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
The most important improvement we could make for beneficiaries in Medicare would be the addition of a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The fact is this will be our only Medicare legislation this year. This bill was our last
[Page: H11262] GPO's PDF
Earlier versions of this legislation reported by the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee and the Commerce Committee included numerous beneficiary provisions that would have made tangible improvements in Medicare benefits for real people. Provisions that Republicans have dropped during their closed door negotiation include:
Medicare coverage for victims of ALS, (Lou Gehrig's disease)--a bill sponsored by 282 members of the House,
Improvements in Medicaid coverage of legal immigrants,
Allowing low-income Medicare beneficiaries the dignity of being able to apply for financial assistance at Social Security Offices rather than welfare offices, and
Providing states with greater flexibility to more easily enroll children in the CHIP program.
In addition, there are numerous improvements for traditional Medicare providers that we have tried to get considered, but to no avail. Instead of funding HMOs, this legislation could have:
Given greater relief to our nation's hospitals, home health agencies, and other traditional Medicare providers,
Required nursing homes to implement programs to improve quality for our frail seniors who reside in these homes,
Done more to assist hospice programs serve the needs of terminally ill beneficiaries.
There are also egregious provisions included in this legislation for particular special interests. For example, the bill delays the Health Care Financing Administration's ability to pay more accurately for the few prescription drugs it now covers--a gift of at least $50 million to a drug industry that has been lying to the taxpayers about their true cost of sales. These are windfalls to the pharmaceutical industry pure and simple--and they come at the expense of patients.
Several of the tax provisions included in this end-of-the-year monster of a bill include provisions that claim to provide access to health care for uninsured people in this country. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. These tax provisions are nothing more than thinly-veiled attempts to further tax policies that benefit upper income Americans and do nothing for those in middle and lower incomes.
The above the line tax deduction for people who purchase their own health insurance certainly sounds like it would expand coverage. But, because 93% of those without health insurance fall into the zero percent tax bracket or 15% tax bracket, this tax change does nothing to help them afford a health insurance policy. Those in the zero tax bracket get nothing from the change and those in the 15% bracket get only 15 cents on the dollar--not nearly enough to make a $6000 family health insurance policy suddenly affordable. In fact, 94% of this expensive program's cost goes to benefit people who already have health insurance. It barely expands ``access'' at all and it spends tens of billions of dollars not accomplishing its stated goal.
Our nation faces an upcoming crisis on long term care costs. The tax changes proposed in this legislation do nothing to alter that fact.
Long term care health insurance continues to be of questionable benefit at best. And, it is a product that only those with significant financial means can afford to purchase. So, like the tax deduction criticized above, this deduction will go mainly to people who could have afforded to purchase long-term care insurance with or without the tax benefit.
It is nice that the Republicans are finally recognizing the very real problems facing caregivers for chronically ill family members at home. Unfortunately, they have once again chosen to deal with a very real problem for millions of American families and couples--many of them lower income--by providing a tax deduction. Of course, tax deductions provide the least help to those who pay the least taxes--the very people who need financial assistance the most. By refusing to provide a tax credit for caregivers--as the Administration and Democrats have urged--the Republicans have greatly reduced the value of this policy change for everyone outside of the upper income tax brackets.
The many additional tax provisions in this bill are designed to help the CEO's who run the big companies--not the rank file Americans who work for the big companies.
The school construction tax package falls $15 billion short of the necessary funding to see that our deteriorating schools are modernized and well-equipped so that our children can learn in a safe environment. The average American public school is over forty years and old and falling apart. Seventy-five percent of U.S. public schools report that they need funding in order to bring the building into good overall condition. The GOP doesn't see school construction as a dire need since they would prefer to see the public school system dismantled. The school construction funding level in this bill is unacceptable.
In addition to ignoring the needs of our children, the Republican leadership has chosen to ignore the needs of the working men and women who will help to construct and modernize our schools. The Davis-Bacon Act has applied to contracts for public construction ``to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party'' since 1931. The House Democrats insisted on providing prevailing wage protections i n any school construction tax package that came to the House floor. In fact, we have already introduced a bipartisan school construction bill that includes the prevailing wage provisions, c ospon sored by 228 House members--Democrats and Republicans. Once again, the GOP demonstrates that they care nothing about working Americans when they eliminated the prevailing wage protections f or sc hool construction.
I was one of 25 members of the House of Representatives to vote against the pension tax bill the first time it was voted on. Not only did the bill completely neglect to provide any tax incentives to help lower-paid workers save for their retirement, but it actually eliminated non-discrimination rules designed to protect the rank and file worker. In hopes that the Senate would correct these egregious provisions, many of my colleagues voted for the bill anyway. The Senate Committee on Finance adopted provisions that would further weaken the non-discrimination rules--rules that protect against disproportionate pension benefits for higher-income workers. We should be strengthening these rules to ensure that all working Americans save for their retirement and middle-income earners have the same pension advantages as their corporate bosses.
I commend my colleagues for including an increase in pension portability for workers who change jobs in the bill before us today. Workers don't remain at the same job over their careers and it is important that we not penalize workers for changing jobs. I also applaud my colleagues for seeing a need to provide relief on Section 415 benefit limits. Benefit formulas in collectively bargained plans are not related to compensation. The current limits placed on multi-employer pension plans unfairly reduce the pensions of low and middle-income workers. Unfortunately, there aren't enough provisions in this bill to help low and middle income workers to outweigh the far too many provisions that will harm these same workers.
Finally, I completely oppose the repeal, and replacement, of the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC). The esoteric tax break is nothing more than corporate welfare for some of the nation's most profitable industries. The European Union has filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) that the FSC is an export tax subsidy and therefore illegal under international trade laws. I completely agree. Yet instead of repealing the tax subsidy and complying with our international trade obligations, this bill seeks to remedy the FSC with a near exact replacement.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy recently released a report that shows a rise in pretax corporate profits by a total of 23.5 percent from 1996 through 1998. At the same time, corporate income tax revenues only rose by a mere 7.7 percent. In addition to the myriad of corporate tax deductions this Congress insists on expanding, programs such as the FSC can help explain the disparity in corporate profits and corporate income tax rates.
The FSC helps subsidize some of the most profitable industries such as the pharmaceutical, tobacco and weapons export industries. Why should Congress help out the pharmaceutical industry if the industry insists on charging U.S. consumers more for prescription drugs than they charge in Europe? We shouldn't! The pharmaceutical industry sells prescription drugs in the U.S. at prices that are 190-400 percent higher than what they charge in Europe. The U.S. subsidizes the pharmaceutical industry by approximately $123 million per year through the FSC. This is unfair to the American taxpayer and must not be allowed to happen.
The top 20 percent of FSC beneficiaries obtained 87 percent of the FSC benefit in 1998. The two largest FSC beneficiaries, General Electric and Boeing, received almost $750 million and $686 million in FSC benefits over 8 years, respectively. RJ Reynolds' FSC benefit represents nearly six percent of its net income while Boeing's FSC benefit represents twelve percent of its earnings!
We must stop pandering to corporate interests and the wealthy. This bill does not have to be so weighted to the HMOs, drug companies, other big business, and those with upper incomes. We must help low and middle-income families obtain health care coverage and pay for prescription drugs. We can do this by enacting a responsible minimum wage bill, a targeted t ax bill, and a balanced Medicare/Medicaid package. H.R. 2614 is a shameful piece of legislation that I encourage my colleagues to oppose.
[Page: H11263] GPO's PDF
It would take an hour for the Republicans to fix this bill. They know what provisions we don't want in the bill and they know which ones we want inserted. Those changes would redirect this bill to the people who need the help--Medicare beneficiaries, traditional Medicare providers who serve them, and the millions of people struggling to earn incomes that allow them to provide for their families. Vote against this bill today.
MR. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill for many reasons. This bill fails to adequately address the critical need we have to renovate and modernize our public schools. It falls way short of the bipartisan Rangle/Johnson bill that would support nearly $25 billion in bonds over the next two years to help states and districts build and modernize up to 6,000 schools. It is shameful that in the era of budget surplus we cannot make a decent investment in our public school buildings. Over one-third of all schools need extensive repairs. The average school building is 42 years old. Beyond that, a record of 52.7 million children are enrolled in elementary and secondary schools, and the number will increase by almost a half of million a year. By 2003, this will mean we need to build another 2,400 schools just to keep pace with student enrollment.
This bill also drops critical Davis-Bacon wage protections contai ned in the bipartisan Rangle/Johnson bill. This means working families who help build the schools, and others who work in the community will be significantly shortchanged on wages and benefits. It also means that communities will be shortchanged by substandard construction of schools. This Congress should be about lifting hard-working families up in the era of prosperity, not driving wages and benefits into the ground.
I also want to note that, once again, the Majority has included a minimum wage increase in a tax bill filed with poison pills. This scheme allows the Majority to claim they're for a minimum wage increase, while kn owing full well they've blocked it by combining it with a special interest tax bill that can't become law. Let's be clear what this means. Democrats in Congress are for a minimum wage increase and would take action to make it happen. Republicans in Congress want to say they're for the minimum wage increase, while ac tively blocking its passage.
I urge a no vote on this bill.
MR. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, improving retirement security has been a top priority of our Committee and of this Congress. We must expand access to private pension plans and make innovations that will maximize every American's opportunity for a safe, secure retirement. We are committed to strengthening the retirement security of workers and their families by expanding private pension coverage and protecting their pensions and retirement savings.
I want to address the important pension reform provisions contained in the conference report before us. It includes 22 provisions from H.R. 1102, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension
Reform Act, reported out of the Education and Workforce Committee on July 14, 1999 by a bipartisan voice vote.
These reforms will directly improve the retirement security of millions of American workers by expanding small business retirement plans, allowing workers to save more, making pensions more secure, and cutting the red tape that has hamstrung employers who want to establish pension plans for their employees. The ERISA reforms include: granting relief from excessive PBGC premiums for new small business plans; accelerating the vesting of workers' accounts; repealing and modifying a wide range of unnecessary and outdated rules and regulations; providing more frequent benefits statements to workers; requiring enhanced disclosure and other protections when future pension benefits are reduced (as in the case of conversion to a cash balance plan); and repealing the so-called ``full funding limit'' that arbitrarily limits defined benefit plan funding to a less than actuarially sound level.
I am very pleased at the bipartisan nature of these pension provisions. The legislation reported out of our committee has a broad spectrum of support, and subcommittee chairman John Boehner has been a leader in this Congress on pension reform. He has maintained this bipartisanship during his fine stewardship of the bill through our committee.
Pensions provide a needed backstop to our Social Security system for lower and middle-income workers--meaning the difference between retirement subsistence and real retirement security for millions. Fully 77% of current pension participants are middle and lower income workers. By taking action to expand pension availability this year, we will help those workers who are most in need of secure retirement savings.
I urge Members support for these changes that will improve the retirement years of American workers.
Strengthening our private, employer-based pension system is a critical issue for all Americans--especially the 76 million Baby Boomers who are nearing retirement age. This legislation increases retirement security for millions of Americans by strengthening that ``third leg'' of retirement security--our pension system. Today we take an important bipartisan step towards ensuring that American workers enjoy their golden years comfortable and secure.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and includes extraneous material on H.R. 2614.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. PEASE). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, nays 174, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 21, as follows:
Aderholt
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
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