American people and to our colleagues why it will be vetoed, they, nevertheless, have seen fit to simply bring this to the floor and, so to speak, stuff it through the Senate. Why? To create a political issue or perhaps simply to be stubborn and try to set up the President for some possible political gain.
This is precisely what George Bush himself has been talking about: partisanship, bickering, the very kind of thing that supposedly he says he could control here and on which he has been campaigning. He was asked to make one phone call to stop this and he will not even make that phone call. Here we are debating, and people are wondering why we are here. Why debate this measure just so it can be vetoed. Why not bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights, or provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors under Medicare instead of wasting time?
I will share what President Clinton said before this catchall package came to the floor, before we had to be put into this position of voting against it. I am reading from the President's letter of October 26. I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE WHITE HOUSE,
OFFICE OF THE PRESS SECRETARY,
October 26, 2000.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: (DEAR MR. LEADER:) Thank you for your letter yesterday responding to my proposed consensus tax package. As I said yesterday, I believe we all have a responsibility to make every possible effort to come together on a bipartisan agreement on tax relief and Medicare/Medicaid that will maintain fiscal discipline and serve the interests of all the American people. That is why I put forward a good faith offer yesterday that sought to reflect our differing priorities in a balanced manner. I was disappointed, however, that, without any consultation with me or Congressional Democrats, you chose to put forward a partisan legislative package that ignores our key concerns on school construction, health care, and pensions policy. If this current tax and Medicare/Medicaid package is presented to me, I will have no choice but to veto it.
While we have already reached substantial agreement in important areas, such as replacement of the Foreign Sales Corporations regime, your legislation has substantial flaws in several key areas.
As I stated yesterday, I believe it is absolutely essential that we do as much as possible to meet America's need for safe and modern schools. It is estimated that there may be as much as a $125 billion dollar financing gap in meeting the school construction and modernization needs of our children.
The bipartisan Rangel-Johnson proposal to finance $25 billion in bonds to construct and modernize 6,000 schools is, quite frankly, the very least we should do, given the magnitude of this problem and its importance to America's future. Unfortunately, your proposal falls far short of the mark. We should not sacrifice thousands of modernized schools to pay for inefficient tax incentives that help only a few. For example, the arbitrage provision encourages delay in urgently needed school construction and would disproportionately help wealthy school districts.
On health care, my offer sought to lay a path to common ground by coupling both of our priorities on health and long-term care. Unfortunately, your health care proposal completely ignores our proposal to cover millions of uninsured, working Americans. Instead you put forward a series of tax cuts that, particularly when standing alone, would be inequitable, inefficient, and even potentially counterproductive health care policy. For example, while our FamilyCare proposal would expand coverage to 4 million uninsured parents at a cost of slightly over $3,000 per person, your proposal would provide additional coverage to one-seventh the people at six times the cost per person. Moreover, your proposal would give the least assistance to moderate-income families that need help the most, while even raising concerns that those with employer-based coverage today could lose their insurance.
Similarly, on long-term care, I offered to embrace your proposed deduction for long-term care insurance in exchange for inclusion of my proposal to give families, who are burdened today by long-term care needs, a $3,000 tax credit . Unfortunately, your legislation ignores the bipartisan package I suggested and instead would provide half the benefits of my proposal for financially pressed families trying to provide long-term care for elderly and sick family members. Surely we can agree on this bipartisan compromise that has already been endorsed by a broad array of members of Congress, advocates for seniors and people with disabilities, and insurers. Similarly, I am perplexed that we cannot agree to include the bipartisan credit for vaccine research and purchases that is essential to save lives and advance public health.
I also am disappointed that you have made virtually no attempt to address the concerns my Administration has expressed to you about the pension provisions of your bill. By dropping the progressive savings incentives from the Senate Finance Committee bill, you have failed to address the lack of pension coverage for over 70 million people. Moreover, employers may have new incentives to drop pension coverage for some of the low- and moderate-income workers lucky enough to have pension plans today.
Finally, I remain deeply concerned that your Medicare and Medicaid refinement proposal continues to fail to attach accountability provisions to excessive payment increases to health maintenance organizations (HMOs) while rejecting critical investments in beneficiaries and vulnerable health care providers. Specifically, you insist on an unjustifiable spending increase for HMOs at the same time as you exclude bipartisan policies such as health insurance options for children with disabilities, legal immigrant pregnant women and children, and enrolling uninsured children in schools, as well as needed payment increases to hospitals, academic health centers, home health agencies, and other vulnerable providers. Congress should not go home without responding to the urgent health needs of our seniors, people with disabilities, and children and the health care providers who serve them.
A far better path than the current one is for Congressional Republicans, Democrats, and my Administration to come together in a bipartisan process to find common ground on both tax relief and Medicare/Medicaid refinements.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. CLINTON.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the President said:
While we have already reached substantial agreement in important areas, such as replacement of the Foreign Sales Corporation regime, your legislation--
He is writing to the House and Senate Republican leaders--
your legislation has substantial flaws in key areas. As I stated yesterday--
This is the President of the United States saying this--
I believe it is absolutely essential that we do as much as possible to meet America's need for safe and modern schools. It is estimated that there may be as much as a $125 billion financing gap in meeting the school construction and modernization needs of our children. The bipartisan Rangel-Johnson proposal to finance $25 billion in bonds to construct and modernize 6,000 schools is, quite frankly, the very least we should do, given the magnitude of this problem and its importance to America's future. Unfortunately, your proposal falls far short of the mark.
So yesterday, and in prior discussions for weeks, the President made it very clear this falls short; this will not be sufficient; he will veto it. Nevertheless, we are here.
The President goes on to say:
We should not sacrifice thousands of modernized schools to pay for inefficient tax incentives that help only a few. For example, the arbitrage provision encourages delay in urgently needed school construction and would disproportionately help wealthy school districts.
Health care is perhaps one of the most important components of this bill. The Senator from Nebraska raised this same point--we are talking about the health care system of the country. It has been an enormously divisive and complicated issue within the Finance Committee. Suddenly, in the dead of night, it is just snatched out, a proposal is sent to the floor as part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 and people are surprised that the President may decide he is going to veto it and that those of us on this side of the aisle might have objections to that piece of legislation coming to the floor in this manner.
Nobody should be surprised about our concerns under these unusual circumstances.
[Page: S11196] GPO's PDF
This is what the President says:
On health care, my offer sought to lay a path to common ground by coupling both of our priorities on health and long-term care.
In other words, the President sought to find the common ground. The President sought compromise. The President sought to try to address the needs of both Republicans and Democrats on health and long-term care.
He writes:
Unfortunately, your health care proposal completely ignores our proposal to cover millions of uninsured, working Americans. Instead, you put forward a series of tax cuts that, particularly, when standing alone, would be inequitable, inefficient, and even potentially counterproductive to health care policy.
The reason they would be counterproductive to health care policy is because the Republican proposal gives tax cuts to people who already have health care, who already have a high level of income, who are already covered by employers, and what you do by doing that is provide an incentive for employers to turn to them and say: We do not need to cover you anymore; you can go out and get your own health care because you are getting a tax cut--while it leaves millions of Americans who are uninsured without any insurance options whatsoever. That is so patently counterproductive, as well as patently unfair, that it begs our coming to the floor of the Senate to stand with the President and
suggest this ought to be vetoed.
Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for another question?
Mr. KERRY. I will be delighted to yield to my colleague.
Mr. KERREY. One of the Presidential debates was in Massachusetts. I know the distinguished Senator attended it. I suspect he watched the other Presidential debates. One of the most important dividing lines between the two candidates is that the Governor from Texas has been saying Washington, DC should not decide who gets a tax cut and who does not. The Vice President has been saying--not only for fiscal reasons but also for reasons of fairness--that is precisely what we should do. We should decide who is going to get a tax cut and target those tax cuts rather than having across-the-board tax cuts predominantly for the wealthiest Americans.
It seems to me what the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate are saying that the Vice President is right; we should target taxes and tax cuts. I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts sees it that way.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents