United States PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106 … · 2018-06-24 · U N Congressional Record U M E P L RI B U S United States of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS,

Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m.Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

.

H11491

Vol. 146 WASHINGTON, SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2000 No. 139

House of RepresentativesThe House met at 6 p.m.The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P.

Coughlin, offered the following prayer:Lord of the Sabbath, God of creation

and our redemption, we praise You andwe bless You as this weekend draws toa close.

In places of worship, Your peoplehave gathered to reflect on Your wordand offer You thanks for Your manyblessings showered across this vast Na-tion.

Be with us now in the spirit of peace.May the endeavors of this evening

help bring the work of this Congress toits completion, so that, united in faith

and with our families, we may enterinto Your rest.

You are with us now and forever.Amen.

f

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER. The Chair has exam-ined the Journal of the last day’s pro-ceedings and announces to the Househis approval thereof.

Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour-nal stands approved.

Mr. MCNULTY. Mr. Speaker, pursu-ant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote

on agreeing to the Speaker’s approvalof the Journal.

The SPEAKER. The question is onthe Chair’s approval of the Journal.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker announced that the ayes ap-peared to have it.

Mr. MCNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I objectto the vote on the ground that aquorum is not present and make thepoint of order that a quorum is notpresent.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorumis not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.

NOTICE—OCTOBER 23, 2000

A final issue of the Congressional Record for the 106th Congress, 2d Session, will be published on November 29, 2000,in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks.

All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters ofDebates (Room HT–60 or S–123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.through November 28. The final issue will be dated November 29, 2000, and will be delivered on Friday, December 1, 2000.

None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to anyevent that occurred after the sine die date.

Senators’ statements should also be submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or bye-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ‘‘Records@Reporters’’.

Members of the House of Representatives’ statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany thesigned statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of,and authentication with, the hard copy, signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT–60.

Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record maydo so by contacting the Congressional Printing Management Division, at the Government Printing Office, on 512–0224, be-tween the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily.

By order of the Joint Committee on Printing.WILLIAM M. THOMAS, Chairman.

VerDate 27-OCT-2000 04:36 Oct 30, 2000 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 8633 E:\CR\FM\A29OC7.000 pfrm02 PsN: H29PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11492 October 29, 2000The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—yeas 286, nays 42,not voting 104, as follows:

[Roll No. 574]

YEAS—286

AderholtAndrewsArmeyBacaBachusBakerBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBentsenBerkleyBermanBerryBiggertBilirakisBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBonoBoswellBoydBrady (TX)Brown (OH)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCannonCappsCardinCarsonCastleChabotChamblissClementCobleCollinsCombestCookCoxCoyneCramerCubinCummingsCunninghamDavis (FL)Davis (VA)DealDeGetteDeLauroDeLayDeMintDeutschDiaz-BalartDicksDingellDixonDoggettDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEshooEtheridgeEvansEverettEwingFarrFletcherFoleyFrelinghuysenFrost

GalleglyGanskeGekasGephardtGibbonsGilchrestGonzalezGordonGossGrahamGrangerGreen (TX)Green (WI)Hall (OH)Hall (TX)HansenHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHergerHill (IN)Hill (MT)HillearyHinojosaHobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHooleyHornHostettlerHoughtonHunterHutchinsonInsleeIsaksonIstookJackson (IL)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson, SamJones (NC)Jones (OH)KellyKildeeKind (WI)King (NY)KleczkaKnollenbergKuykendallLaHoodLampsonLargentLarsonLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLofgrenLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)LutherManzulloMarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCreryMcHughMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeeks (NY)MicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMooreMorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNapolitanoNethercuttNeyNorthup

NorwoodNussleObeyOrtizOsePackardPascrellPaulPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (PA)PetriPhelpsPickeringPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPrice (NC)RadanovichRahallRangelRegulaReyesReynoldsRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SalmonSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughScottSensenbrennerSerranoSessionsShadeggShermanSherwoodShimkusShowsSimpsonSisiskySkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SouderSpenceStearnsStricklandStumpSununuTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTierneyToomeyTraficantTurnerUdall (CO)UptonVitterWaldenWalshWampWatersWatt (NC)

WaxmanWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)Wexler

WhitfieldWilsonWolfWoolsey

Young (AK)Young (FL)

NAYS—42

BairdBilbrayBorskiBrady (PA)CapuanoClyburnCoburnConditCostelloDeFazioEnglishFilnerGejdensonGutknechtHolt

Jackson-Lee(TX)

KingstonKucinichLathamLeeLoBiondoMcDermottMcGovernMiller, GeorgeMoran (KS)NealOberstarOlverPastor

Peterson (MN)RamstadRothmanSaboSchafferSchakowskyStenholmTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)Udall (NM)WellerWickerWu

NOT VOTING—104

AbercrombieAckermanAllenArcherBarrBecerraBereuterBishopBoucherBrown (FL)CampbellChenoweth-HageClayClaytonConyersCookseyCraneCrowleyDannerDavis (IL)DelahuntDickeyDooleyEngelFattahForbesFordFossellaFowlerFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)GillmorGilmanGoodeGoodlatte

GoodlingGreenwoodGutierrezHastings (FL)HefleyHilliardHincheyHoyerHulshofHydeJohnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.KanjorskiKapturKasichKennedyKilpatrickKlinkKolbeLaFalceLantosLaTouretteLazioLewis (GA)LipinskiLoweyMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MartinezMcCollumMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMeehanMeek (FL)

MenendezMetcalfMillender-

McDonaldMoran (VA)OwensOxleyPallonePickettPryce (OH)QuinnRileySanchezShawShaysShusterSlaughterSnyderSprattStabenowStarkStupakSweeneyTalentTancredoThompson (MS)TownsVelazquezViscloskyWatkinsWatts (OK)WeinerWeygandWiseWynn

b 1823

So the Journal was approved.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.f

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.THORNBERRY). Will the gentleman fromKansas (Mr. TIAHRT) come forward andlead the House in the Pledge of Alle-giance.

Mr. TIAHRT led the Pledge of Alle-giance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of theUnited States of America, and to the Repub-lic for which it stands, one nation under God,indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

f

ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TOOFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCTCONFEREES ON H.R. 4577, DE-PARTMENT OF LABOR, HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES, EDU-CATION, AND RELATED AGEN-CIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant toclause 7(c) of House rule XXII, I herebyannounce my intention to offer a mo-tion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4577,a bill making appropriations for fiscal

year 2001 for the Departments of Labor,Health and Human Services, and Edu-cation.

The form of the motion is as follows:Mr. HOLT moves that the managers on the

part of the House at the conference on thedisagreeing votes of the two Houses on thebill, H.R. 4577, be instructed to insist on dis-agreeing with provisions in the Senateamendment which denies the President’s re-quest for dedicated resources for local schoolconstruction and, instead, broadly expandsthe Title VI Education Block Grant withlimited accountability in the use of funds.

f

ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TOOFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCTCONFEREES ON H.R. 4577, DE-PARTMENT OF LABOR, HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES, EDU-CATION, AND RELATED AGEN-CIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, pursuant toclause 7(c) of House rule XXII, I herebynotify the House of my intention to-morrow to offer the following motionto instruct conferees on H.R. 4577, abill making appropriations for fiscalyear 2001 for the Departments of Labor,Health and Human Services, and Edu-cation.

The form of the motion is as follows:Mr. WU moves that the managers on the

part of the House at the conference on thedisagreeing votes of the two Houses on thebill, H.R. 4577, be instructed to insist on dis-agreeing with provisions in the Senateamendment which denies the President’s re-quest for dedicated resources to reduce classsize in the early grades and instead, broadlyexpands the Title VI Education Block Grantwith limited accountability in the use offunds.

f

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker,I ask unanimous consent that all Mem-bers may have 5 legislative days withinwhich to revise and extend their re-marks, and that I may include tabularand extraneous material, on H.J. Res.119.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Florida?

There was no objection.

f

FURTHER CONTINUING APPRO-PRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR2001

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker,pursuant to the provisions of HouseResolution 646, I call up the joint reso-lution (H.J. Res. 119) making furthercontinuing appropriations for the fiscalyear 2001, and for other purposes, andask for its immediate consideration inthe House.

The Clerk read the title of the jointresolution.

The text of House Joint Resolution119 is as follows:

H.J. RES. 119

Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep-resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled, That Public Law 106–275,

VerDate 27-OCT-2000 04:21 Oct 30, 2000 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K29OC7.001 pfrm02 PsN: H29PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11493October 29, 2000is further amended by striking the date spec-ified in section 106(c) and inserting ‘‘October30, 2000’’.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-ant to House Resolution 646, the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG) andthe gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.OBEY) each will control 30 minutes.

The Chair will recognize the gen-tleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker,I yield myself such time as I may con-sume.

Mr. Speaker, this is another one ofthose one-day CRs. We find ourselveshere in the House Chamber on Sundaynight because the President of theUnited States refuses to sign a con-tinuing resolution longer than 24hours. This resolution is to provide forone more day of continuing govern-ment funding until tomorrow night.

I would report briefly that the nego-tiations are ongoing this afternoon, ne-gotiations with both parties and bothHouses of the Congress. We will bemeeting with the representatives of theWhite House later tonight. We wouldmake every effort possible to concludethose negotiations sometime before to-morrow morning and hopefully be ableto write this final bill and to file it inthe House sometime tomorrow nightand possibly have it on the floor Tues-day. That is why we are here tonight,Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance ofmy time.

b 1830

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-self such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, while I am told thePackers lost, my only consolation is Iguess the Vikings did too.

Mr. Speaker, we are now faced withthe need to pass the eighth continuingresolution, I believe, of the year. Well,let me back up and just make an obser-vation.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr.YOUNG) said we are here tonight be-cause the President refused to sign anycontinuing resolution longer than 1day. Let me respectfully disagree withthat statement. We are here becausethe House worked all year, diligently,and passed all 13 appropriation bills.

The problem is that those bills hadno attachment to reality. Those billswere fashioned, as they were, in orderto allow the majority to continue itspretense that the surpluses would belarge enough that we could providevery large tax cuts and still balancethe budget and pay down the debt andprovide all of the funding that the Con-gress intended to provide for its discre-tionary programs. The Congress, in themonth of October, at least the Houseitself, did not finish action on a singleappropriation bill, and now we arefaced with the necessity to do a year’sworth of work in 1 month’s time.

The reason the President indicatedhe would not sign continuing resolu-tions longer than 1 day is because vir-tually no progress was made for the

first month after he had signed a seriesof longer continuing resolutions, andhe felt that it was necessary to try tobring things to a head so that this bodywould in fact get its work done. ArticleI of the Constitution gives us the re-quirement to get our work done onbasic things like the budget. The Con-gress has not done so. There are a num-ber of bills that still have not yet goneto the President’s desk.

So now we not only are dragging interms of schedule, but because a wholerange of other issues were not dealtwith by this House and by the author-izing committees, we now have 313 sep-arate authorization items which we arebeing asked to include in this bill byvarious persons within this institution.We are supposed to go through all ofthose items between 6:30 tonight and 10o’clock tonight.

I am going to let somebody else saywith a straight face that they willknow what they are doing in dealingwith all of those bills. I am one of thefour that is supposed to deal withthem, and I certainly do not knowwhat all of them are.

The good Senator can tell me to stopspeaking if he wants, but he is a guestin this House. Let me simply say thatI am not going to stop speaking until Ihave finished my statement.

I would simply ask Members to rec-ognize that this is not a responsibleway to run a railroad. I hope it neverhappens again, and I would hope thattonight, as we enter that room, that wehave a flexible response from the Re-publican leadership to the White Houseoffer yesterday to end this impasse.

The White House has laid out a fairlystraightforward proposition for endingthe divisions, at least on the major billthat divides us, the Labor-Health-Edu-cation bill. I would hope that we wouldhave flexibility on the part of bothsides as we are in those negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say I re-gret as much as anyone the fact thatMembers have to be kept here, but hadwe had a series of honest appropriationbills and sensible orders from theHouse leadership to begin with over thefirst 8 months of this year, all of thischaos would not be necessary.



Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate,we could have passed a continuing res-olution on Friday that would have keptus going until Monday night, and Mem-bers could have been home Saturdayand Sunday in their districts tendingto their district business. But thePresident refused to sign one thatwould take us until Monday night, sowe are here doing it on Sunday to getto Monday night. So that is the realreason.

Regarding the argument that myfriend, the gentleman from Wisconsin(Mr. OBEY), makes about where we arein the process, the House Committee

on Appropriations had concluded all ofits appropriations bills in July, earlyJuly, and we had them all through onthe floor. We had them all through onthe floor, and 12 of the 13 were passedthrough this House. The 13th was pre-pared to be passed, but it was pulled offof the schedule in July, and we did nottake it up again until we came backfrom the August recess.

The House has done its job. But whathas happened here, as the gentlemanfrom Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) has men-tioned, is how many requests we havehad from Members of the House onboth sides of the aisle, Members of theSenate on both sides of the aisle, fromthe President of the United States,some of them just coming over, manyslipped in the doorway in the last cou-ple of days. So we have had to dealwith all of these issues.

That, plus the fact that we havespent hour after hour, day after day, onamendments to bills in the House thathad nothing to do with an appropria-tions bill, that were not germane, thatwere subject to a point of order; but asa courtesy to the minority, we allowedthem hours and hours and hours ofextra time on those amendments thatwe knew were not even in order. Infact, in most cases, the sponsor of theamendment withdrew the amendmentafter the delaying tactics of using upthat time.

Now, that is why we are here. Let usbe honest about it. We are here becausethe President will sign only a one-dayCR per day, and we are here becausethere have been certain delaying tac-tics that have kept this House behindits appointed schedule.

Now, we ought to get this CRthrough here quickly so the other bodycan pass it tonight and the Presidentcan have it and sign it in time for thegovernment to continue tomorrow.

There is another reason. Every hourthat we spend on this floor now takesthe gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.OBEY) and myself, who are negotiatorsfor the House, away from the negoti-ating table. We have Senators waitingin another room, waiting for us tocome back to try to continue those ne-gotiations, to go over the list of re-quests made by our colleagues here inthe House, to see if we can agree tothem or if we cannot agree to them.

So these unnecessary delays arekeeping us from concluding our busi-ness. That is one reason that the gen-tleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) andI, whether we like it or not, are goingto be here until the late hours tonight,Sunday night, and probably into theearly hours of Monday morning, if weare going to get this product completedand filed by tomorrow night.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to advise thegentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY)that at this point I have no further re-quests for time and will reserve thebalance of my time so that we can con-clude this CR.



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11494 October 29, 2000Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-

self such time as I may consume.Mr. Speaker, I do not want to pro-

long this, because the gentleman and Ineed to get back to the negotiations,but I do want to respond to one pointhe said. He has made much of the factthat the majority was so kind and gra-cious that they gave the minority anopportunity to debate amendmentswhich were not in order.

Let me say that that itself is theproblem, because the majority used theCommittee on Rules to prevent us fromoffering amendments that would havemade those appropriation bills real.They prevented us from offering thoseamendments because they knew if webrought them to the floor they wouldhave enough Republican support, alongwith our support, to pass. So, insteadof giving us the opportunity to get avote on items that we thought werenecessary, they said, no, we will notgive you the right to vote on them. Allwe will do is give you an opportunityto talk on them for a little bit. So thatwas the second best option. It was theonly option we were given.

So I think, in fact, the gentleman’sremarks illustrate how arbitrary themajority was in assuring that the mi-nority would never be able to produceamendments that would make thesebills real. That is why we are stuckhere tonight.

The other point I would simply makeis that the majority has now passed ap-propriation bills which have takenthese bills billions of dollars above thelevel of the amendments that we triedto offer that they said were not inorder in the first place because theysupposedly exceeded the budget resolu-tion. The majority itself has now ex-ceeded their own budget resolution byalmost $40 billion. So the idea thatsomehow we had a real legislativeprocess going on on those 13 bills is ajoke.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balanceof my time.


Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to makethe point that all of the appropriationsbills that we brought to the Housefloor were under an open rule, an openrule, and the rules of the House pre-vailed.

I would just like to say to my friend,the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.OBEY), that when we did allow thatextra time of debate on amendmentsthat were not even in order, that is thecourtesy we showed to the minoritythat when they were the majorityparty they never showed to us.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-tleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to thegentleman from Wisconsin.

MR. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, that is adistinction without meaning, becausethe fact is the gentleman says we weregiven amendments that we could offerunder an open rule. But in fact that

was a closed rule, because of the natureof the budget resolution, which was soartificially low in order to make roomfor your ‘‘let’s-pretend-tax-cut,’’ thatthe rules were then used to preclude usfrom offering amendments that other-wise would have been in order under anopen rule, and you know that as well asI do.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker,reclaiming my time, that is a good spinon that subject, but check the record.They were open rules.

Mr. Speaker, I just ask for a vote onthe CR, so we can get about the rest ofour business tonight.


The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.THORNBERRY). All time for debate hasexpired.

The joint resolution is considered ashaving been read for amendment.

Pursuant to House Resolution 646,the previous question is ordered.

The question is on engrossment andthird reading of the resolution.

The joint resolution was ordered tobe engrossed and read a third time, andwas read the third time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Thequestion is on the passage of the jointresolution.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object tothe vote on the ground that a quorumis not present and make the point oforder that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evi-dently a quorum is not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were—yeas 342, nays 7,not voting 83, as follows:

[Roll No. 575]

YEAS—342

AckermanAderholtAndrewsArmeyBacaBachusBakerBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBassBentsenBerkleyBermanBerryBiggertBilbrayBilirakisBlagojevichBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBonoBorskiBoswellBoydBrady (PA)Brady (TX)

Brown (OH)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCannonCappsCardinCarsonCastleChabotChamblissChenoweth-HageClementClyburnCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditCookCoxCoyneCramerCubinCummingsCunninghamDavis (FL)Davis (VA)DealDeGetteDeLauro

DeLayDeMintDeutschDiaz-BalartDicksDixonDoggettDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEshooEtheridgeEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFilnerFletcherFoleyFossellaFrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardt

GibbonsGilchrestGilmanGonzalezGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGrangerGreen (TX)Green (WI)GutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HansenHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHergerHill (IN)Hill (MT)HillearyHinojosaHobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHoltHooleyHornHostettlerHoyerHunterHutchinsonHydeInsleeIsaksonIstookJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson, SamJones (NC)Jones (OH)KellyKildeeKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKleczkaKnollenbergKucinichKuykendallLaHoodLampsonLargentLarsonLathamLeachLeeLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)LutherMaloney (NY)ManzulloMarkeyMascara

MatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCreryMcDermottMcGovernMcHughMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeeks (NY)MicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMooreMoran (KS)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNapolitanoNealNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOsePackardPallonePascrellPastorPaulPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PetriPhelpsPickeringPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRegulaReyesReynoldsRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyan (WI)

Ryun (KS)SaboSalmonSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchafferSchakowskyScottSensenbrennerSerranoSessionsShadeggShermanSherwoodShimkusShowsSimpsonSisiskySkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SouderSpenceStabenowStearnsStenholmStricklandStumpSununuSweeneyTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThomasThompson (CA)ThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTierneyToomeyTownsTraficantTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonVelazquezVitterWaldenWalshWampWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfWoolseyWuYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NAYS—7

BairdBartonCapuano

CostelloDeFazioDingell

Miller, George

NOT VOTING—83

AbercrombieAllenArcherBarrBecerraBereuterBishopBoucherBrown (FL)CampbellClayClaytonConyers

CookseyCraneCrowleyDannerDavis (IL)DelahuntDickeyDooleyForbesFordFowlerFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)

GillmorGreenwoodGutierrezHastings (FL)HefleyHilliardHincheyHoughtonHulshofJohnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.KanjorskiKaptur


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11495October 29, 2000KasichKennedyKilpatrickKlinkKolbeLaFalceLantosLaTouretteLazioLewis (GA)LipinskiMaloney (CT)MartinezMcCollumMcInnis

McIntoshMcIntyreMeehanMeek (FL)MenendezMetcalfMoran (VA)OwensOxleyPickettRileySanchezShawShaysShuster

SnyderSprattStarkStupakTalentTancredoThompson (MS)ViscloskyWatkinsWatts (OK)WeinerWeygandWiseWynn

b 1921

So the joint resolution was passed.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker,I was unavoidably detained during rollcall voteNo. 574. Had I been present I would havevoted ‘‘yea.’’

Additionally, I was unavoidably detainedduring rollcall vote No. 575. Had I beenpresent I would have voted ‘‘yea’’.f


Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas.Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 574 and 575 Imissed votes due to an airline delay. Had Ibeen present, I would have voted ‘‘yea’’ onboth.f


(Mr. HINCHEY asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, as a re-sult of travel difficulties, on rollcallNo. 574 and rollcall No. 575, I was un-avoidably detained en route to the Cap-itol. Had I been present, I would havevoted ‘‘aye.’’f

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREESON H.R. 4577, DEPARTMENTS OFLABOR, HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES, AND EDUCATION, ANDRELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIA-TIONS ACT, 2001

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tooffer a motion to instruct.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.THORNBERRY). The Clerk will report themotion.

The Clerk read as follows:Mr. PALLONE moves that the managers on

the part of the House at the conference onthe disagreeing votes of the two Houses onthe Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4577be instructed, in resolving the differences be-tween the two Houses on the funding levelfor program management in carrying out ti-tles XI, XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the SocialSecurity Act, to choose a level that reflectsa requirement on Medicare+Choice organiza-tions to offer Medicare+Choice plans underpart C of such title XVIII for a minimumcontract period of three years, and to main-tain the benefits specified under the contractfor the three years.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Underthe rule, the gentleman from New Jer-

sey (Mr. PALLONE) and the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. THOMAS) each willbe recognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom New Jersey (Mr. PALLONE).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the motion I am offer-ing is an amendment to inject someneeded accountability into theMedicare+Choice program. It instructsthe conferees to support language thatwould require HMOs participating inthe Medicare+Choice program to stayin their given markets for 3 years. Inaddition, it instructs the conferees tosupport language that requires HMOsto provide all the benefits they prom-ised to beneficiaries when they en-rolled in Medicare HMOs.

Last week, the Republican leadershippassed a Medicare refinement bill thatis really nothing more than a specialinterest giveaway to the managed careindustry. Over 40 percent of the moneyin this bill is given to the managedcare industry, and it is given to the in-dustry with virtually no strings at-tached.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in thisbill that passed last Thursday thatguarantees any stability for seniors orthat the plans will stay in a given area.The only thing that is guaranteed isthat the managed care industry will begranted a massive government wind-fall. I suppose it is a reward of sorts forthe managed care industry from theRepublican leadership for their effec-tive campaign to prevent the patients’bill of rights from reaching the Presi-dent’s desk.

Unfortunately, the managed care in-dustry’s gain translates into a signifi-cant loss for Medicare beneficiaries andthe entire spectrum of Medicare pro-viders in the health community. EveryMember in this Chamber has heardfrom providers in their districts, be ithospitals, home health care providers,nursing homes, hospices, communityhealth centers and others, that arebeing crushed by the unintended finan-cial burden of the balanced budgetagreement. Despite last year’s BBA re-finement package, there are countlessMedicare providers around the countrywhose ability to provide care to Medi-care beneficiaries is precarious becauseof the lack of adequate reimbursement.In my district, I have already seen ahospital forced to close its doors.

Mr. Speaker, it would have been infi-nitely more appropriate to spread whatmoney has been set aside in the budgetfor Medicare refinements more evenlythroughout the program than to give adisproportionate sum to an industrythat has a clear record of putting prof-its ahead of patients. Working with theWhite House, we will continue to fightfor a more equitable distribution offunds so that the Medicare beneficiary,not the HMO executive, will come first.

It would have also been appropriateto require that the HMOs are held ac-countable for the care they are sup-posed to provide beneficiaries in ex-

change for the windfall the Republicanleadership wants to give them. As wesaw a few days ago, and as we haveseen for the last several years, the Re-publican leadership is unwilling tobreak its special interest bond with themanaged care industry. They remainsteadfastly opposed to any measurethat would require the managed careindustry to act in a more responsiblemanner that Medicare beneficiariesand all patients have been demanding.

Mr. Speaker, let me also say that mymotion is not an attempt to hamstringthe managed care industry or weakenit in any way. I want to preserve it andmake it stronger for all seniors whomay want to enroll in HMOs for theircare. In fact, I have introduced legisla-tion myself that would restore fundingto Medicare HMOs.

I am not, however, willing to simplygive HMOs untold billions and thenallow them to continue to pull the rugout from underneath seniors who arelured into HMOs with the promise ofextra benefits. And this latter pointabout benefits is very important. Medi-care beneficiaries are not just desta-bilized when their HMOs pull out of themarket. They are oftentimes desta-bilized when their HMO stays and theirHMO just rescinds the extra benefitsthat attracted the beneficiaries in thefirst place, the most popular exampleof that being prescription drug cov-erage.

Seniors should be afforded somepeace of mind and be able to know thatwhen they enroll in an HMO for pre-scription drug coverage or whateverextra benefits they enroll for, they aregoing to get those benefits. If the Re-publican leadership remains wedded togiving the managed care industrymultibillion dollar special interestgiveaways at the expense of all otherMedicare providers, the least the Con-gress can do is require that seniors aregoing to get what they are promised.

If my colleagues on the other side areas committed as they purport they areto providing seniors with a Medicareprescription drug benefit, they shouldhave no opposition to requiring man-aged care companies to agree to pro-vide what they promised beneficiariesthey will provide for at least a 3-yearperiod. I do not think that is a lot toask for and that is what this motion toinstruct is all about.


Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, yield my-self such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think first of all weshould look at this motion to instruct.There are several levels of clearancethat are required for a motion to in-struct to be in order, and it has to dealwith funding. Obviously, in this motionto instruct, it says that in resolvingthe differences between the two Houseson the funding level for program man-agement of the Social Security Act. Soit meets that test level.

But then it goes on to say thatthrough the funding mechanism, they


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11496 October 29, 2000are supposed to choose a level that re-flects a requirement onMedicare+Choice organizations to offera minimum contract period of 3 years.There is no funding mechanism thatwould require or even allow a 3-yearcontract under Medicare.Medicare+Choice programs are fundedfor 1 year under the Health Care Fi-nancing Administration. The amountthat a Medicare+Choice program re-ceives is based upon a number of fac-tors: where it is located, the cost ofmedical services in the area, and, mostimportantly, the makeup of the bene-ficiaries that have signed up for thatMedicare+Choice program. That is,what is their age, what is their medicalcondition?

All of these factors are taken intoconsideration when the level of reim-bursement to the Medicare+Choiceplan is determined. The difference bythe Medicare+Choice program of offer-ing the statutory mandatory benefitsis what the Health Care Financing Ad-ministration has determined to be itspayment level. If there are dollar dif-ferences between those two areas, bylaw that plan must either offer addi-tional benefits or that money has to berefunded back to the Health Care Fi-nancing Administration; but it canonly be done on a 1-year basis undercurrent law.

Beneficiaries can sign up for aMedicare+Choice program and leavethe program. That is, the patient pro-file of a plan can change from year toyear to year. So it is nonsensical tothink that a level of funding canproduce a 3-year contract. It is alsononsensical to think that it canproduce a set benefit package for a 3-year period. One of the reasons some ofthese plans are pulling out of areas isbecause they can no longer offer thebenefits they had offered under theirshrinking profit structure dictated anddetermined by the Health Care Financ-ing Administration.

b 1930

So make no mistake, not only doesthis motion to instruct have no legalbinding requirement, but it is nonsen-sical. It is germane. It does affect thefunding level. But in no way does justaffecting the funding level bring aboutany ability to create a 3-year contractor a guaranteed 3-year level of benefits.It is just nonsensical.


Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. ACKERMAN).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, Iwould like to thank the gentlemanfrom New Jersey (Mr. PALLONE) fortaking the initiative on this issue,which is of a critical nature to our sen-ior citizens throughout this countryand specifically to our constituentswho happen to live presently on LongIsland in New York.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to dis-agree with my learned colleague on the

other side of the aisle who said thatthis is nonsensical. I think some of usread it in a different way that choosinga level that reflects a requirement, andthe key word is a ‘‘requirement,’’ onthe Medicare+Choice organizations tooffer plans that are no less than 3 yearsold. We think that that means thatthey can expend no funds other than towrite a contract that would last 3years. Anything else would be unac-ceptable under the language that weare offering.

Our senior citizens are in trouble inthis country. They are not doing aswell as so many other segments of soci-ety. There is so much uncertainty andinsecurity in their lives that the insta-bility that the current system offersthem is totally unacceptable.

We approach things a little bit dif-ferently on Long Island, our congres-sional delegation that is, and we try todo things in more of a nonpartisan waywhen it affects our constituents. So weworked together, each and every one ofus, Democrats and Republicans alike.And in the County of Suffolk, which ison the eastern end of Long Island,which I proudly share with our col-league, the gentleman from New York(Mr. LAZIO), we have a situation whichis critical that is highlighted by thislegislation.

Every single Medicare+Choice plan,with the exception of one, has an-nounced that they are leaving SuffolkCounty because they are not being re-imbursed quickly enough or adequatelyenough; and our senior citizens, thoseof the gentleman from New York (Mr.LAZIO) and mine, are absolutely trau-matized. They do not know what isgoing to happen.

The one remaining plan has alreadyannounced they are going to have anadditional $75 premium each month.Somebody has to come down here tothe floor and stick up for those seniorcitizens who are living in abject fear,whether they be in the district of thegentleman from New York (Mr. LAZIO)or my district on Long Island.

And those are not the only places.All of these, these are single-space listsof counties throughout the countrywhere this problem is imminent rightnow. But in our county, that of thegentleman from New York (Mr. LAZIO)and mine, the announcement has al-ready been made that they are packingup and leaving. They have given their6-month notice.

These people have nowhere to go.There is but one plan left. What hap-pens to my colleague’s seniors? Whathappens to my seniors with the re-maining plan if they are only limitedto one more year? Where will thesepeople go? They will have no coverage.And if that is the case, shame on eachand every one of us for not providing toour constituents the protection thatthey need.

The constituents of the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. LAZIO) need it. Myconstituents need it. And the constitu-ents of so many Members whose dis-

tricts appear on these lists need it, aswell.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gen-tleman that we certainly share his con-cern, but the idea of trying to get plansto stay for 3 years when there would betotal uncertainty in the second andthird year of what the contract mightbe will increase the chances of desta-bilizing the program, not decrease it,the exact opposite effect that the gen-tleman seeks.

For example, in the Med Pac report,March 2000, one concern ‘‘that maycontribute to the lack of new plans andplan types and which may be discour-aging current participants is uncertainfuture revenue streams for plans.’’

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to thegentleman from Louisiana (Mr.MCCRERY), a member of the sub-committee.

Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thetime.

Mr. Speaker, before I address the re-marks of the last speaker on the mi-nority side, let me just go over thenumbers here so everybody has a clearunderstanding of what we are talkingabout.

There has been some misstatementsmade in several quarters about theamount of money in this Medicarepackage for HMOs or Medicare+Choiceprogram. Here we see the numbers laidout by the CBO for each category inthis package.

For hospitals there is $11 billion, 34.9percent of the total package. Bene-ficiary assistance and preventive bene-fits, $6.7 billion dollars, 21.3 percent ofthe total package. And then we get toMedicare+Choice, the Medicare HMOs.There is $6.3 billion in this package forMedicare HMOs, and that is 20 percentof the total package.

Now, I really believe that both sideson this issue are well-intentioned. Iagree with the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. ACKERMAN). I think it is ter-rible that we have Medicare HMOsleaving certain parts of our countryand, therefore, leaving those seniorswith no coverage for things like pre-scription drugs, in some cases theirdeductibles, their copays, becausethose Medicare HMOs, thoseMedicare+Choice programs often pro-vide those benefits.

I know in my district I had one Medi-care HMO; and they left last year, theonly one. I heard from hundreds of sen-iors in my district about that planleaving. They wanted it back. Theysaid that is the greatest thing we haveever had in Medicare, and we want itback. So I agree with the gentlemanthat we ought to try to encouragethose plans to come to a locale andstay there.

But encourage is one thing; mandateis another. And in my opinion, I justhave an honest disagreement with thegentleman as to how the marketworks. I think that if we mandate that


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11497October 29, 2000a plan stays in a locale for 3 years, wewill have fewer and fewer plans locat-ing in those marginal locales where thereimbursement rate is at the marginfor them to make a profit.

So it is an honest disagreement, butI think the gentleman who has offeredthe motion to instruct is just wrongabout the effects of his motion if itwere to become law.

And so for that reason, I would urgeall Members on both sides of the aislewho are interested in having their sen-iors have access to these type Medicareplans to vote no on this motion to in-struct.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentlemanfrom Louisiana (Mr. MCCRERY) is notmentioning is that there are buried orhidden indirect pass-throughs whichare actually part of that chart. Inother words, what happens is thatmoney goes to the providers like thehospitals; and then it is passed throughto the HMOs, about one-sixth of whatgoes to hospitals and other providers.So it is still $11 million, and it is still40 percent of the total no matter howyou cut it, and that is outrageous giventhat there are no strings attached.


Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from Lou-isiana (Mr. MCCRERY).

Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thetime, and I will be glad to yield to myfriend from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right,there are interactions with the in-creased payments that we make to hos-pitals. Because, as the gentlemanknows, in figuring the payment ratefor the Medicare+Choice plans, it is thefee-for-service rate in that region thathas an impact on the reimbursementrate for the Medicare+Choice program.That is true.

But certainly the gentleman wouldnot suggest that we not raise the pay-ments to the hospitals and the otherproviders that we are doing in this bill,would he?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. MCCRERY. I yield to the gen-tleman from New Jersey.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the bot-tom line is that the HMOs are getting$11 million, 40 percent of the total, nomatter how you cut it.

Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Speaker, re-claiming my time, but the gentlemanis not suggesting that we should not beraising the reimbursement rate to hos-pitals and other providers?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if thegentleman will continue to yield, no.

Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Speaker, then asa natural consequence, we are going toget higher reimbursement for theMedicare+Choice plans. That is aninteraction that is unavoidable in thisplan. I am glad that the gentleman isnot suggesting that we do not give

higher reimbursement rates to our hos-pitals and other providers.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am just pointing outthat the $11 million figure and the 40percent that goes to HMOs still stands.The gentleman was trying to con-tradict that and he cannot.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to thegentleman from Texas (Mr. GREEN).

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Ithank my colleague from New Jerseyand the Chair of our Democratic TaskForce on Health Care for having thismotion to instruct.

In a way I agree with my colleaguefrom Louisiana that this may not bethe best way to get the attention of theHMOs that predominantly serve ourseniors. But it is our only battle to-night. And hopefully there is anotherway we can get their attention insteadof just throwing more money at it.

HMOs only cover about 15 percent ofour senior citizens. And yet, the bill wevoted on last week would provide atleast 40 percent and over 10 years 47percent to HMOs for those 15 percent.Actually, in Houston, we have a littleover 15 percent of our seniors who areserved by an HMO.

I have a similar problem that my col-league from New York has. In Houston,Texas, we are down to one HMO leftand they are capped, because they donot have the network to be able to addmore seniors to it. So, as of December31, our seniors will not be able to haveaccess to an HMO.

Now, I am not real thrilled aboutHMOs to begin with. But let me tell mycolleagues what happened in Houston,Texas. We at one time had four or fiveHMOs. But one big insurance company,and I will not name them because theyhave done this around the country,they bought up the other HMOs. Theybought up NYLCare 65, Prudential. Andthen they served notice a little lessthan 6 months or maybe a little morethan 6 months later that they are notgoing to serve the market.

That is what HMOs are doing. That isour only way to do this is to makethem stay in the market because theyactually controlled over 65 percent ofthe market, and then they announcedthey are not going to serve it. That isnot doing a service to my seniors inHouston any more than they are doingit to Long Island, and that is what isfrustrating.

The Medicare BBA provider bill lastweek actually gave 40 percent and then47 percent. A lot of us voted againstthis bill simply because of that. Weneed to provide more for hospitals andfor providers and for doctors and forhome health care, you name it. But ifwe are going to provide more for HMOs,and I do not mind it, I voted for it lastyear in 1999 and I will vote for it again,but let us put some restrictions onthem. Maybe not 3 years, but let us do

something instead of just giving thema blank check and then they still willnot serve the seniors in my district.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker I yield 4minutes to the gentleman from Ten-nessee (Mr. BRYANT), a member of thecommittee that shares jurisdiction, theCommittee on Commerce.

Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me thetime.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleaguesfrom the other side who have talkedabout a spirit of bipartisanship andsomething I certainly agree with. I amconcerned that this bill is going to bevetoed by the President. In the spirit ofbipartisanship, I would ask my col-leagues on the other side and our VicePresident, who is from Tennessee, notto allow this to happen, to go to thePresident and to ask him to sign thisbill.

Because my State of Tennessee reallyneeds this legislation. Our Medicarebeneficiaries in Tennessee will receive$4.3 billion that will help reduce theirMedicare copayments, the money theyhave to pay out of their pockets andother assistance, as well as they needthe $1.4 billion that this bill providesfor new preventive benefits under theMedicare program. And our Tennesseehospitals need this legislation also.

Altogether, this bill will benefit hos-pitals to the tune of nearly $14 billionthrough direct and indirect funding. Ifour hospitals in Tennessee are forcedto close or cut services, the effect onour patients and on the more than52,000 hospital employees could be dev-astating.

I also want this bill not vetoed be-cause it contains $1.6 billion in criticalfunding for nursing homes and $1.8 bil-lion for home health care and hospiceservice. The legislation also expandsMedicare coverage for telemedicineservices. This is important to the ruralareas of the State of Tennessee that Irepresent.

Using today’s cutting edge tech-nology, telemedicine or telehealth hasthe potential to revolutionize the waywe practice medicine in this country,and it has the potential to erase thedisparities in medical care and qualityof care between rural areas and urbanareas.

And last, but not least, I would hopethe Vice President would realize abouthis home State of Tennessee that,without this legislation, we will lose inTennessee $27 million for our State’schildren’s health insurance program, orthe S-CHIP program.

Because Tennessee had already cov-ered many of our S-CHIP eligible chil-dren under our State Medicare waiverprogram, Tennessee has had to workmuch harder to get children to enrollin S-CHIP. As a result, it has taken uslonger to use all of the money allottedto the State for the S-CHIP program.

b 1945

I hope the Vice President realizesthat this bill will allow Tennessee 2


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11498 October 29, 2000more years to use most of its S-CHIPmoney so that more Tennessee childrencan be covered. Now I know that ourVice President, Mr. GORE, spent a lot oftime on this campaign trail talkingabout health insurance for children inTexas but, Mr. Speaker, I hope the VicePresident will consider the needs ofTennessee’s children in his discussionswith the President about whether ornot to sign this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote againstthis motion to instruct and I urge thePresident to sign H.R. 2614.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentleman from Texas(Mr. TURNER).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I am gladto hear the gentleman from Tennessee(Mr. BRYANT) express his concern abouthis rural hospitals and his health careproviders in his district because I havethe very same concern, and that is whyI hope that he will join with us in urg-ing this Congress to put a larger per-centage of the increased funding forMedicare in increasing those reim-bursement rates to those rural hos-pitals and to those rural health careproviders instead of giving about 40percent of it directly to the insurancecompanies that we do not even know ifthey will be passing that money alongto those rural hospitals. That is why Ioppose the Medicare funding plan thatthe Republican leadership has put be-fore this body.

The truth of the matter is,Medicare+Choice HMO insurance plansare not working for our seniors andthey are not working for the taxpayers.The bottom line is, in my district, as Iwent around in August talking to myseniors at town meetings, they stood inlines to tell me that theirMedicare+Choice plans have been can-celled. In fact, 5,000 of them in my dis-trict received notices of cancellationjust a month ago, and the truth of thematter is Medicare+Choice is beingcancelled all across this country. Thatis why we need greater accountability,and that is what this motion is ad-dressing.

Thirty percent of all Medicare bene-ficiaries in this country will have noMedicare+Choice option. Last year,328,000 seniors got these notices of can-cellation. This year almost a millionseniors got notices of cancellation.

If one has looked at the recent Gen-eral Accounting Office report onMedicare+Choice plans which was justissued, it will reaffirm the case that Iam making tonight that our HMOplans are failing our seniors and ourtaxpayers.

Listen to this from the summary ofthe GAO report: Industry representa-tives contend that the Balanced BudgetAct’s payment rates are too severe andthat low Medicare payment rates arelargely responsible for the plan with-drawals. However, since the BBA wasenacted, Medicare+Choice rates haverisen faster than per capita fee-for-service regular Medicare spending. Inaddition, many plans have attracted

beneficiaries who have lower than aver-age expected health care costs whileMedicare+Choice payments are largelybased on the expected costs of bene-ficiaries with average health careneeds. The result is that Medicare canpay more for a beneficiary who enrollsin a plan than if the beneficiary had re-mained in regular fee-for-service Medi-care. As we, the GAO, recently re-ported, these additional paymentsamounted to $5.2 billion or 21 percentmore in 1998 than the fee-for-serviceprogram would have spent to provideMedicare coverage benefits to plan en-rollees.

The plans offered by the HMOs arecosting the taxpayers more moneythan regular Medicare and increasinglythose HMO plans are withdrawing fromour seniors, and they need to havesomething better. That is why wefought for a prescription drug benefitunder regular Medicare, which worksfor our seniors.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Penn-sylvania (Mr. ENGLISH), a member ofthe Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, briefly Iurge my colleagues to vote against thisperverse and misguided motion to in-struct. I agree the trend ofMedicare+Choice plans pulling out ofareas across the country is enormouslydisturbing, but may I suggest to thefolks on the other side that they haveoffered exactly the wrong solution. Byforcing plans to commit to 3 years, weare ensuring that plans who are strug-gling to maintain their service willleave now, right now. Medicare+Choicefunding, as the gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. THOMAS), noted, is too un-predictable under current HCFA policy.

This motion adds no accountability;just a poison pill. I find it ironic thatthe Democrats and the President havespent the past week tearing apart theMedicare bill that this House passed,calling the money spent onMedicare+Choice plans unjustified. Ifanyone thinks that the money dedi-cated to shoring up Medicare+Choiceplans is unjustifiable, I invite them tocome to Erie, Crawford, and MercerCounty, Pennsylvania. I invite them toexplain that to seniors who are facingcopays that will double in January anddecrease benefits.

If they are indeed serious about sta-bilizing Medicare+Choice, then I urgeour friends on the other side of theaisle to drop this and urge the Presi-dent to sign the House package andwork with us to ensure that seniors re-lying on these plans continue to haveaccess to quality health care. Do notsimply adopt populist poses and deployvacant partisan rhetoric while requir-ing Medicare+Choice plans to be at themercy of HCFA for 3 years. This is nosolution. They will simply leave andseniors will be left holding the bag.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Ohio(Mr. BROWN), the ranking member ofour Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Ithank my friend, the gentleman fromNew Jersey (Mr. PALLONE), for his lead-ership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, December 31, 1998, Medi-care managed care plans dropped400,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Decem-ber 31, 1999, Medicare managed careplans dropped 327,000 beneficiaries. OnDecember 30 of this year, Medicaremanaged care plans will againunceremoniously drop 900,000 more sen-ior citizens. Seniors in my districtwere dropped by United Health Care in1998. Some switched to QualChoice,which dropped them in 1999. Someswitched to Aetna, which will dumpthem at the end of this year.

A Medicare HMO is not real insur-ance. It is a roll of the dice that callsitself insurance. Why is the plus choiceprogram failing seniors? Ask the HMOsand they will say it is because the Fed-eral Government is underpaying andoverregulating them. Ask the InspectorGeneral and ask the General Account-ing Office, and they will say we are ac-tually overpaying and underregulatingMedicare HMOs. They choose to hoardthe profits they make in some countieswhile dumping those in less profitablecounties.

This does not make them bad. Itmakes them businesses. It does, how-ever, throw a wrench in it-is-all-the-government’s-fault campaign that theyare waging. If we are going to pay themanaged care industry more, we owe itto beneficiaries and to taxpayers to de-mand that HMOs act responsibly to-wards those senior citizens who haveenrolled in their plans. That meansonce HMOs enter a county, they shouldagree to stay put and they should agreeto offer predictable benefits for at least3 years. That way senior citizens willfinally know exactly how long they candepend on their managed care plan. Be-fore we hand over $10 billion, almosthalf of the new Medicare dollars thisCongress is appropriating, before wehand over $10 billion of taxpayers’money to HMOs, before we hand overone dollar, we should do at least thatmuch for beneficiaries. Support thePallone motion.


Mr. Speaker, the gentleman fromOhio (Mr. BROWN) should know, andperhaps he does not, that in the lan-guage of the Medicare provisions thatwere passed last week included waslanguage requested by the Health CareFinancing Administration and theClinton administration, which weagreed with, which we think is appro-priate. The language says any dollarscontained in this bill as an increase toMedicare+Choice programs must, mustgo to the beneficiaries in lowered pre-miums or increased benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to thegentleman from Kentucky (Mr.WHITFIELD), a member of the Com-mittee on Commerce and someone ex-tremely interested in this issue.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11499October 29, 2000Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I am

delighted that we are having this dis-cussion tonight about this importantissue and, of course, as we move closerto an election it is politically wise, Ibelieve, to attack HMOs. And we recog-nize that all HMOs, there are some de-ficiencies there but also I think wemust recognize that HMOs play a valu-able part of providing health care topeople throughout America. As a mat-ter of fact, HMOs for our senior citi-zens are the only entities offering pre-scription drugs today, offering eyeglasses today and so there are manybenefits from HMOs that seniors re-ceive.

There has been some discussion thisevening about placing mandates onHMOs, and obviously we do need somemandates, but excessive mandates arenot the answer. We have learned thatlesson all too well in the State of Ken-tucky. Our Governor, about 6 yearsago, placed such heavy mandates onthe insurance companies offeringhealth insurance in Kentucky thatevery one of them left, with the excep-tion of one, and the insurance pre-miums in Kentucky skyrocketed andthe number of uninsured in Kentuckyskyrocketed because of mandates.

Now we can solve the health careproblems in America today, but wecannot blame it all on the HMOs. Wecannot blame it all on HCFA. But wehave to work together. It is a complexissue, and I think that we can solve it.

I am particularly disappointed, how-ever, that so many on the other side ofthe aisle and the President is nowthreatening to veto this bill that pro-vides additional money for Medicare,about $31 billion, $6.5 billion tostrengthen the Medicare+Choice pro-gram; more than $500 million in in-creased funding for diabetes treatment,nearly $500 million to the Ricky RayFund to compensate hemophiliacs,more than $12 billion to strengthenhospitals, particularly rural hospitals.So I would urge the defeat of this mo-tion to instruct.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentlewoman fromTexas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas askedand was given permission to revise andextend her remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr.Speaker, I rise to support the motionto instruct by the gentleman from NewJersey (Mr. PALLONE). I thank the gen-tleman very much for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, as Ihave listened to this debate, I heardthe distinguished gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. ENGLISH) make thecomment that is absolutely true. Theywill simply leave, and that is why weare on the floor this evening becausethe HMOs around this country havesimply left. They have left with no ad-monishing, no requirements, no respon-sibility, no concern and no compassion;whether it is conservative compassionor liberal compassion.

I have in my hands pages and pagesof those who have left Harris County,

and when I go to my senior citizenmeetings all of them are looking at mewith incredulity asking the question,why are the HMOs closing. And so I be-lieve this is a very instructive and veryimportant motion to instruct, becausethe good gentleman from California(Mr. THOMAS) mentioned a provisionthat was put in, the stabilization fund,he knows full well that there is no re-quirement for those dollars to go backto the beneficiaries. The HMO can siton those dollars forever and foreverand forever.

It is interesting, I heard the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. ACKERMAN)speak about his district. He mentionedthe district of the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. LAZIO). My good friend, thegentleman from Tennessee (Mr. BRY-ANT), mentioned the HMOs closing inhis district. They are closing in my dis-trict. What we are talking about hereis responsibility, and to refer to thefact that it is only a 1-year contractthat is incorrect, because the languagein the regulation says at least 1 year.It does not say only 1 year. It says atleast. That means it can go up to 2years or 3 years.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, might I saythat there is some conversation aboutthis actuarial language in the bill; andI hope the President does veto it, in thetax bill. When we call the chief actuaryand talk about them reviewing HMOs,he already has 30 people working over-time. He says he needs another 20 to beworking to do what this tax bill wantshim to do.

This is wrong directed and wrongheaded. I want two things out of thistax bill. I want my hospitals to remainopen, particularly my public hospitals;and I do not believe we should be giv-ing $34 billion to HMOs where only 15percent of the seniors are actually en-rolled. Give them an obligation to stayin our communities, and I might con-sider their tax bill.

Secondarily, give us the money tokeep our public hospitals and our pri-vate hospitals open. When I talk to myconstituents, they knew they could notwork with the amount of money wehad in this tax bill. It does not helphome health centers, nursing homes,hospitals. It does not help anyone butthe insurance companies. I believe thisbill should be vetoed so the senior citi-zens all over this Nation can haveHMOs that will stay in their commu-nities with the requirement to sign acontract for 3 years and the doors ofour hospitals will stay open to help thepeople who are really in need, and thatcompassionate conservative or con-servative compassion, whatever it is, isreally a reality that works for theAmerican people. That is what weshould be doing here and doing ittoday.

b 2000


Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentle-woman that a letter from the Amer-

ican Hospital Association said, ‘‘We areurging Members to vote in favor of thislegislation and we recommend that thePresident not veto this legislation,’’along with 48 other organizations,many of them providers.

I am a bit perplexed by the gentle-woman’s $34 billion number going toMedicare+Choice programs, since theCongressional Budget Office score ofH.R. 5543 says the total spending overthe 5-year period is $31.5 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to thegentleman from Arizona (Mr.HAYWORTH), a member of the com-mittee.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, Ithank my friend from California foryielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, listening to this debatetonight, and mindful of the reality ofwhere we stand on the calendar, Mr.Speaker, here we are again with, sadly,my friends on the left apparently at-tempting to put politics before people.Perhaps it is not intentional, a mis-understanding, a misquoting of figures.

Believe it or not, despite the discordand debate, I do hear some commonthemes. I do hear friends on both sidesof the aisle saying that health plansare crucial for seniors. Indeed, myfriends on the left seem to be swearingby these HMO-Medicare+Choice pro-grams, even as they swear at them. Soif we agree that these programs are im-portant, why do we not work now tosave them?

That is what this House did lastweek, Mr. Speaker, with the legislationwe passed, with the majority of fundsgoing to hospitals. Of special concernto me are rural hospitals across theSixth Congressional District of Ari-zona.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, based on thefact that people knew we were workingon this, the gentleman from the FifthDistrict of Arizona and I, working withour colleagues in the Senate, actuallygot a decision reversed on a health careprovider preparing to leave Pima Coun-ty.

Now, when we try to set arbitraryguidelines here, what we are doing ispadlocking the insurance provisions.What we are doing is trying to stackthe deck, and, in the process, kill thevery thing we want to see happen.

Mr. Speaker, I would implore thoseon the left to put people before politics.We have a solution here and now thatcan work, that can keep insurance pro-grams in place for seniors who havecome to depend on those programs.That is why we must defeat this mo-tion to instruct conferees and moveforward with the legislation we passed.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield15 seconds to the gentlewoman fromTexas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked andwas given permission to revise and ex-tend her remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr.Speaker, let me just say the AmericanHospital Association may be sup-porting it, but I have a letter indi-cating that the Texas Hospital Associa-tion is against it, as are the Greater


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11500 October 29, 2000New York Hospital Association, theCalifornia Healthcare Association, theMassachusetts Hospital Association,New Jersey is against it, and theHealth Care Association of New YorkState.

So I do think we have some disagree-ment. This bill should be vetoed.

OCTOBER 19, 2000.[Letters to the Editor]

The NEW YORK TIMES,New York, NY.To the Editor:

Re ‘‘Medicare Bill That Favors H.M.O.’sFaces a Veto’’ (Oct. 18): The Balanced BudgetAct of 1997 (BBA) enacted unprecedented anddamaging funding cutbacks to hospitals andother health care providers throughout thecountry. These federal cutbacks are doing se-rious—and possibly irreparable—damage toour country’s health care providers. Now itappears that Congressional leaders are put-ting forward a BBA relief package that pro-vides disproportionate funding to the HMOsat the expense of desperately needed relieffor hospitals and other health care providers.We, who collectively represent more than1,800 hospitals and other health care pro-viders, applaud the Clinton Administration’scall for meaningful bipartisan action to re-store urgently needed funds to health careproviders. We have consistently supportedbipartisan legislation in the Congress, spon-sored by a majority in both Houses, whichreflects the urgency of desperately neededMedicare funding restorations. Bipartisanleadership and action is needed before Con-gress adjourns.

Sincerely,GARY S. CARTER,

President, New JerseyHospital Associa-tion.

C. DUANE DAUNER,President, California

Healthcare Associa-tion.

RONALD M. HOLANDER,President, Massachu-

setts Hospital Asso-ciation.

KENNETH E. RASKE,President, Greater New

York Hospital Asso-ciation.

DANIEL SISTO,President, Healthcare

Association of NewYork State.

TERRY TOWNSEND,President, Texas Hos-

pital Association.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3minutes to the gentlewoman fromFlorida (Mrs. THURMAN).

Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding metime.

Mr. Speaker, I just listened to thelast speaker on the other side. Do youknow what my seniors are telling meat home? They are telling me theywant stability. They are tired of join-ing a plan, having to give up their tra-ditional providers and their Medigapinsurance just because the plan offersextra benefits, and then have the planabandon the extra benefits the verynext year or in fact just pull out ingeneral. They are tired of this.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gen-tleman from California (ChairmanTHOMAS), the gentleman knows I came

to the committee and I asked for a 2-year non-pullout time. I said, ‘‘Do youknow what? My constituents, the onesthat I sat in an open forum with, saidto me, ’We do not want to lose this be-cause we have problems. We are sick.We need to have stability. We want youto go up there, Mrs. THURMAN, and wewant you to fight for at least 2 years.Let us at least have 2 years, so that wecan have some stability in our plan.’ ’’

Well, do you know what? We offeredthat, and it was defeated. Tonight weare on the floor offering a 3-year. But,do you know what? I just found outsomething. How many of you have got-ten letters in your district from yourconstituents who have gotten lettersfrom their Medicare+Choice programsthat have said, you know what? YourCongress needs to give us more money.

So do you know what we are doing?We are giving them more money, andall we are asking back is one simplething: stay there for 2 years. Let us notkeep pulling people in and out of that.

But let me tell you what is hap-pening to them. Profits, third quarterprofits in one company, was 26 percent.Third quarter profits. But listen towhat happened. This is a letter from aconstituent that has a plan. Theirmonthly plan premium is going from$19 to $179, $19 to $179. That does not in-clude what they are going to get fromwhatever we pass to them. Outpatient,$10 visit copayment to $15. Outpatienthospital, $20 to $35. Under inpatienthospital care, they had no copaymentin 2000. Now it is going to be $200 perday, a limit of three copayments peryear. Inpatient hospital stay, no copay-ment last year, now $500 copaymentper admission. Then prescription drugs,they even get a lesser prescription drugbenefit.

Two years, three years, let us passthis motion.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is mypleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gen-tleman from Louisiana (Mr. TAUZIN), asenior member of the Committee onCommerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thankmy friend for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we putthis in perspective. Medicare+Choiceprograms are exactly that, they areMedicare plus, and they are choice pro-grams. Nobody forces a senior to jointhem; nobody says you have to join it;nobody says you have to stay in it ifyou do not like it.

In fact, seniors join theseMedicare+Choice programs becausethey like them, because they add newbenefits, primarily prescription drugcoverage, but sometimes even othernice benefits. Prescription drug benefitcoverage obviously is something sen-iors want to have, and that is why thisHouse passed a prescription drug ben-efit bill and sent it on to the Senate.

But for those seniors who join theseprograms, of course we all agree thatwe do not want these programs to shutdown and move out. They have shutdown in my district. They are threat-

ening to move out in my district aswell.

But the reason cited as the most im-portant reason why they are movingout, according to the MedPac March2000 report, is the uncertainty of futurepayments. So can we all agree that theproblem of reimbursement is one of theprincipal causes of hospitals shuttingdown in the rural parts of America andMedicare+Choice programs movingout?

So we pass the bill, H.R. 5543, whichincludes new reimbursement formulas,new monies to hospitals, new moniesfor the Medicare+Choice programs; andas the gentleman from California (Mr.THOMAS) correctly pointed out, it in-cluded language that said the moneythat went to the Medicare+Choice pro-grams must be used for lower pre-miums and/or more benefits. It has tobe used for that. So we provided moremoney to keep them there, to keepthem home, and to keep them invest-ing in our communities, providingthese Medicare+Choice programs forseniors. We want to encourage them tostay.

The problem with the motion to in-struct is that it may have the perverseeffect of destabilizing them even more.What it says is you have to stay for 3years, whether or not the program isworking, whether or not the reimburse-ments are adequate to cover the bene-fits that are provided under the pro-gram.

The reason why this motion to in-struct is wrong, even though we allagree that these are good programsthat seniors want to have, even thoughwe all agree that we do not want to seethem move out of our districts, eventhough we all agree they are programsthat provide extra coverage for ourmoms, for our dads and for our grand-parents who desperately need extracoverage, the reason why this motionto instruct is wrong is it has the effectof destabilizing the presence ofMedicare+Choice programs in our com-munities.

Why would someone come into amarginally profitable area? Why wouldthey come into an area where the reim-bursements are not quite adequate tocover the benefits? Why would theycome in if they were told, whether ornot it works, you have to stay 3 years?They would not come in at all. Thechances of them not coming in, notbeing present for my mom, not beingpresent for our grandparents aroundAmerica, to have these programs avail-able to them, is much stronger if thismotion to instruct passes.

On the contrary, we ought to encour-age the signature on H.R. 5543. Let meremind my friends on the other side,you voted to give more money toMedicare+Choice programs. You votedunder the Medicare prescription drugbill we passed, or the Stark substitute.You voted for $3 billion more to go tothose programs. So you agree with uswe ought to help them more, we oughtto stabilize them, we ought encouragethem to stay so seniors can have them.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11501October 29, 2000But what we ought not do in this mo-

tion to instruct is further discouragethem, further say there is a bigger riskin your coming to Thibodaux, Lou-isiana, where seniors would like you tobe around. You see, there is a dis-connect here. You cannot on the onehand attack these programs and refuseto help them out financially, and thenon the other hand say that whetheryou make it or not, you have got tostick around for 3 years.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad motion toinstruct. We ought to defeat it.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield31⁄4 minutes to the gentlewoman fromConnecticut (Ms. DELAURO).

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is aboutholding HMOs accountable. It is aboutaccountability. The Republican leader-ship does not wanted to hold HMOs ac-countable. They in fact would like toreward them for outrageous behavior.

Evidence: The Patients’ Bill ofRights, HMOs are making medical de-cisions all of the time. Some of thosedecisions go wrong. We have tried topass a Patients’ Bill of Rights in thisbody. The Republican leadership hasheld that up. All we are asking is ifthey make a medical decision that goeswrong, that they are held accountable.

Let us take a look at this bill thatwe are talking about this evening.Medicare HMOs should stop breakingtheir promise to seniors. When a seniorsigns up with a Medicare+Choice plan,they should have the security of know-ing they will not see their coverage re-duced or dropped for at least 3 years.We should be able to protect our sen-iors from those Medicare HMOs thatare pulling the rug out from underthem.

These were the folks that were sup-posed to provide seniors with morechoices, with prescription drug cov-erage that seniors cannot get throughtraditional Medicare, but they are giv-ing seniors no choice at all.

Let me talk about my State of Con-necticut. They have jettisoned 56,000people. I went to Milford, Connecticut,to a senior center, to say to these peo-ple, do not get scared. You can go backto traditional Medicare. We came toallay your fears.

A woman raised her hand and shesays, Rosa, do not tell me not to bescared. I am scared. You have insur-ance. I do not have insurance. What amI going to do?

That is what this is about, account-ability, HMO accountability. Instead ofprotecting seniors, Republican Con-gress protects the Medicare HMOs. Weshould have passed a bill here lastweek that would have provided des-perately needed funding to our Na-tion’s hospitals, rural, urban, homehealth, hospice providers. They faceddeep cuts in 1997. They need that kindof help from us.

Instead, the Republican Congressturned this bill into an $11 billion earlyChristmas present to the Medicare

HMOs, 40 percent of the money in thebill, even though they only serve 15percent of the seniors. They did itwithout any single guarantee that theMedicare HMOs will not stop reducingbenefits or dropping seniors’ coveragealtogether.

Mr. Speaker, we should have learnedsomething from the last time we in-creased the payment to MedicareHMOs. Last year we gave them an addi-tional $1.4 billion. Let me tell you howthey returned the favor; they droppednearly 1 million seniors. That is whywe are asking here for tonight for theHMOs to have some guarantee thatthey need to stay for 3 years.

One more item. My Republican col-leagues would go one step further.They would put the prescription drugbenefit into the hands of HMOs; imag-ine, people who decided to cut the rugout from 1 million people.

Mr. Speaker, this motion says if Con-gress is going to give $11 billion toMedicare HMOs, then Medicare HMOsshould provide seniors with the cov-erage they promise. Keep faith withAmerica’s seniors and support the mo-tion to instruct tonight.

b 2015

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is nowmy very great pleasure to yield 3 min-utes and 10 seconds to the gentle-woman from Connecticut (Mrs. JOHN-SON), a member of the Committee onWays and Means.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.Speaker, I would ask my colleaguefrom Connecticut to read the bill andbe honest with the seniors of Con-necticut. Talk straight. The bill clear-ly sends every penny of new money tolower premiums or more benefits. Readthe legislation.

The gentlewoman is right, our sen-iors are scared; and they have everyright to be scared, because, my col-leagues, when you push seniors out ofMedicare+Choice, and you are going towith this kind of proposal, you aregoing to close up every plan within amonth of passing this kind of legisla-tion because the plans will have nochoice. The seniors are scared becausethey are not going to be able to getinto medigap plans. Most of them can-not afford them and those plans dis-criminate on the basis of preexistingconditions. Seniors will have no choicebut Medicare, and they are inMedicare+Choice plans mostly becausethey are poor and need those copay-ments paid, and they are ill and theyneed a lot of care. So the seniors areafraid and this resolution will forcemany more plans to withdraw from themarket realizing the greatest fears ofour seniors.

My Democrat colleagues are going toclose them up, because listen to whatthey want to do. They want the plansto commit to stay in 3 years and coverbenefits, and every year we increasebenefits, and they are going to makethem cover them, but they do not sayone word in their amendment about

paying for those benefits. Not oneword.

Do my Democrat colleagues do theirhomework? Have they called theirplans in the last year and asked themwhy they are losing money? Have theygone in and looked at the data that theplans have given them? Did it occur tomy colleagues that when this body hasgiven bigger increases to hospitals,nursing homes and home health caresevery single year for the last 3 yearsand a 2 percent increase at maximumto our Medicare+Choice plans thatthey might be having trouble payingfor the benefits that we want them topay for? Of course. That is the problem.

That is why the Committee on Waysand Means Democrats voted with theCommittee on Ways and Means Repub-licans to give these plans a 4 percentincrease this year; and, as a result ofthe amendment of the gentlewomanfrom Florida (Mrs. THURMAN), becauseas she passionately described the fearand problems for her seniors if theseplans go under, we gave them a higherincrease, if they would come back intothe market. Yes, we did that on a bi-partisan basis, because we examinedthe facts. We talked to the plans, wetalked to HCFA, we evaluated the in-formation. That is our job on this com-mittee with primary responsibilityover Medicare.

Then, the President comes out and hesays he wants 1 percent. Do we thinkthey are going to stay in the marketswith 1 percent when they have onlybeen able to stay in the markets withthe highest AAPCC at this time? Andthose happen to be the most denselypopulated markets, so they have thehighest number of participants and ithelps them stay in?

I am outraged, outraged that myDemocrat colleagues would let politicsbring this House floor to this level ofdishonesty when they know that noplan will be unable to commit to 3years and cover the benefits when theydo not even guarantee them payment.

This amendment says nothing. Itsays negotiate. Well, the Presidentwants 1 percent. Remember? The Presi-dent said we only needed to add $21 bil-lion back to Medicare. The Republicanssaid no. We have to add $28 billionback, or our hospitals will go under,our nursing homes will go under, ourhome health agencies will go under.

Give our seniors a break. Give ourseniors a break. Give our health careproviders the money they need to stayalive to not only serve our seniors, butserve the rest of the community thatdepends on our community hospitals,our nursing homes and our home careagencies. And yes, give them thatchoice of Medicare+Choice plans.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself 30 seconds.

I just wanted to read from this reportof the GAO that came out in Sep-tember and it says, ‘‘Although industryrepresentatives have called forMedicare+Choice payment rate in-creases, it is unclear whether increases


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11502 October 29, 2000would affect plans’ participation deci-sions. In 2000, 7 percent of the countieswith a Medicare+Choice plan in 1999 re-ceived a payment rate increase of 10percent or more. Nonetheless, nearly 40percent of these counties experienced aplan withdraw.’’

The bottom line is, the Republicansare saying they want to give all of thisextra money to the HMOs. The min-imum they could do is provide a 3-yearguarantee and keep the benefits thesame way, because otherwise, it willnot work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 11⁄2 minutes tothe gentleman from Massachusetts(Mr. OLVER).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, it is a hardact to follow from my colleague fromConnecticut, but I rise in support ofthe motion to instruct. Rural areaslike mine in western Massachusetts,and not so rural areas like the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. LAZIO) likeLong Island, have been left high anddry by Medicare HMOs. They havelargely abandoned rural markets toproviding a prescription drug benefitfor senior citizens, and those plans thatdo remain have raised premiums by asmuch as 300 percent in some cases.

Now, I support giving better reim-bursements to health care providersthat were harmed by the BalancedBudget Act. Hospitals, nursing homes,home health providers, and even HMOsneed our help. But it makes no sense tome to give billions of dollars to HMOs,while allowing them to abandon seniorcitizens in rural America without cov-erage for prescription drugs. Such ahandout to HMOs without holdingthem accountable is a reckless use oftaxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to give moneyback to the HMOs, we should havesome guarantee that they will not takethe money and run. We must add, wemust require HMOs to offer a fair planto all seniors for drug coverage thatthey desperately need.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is mypleasure now to yield 1 minute to thegentleman from Georgia (Mr. KING-STON).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wantto speak to my friends on the otherside of the aisle.

My dad is 82 years old. He hasmacular degeneration, and he has dia-betes. That means he is legally blind,he cannot read his blood sugar level,and he is trying to live independently.

Now, I do know not what my Demo-crat colleagues think about when theyplay games with our seniors like my fa-ther, but it seems to me that there is aconsistent pattern around here for thelast 3 weeks to put politics over peopleover and over again.

Here is a bill that has been endorsedby the American Hospital Association,the American Cancer Society, theAmerican Federation of Home HealthCare Providers, the National Associa-tion of Childrens Hospitals, the Na-tional Association of Rural HealthCare Clinics, which I know they do not

care about that, because the gentlemanfrom Rhode Island (Mr. KENNEDY),their leader says, and I quote, ‘‘Wehave written off rural America.’’

Now, I know they are proud aboutthat and I know what this is about, butthe fact is, I would like my colleaguesto think about people out there whohave diabetes, people out there who arein nursing homes, people out there whoyes, are scared, because you knowwhat? It is November and every 2 yearsthere are certain members of the Dem-ocrat party who cannot get reelected,so they get scared and they know theonly way they can keep getting electedis to scare senior citizens. It is notright. I have a 97-year-old great grand-mother. She does not appreciate put-ting politics over people. We are tiredof it.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentleman from NewMexico (Mr. UDALL).

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico askedand was given permission to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr.Speaker, I would say to the gentlemanfrom Georgia (Mr. KINGSTON), first ofall, that we believe in rural Americaand the reason the gentleman in NewJersey (Mr. PALLONE) is offering thismotion is because we support ruralAmerica; and we want accountability. Irise in strong support of this motion.

Congress has a responsibility to pro-tect seniors and stop protecting theHMO industry. This motion is designedto require accountability for MedicareHMOs. This issue is especially impor-tant to my home State of New Mexico.Earlier this year, between 15,000 and17,000 New Mexico seniors were toldthat by year’s end, they were beingdropped from their Medicare+Choicecoverage. Needless to say, a franticplea for help rang out from seniors ask-ing for a solution.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the so-lution offered by the majority to shov-el more and more money to HMOs; andI urge support of the Pallone motion.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is nowmy pleasure to yield 2 minutes to thegentleman from North Carolina (Mr.BURR), a member of the Committee onCommerce.

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr.Speaker, I thank the gentleman fromCalifornia for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat and listenedto this tonight and what misses out ofthis debate is the human face behindthe issue. It is that senior who sits athome, that has no coverage; that sen-ior who has a Medicare system thatthis institution has refused to changeyear after year after year, that doesnot meet the needs of medicine today,the diagnostic tools that exist and thetreatments that are available to thosethat can pay.

We ought to have a debate todayabout the changes in Medicare, but weare not. We are going to have a debateabout how we hamstring choice for sen-iors, how we tie up the companies who

can provide that choice so that, in fact,they will not, further taking seniorsand limiting them to the existing sys-tem.

Now, the gentleman before me, thegentleman from New Mexico (Mr.UDALL) said that it is just about payingthem more money. One of the reasonsthat they are dropping out of the sys-tem is that we underfunded this par-ticular portion, and every Memberbipartisanly has agreed to that. Butthe question is, is there account-ability? Can they prove the value oftheir service? I believe that they can; Ibelieve that this motion to instruct infact hampers any additional pluschoice options in the marketplace forseniors that either have been droppedor are currently underserved.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage everyMember to vote against this motion toinstruct and to vote for additionalchoices for seniors with health care.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2minutes to the gentleman from Michi-gan (Mr. DINGELL), the ranking mem-ber of the Committee on Commerce.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, facts areawfully hard to quarrel with. What arethe facts? Last year, we gave the HMOs$2 billion and more. This bill givesthem $34 billion and more. HMOs havepulled out. Last year they pulled outand left about a half a million Ameri-cans without coverage. They havepulled out on almost 1 million morethis year. The motion to instruct saysone thing, and that is, if you are goingto take this money, stay for 3 years.

What is so hard for my colleagues onthe Republican side to understand?This is simply about accountability.They are going to get a lot of Govern-ment money, and they ought to stay totake care of the senior citizens.

Now, perhaps that is hard for my Re-publican colleagues to understand; butit is not hard for the GAO or for the In-spector General of HHS who said thatthe HMOs are now being overpaid.They have got more money than theyneed, but they do not have enough tosatisfy them.

Now, some of the statements thatwere made on this side of the aisle havereally touched my heart, and I wouldbe much impressed if they were true.They talked about these important un-fortunate HMOs. Well, these poorHMOs are pulling out on America’ssenior citizens and leaving them with-out coverage. That is what they aredoing. The motion to instruct says,you are going to take a lot of Federalmoney, some $34 billion or $36 billionlast year and this year, so stay aroundfor a while and provide services. Whatis so hard for my Republican colleaguesto understand about that simple fact?

Now, if I were crafting this bill, Iwould do it to really help the seniorcitizens. I would see to it that we putin a decent program for prescriptionmedicine so that they have it. HMOs


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11503October 29, 2000could take this money, they do nothave to do anything for it, except putit in the pockets of their executives orto see to it that it goes into the bottomline in dividends.

I would see to it that it goes to hos-pitals, to home nursing, and to nursinghomes, so that we can really help thosewho need it. That is how we do the job.

b 2030

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1minute to the gentlewoman from NewMexico (Mrs. WILSON), a member of theCommittee on Commerce, who can tellmy colleagues the real impact of thisbill.

Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, the gen-tleman from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL)who just spoke talked how he wouldwrite this bill if he had the opportunityto, but the underlying bill wentthrough the Committee on Commerce,and he voted for it.

The reason he voted for it is it is abipartisan bill, and it is a good piece oflegislation. I want to talk about theMedicare+Choice provisions because Iwas the author with the gentlemanfrom Minnesota (Mr. LUTHER), a Demo-crat, of the underlying bill. SenatorWYDEN and Senator DOMENICI were theauthors in the Senate.

The biggest threat to eliminating thediscrimination against States like NewMexico is not a motion to instruct. Itis that the President of the UnitedStates has said he intends to veto thisbill which will save health care cov-erage for a million Americans, 15,000 ofwhom live in New Mexico. And do mycolleagues know who runs the HMOs inNew Mexico? The Catholic church, thePresbyterian church, both of them run-ning nonprofit corporations and Love-less hospital that has been serving ourcommunity for almost 60 years.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Presi-dent of the United States to sign thisbill and restore health care for Amer-ica’s seniors.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to un-derstand that the motion to instructreally ought to be, as the gentlewomanfrom New Mexico (Mrs. WILSON) said,to instruct the President to sign thebill. It is time to stop the politics. Thisis a bill that not only funds the pro-viders, the hospitals, the home healthcare skilled nursing, but it creates a bi-annual test for Pap smears.

It screens glaucoma. It screenscolonoscopy. It eliminates the time onMedicare benefits for immuno-suppressive drugs. It puts limits onprescription drug charges so seniorsare not bilked by unscrupulous pro-viders. Yes, and it tells the plans thatif we provide them with money, thatmoney must go to beneficiaries.

This motion to instruct is all poli-tics, and the President’s failure to signthe bill is all politics. Let us end thepolitics. Vote no on this motion to in-struct and tell the President to signthe bill.


Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yieldmyself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is to pro-tect the seniors and make sure they donot get thrown out of their HMOs andthey do not lose their benefits, includ-ing their prescription drug benefits.And what the Republicans want to doin opposing this motion is they want togive all this money to the special inter-est HMOs so they can use it for theirexecutives, so that they can put moreads on to try to lure seniors in to abenefit plan that they are not going toreally get, and so that they can use themoney for special interests for lob-bying and to lobby to come down hereand avoid HMO reform and the Pa-tients’ Bill of Rights and a Medicareprescription drug program.

This bill that the Republicans haveproposed is for the special interests.What the Democrats are saying withthis motion is let us make sure thatthe seniors can stay in a program thatthey can get their benefits. We are wor-rying about the little person who isbeing thrown out of the HMO all overthis country, including in my district.

Mr. Speaker, I had a woman that hadto go to a dinner. She was lured to adinner with advertising by the HMO toget into a program with a lobster din-ner. They gave her a lobster dinner soshe would sign up for the HMO, andthen she is thrown out of the HMO andshe has nowhere to go.

It is a disgrace. Vote for the motionto instruct.

Ms. VALA´ZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in

support of the Pallone Motion to Instruct. Thismotion addresses yet another failure of themanaged care system. The Medicare PlusChoice plans are currently constructed so thatan HMO in the system can drop out at anytime, leaving its patients to find another choiceprovider, or to re-enter the standard Medicaresystem. Often, this happens on very short no-tice.

This motion seeks to ensure that our frailestcitizens do not suddenly find themselveskicked out of the system they depend on fortheir health coverage. Since January of 1999,this has happened to over 700,000 senior citi-zens nationwide. The Health Care FinancingAdministration estimates that over the nextyear, 10 to 15 percent of the nation’s Medi-care Plus Choice beneficiaries will find them-selves in the same situation.

Therefore, we must support this motion toensure that all providers offer coverage toseniors for at least three years after they jointhe system.

More importantly, rather than trying to mendan already fraying safety net, we need to passcomprehensive legislation—in particular, a pa-tient’s bill of rights to protect all Americans. Ifwe had done this in this Congress, HMOswould already have been put on notice thatwe will not allow them to place profits over thehealth of people.

Last October, 275 Members of this House,from both sides of the aisle, passed a strongHMO reform bill. The Republican leadershiphas allowed it to die in conference, againthwarting the will of the House.

Even worse, Republicans are ignoring thedemand of the American people for healthcare reform. They are also showing that theyare more concerned about big business thanthe health of the American people.

My colleagues, we have a chance today tosay that we will no longer stand by while thehealth of our senior citizens is sacrificed onthe altar of corporate greed. If you agree, thenI urge you to vote in favor of this motion.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yieldback the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.THORNBERRY). Without objection, theprevious question is ordered on the mo-tion to instruct.

There was no objection.The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the motion to instructoffered by the gentleman from NewJersey (Mr. PALLONE).

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I de-mand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—ayes 170, noes 183,not voting 79, as follows:

[Roll No. 576]

AYES—170

AckermanAderholtAndrewsBacaBairdBaldacciBaldwinBarciaBarrett (WI)BentsenBerkleyBermanBerryBilbrayBlagojevichBlumenauerBoniorBorskiBoswellBoydBrown (OH)CappsCapuanoCardinCarsonClementClyburnConditCostelloCoyneCramerCummingsDavis (FL)DeFazioDeGetteDeLauroDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDoyleEdwardsEmersonEngelEshooEtheridgeEvansFarrFattahFilnerFordFrostGanskeGejdensonGephardt

GilmanGonzalezGreen (TX)Hall (OH)Hall (TX)Hill (IN)HincheyHinojosaHoeffelHoldenHoltHooleyHornHoyerInsleeJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson, E. B.Jones (NC)Jones (OH)KildeeKind (WI)KleczkaKucinichLampsonLarsonLeachLeeLevinLewis (GA)LoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McDermottMcGovernMcKinneyMcNultyMeeks (NY)Millender-

McDonaldMiller, GeorgeMinkMoakleyMollohan

MooreMorellaNadlerNapolitanoNealObeyOlverOrtizPallonePastorPaynePelosiPhelpsPomeroyPrice (NC)RahallRangelReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRushSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonSchakowskyScottSerranoShermanShowsSisiskySkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)StabenowStenholmStricklandTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)Thompson (CA)ThurmanTierneyTownsTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VelazquezWatersWatt (NC)


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11504 October 29, 2000WaxmanWeiner

WexlerWilson

WoolseyWu

NOES—183

ArmeyBachusBakerBallengerBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBiggertBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBrady (TX)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCannonCastleChabotChamblissChenoweth-HageCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCookCoxCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEnglishEverettEwingFletcherFoleyFossellaFrelinghuysenGalleglyGekasGibbonsGilchrestGoode

GoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreen (WI)GreenwoodGutknechtHansenHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHergerHill (MT)HillearyHobsonHoekstraHostettlerHoughtonHunterHutchinsonIsaksonIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamKellyKing (NY)KingstonKnollenbergKuykendallLaHoodLargentLathamLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLucas (OK)ManzulloMcCreryMcHughMcKeonMicaMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMingeMoran (KS)MyrickNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarOsePackardPaulPeasePeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)Petri

PickeringPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaReynoldsRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoyceRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SaboSalmonSanfordScarboroughSchafferSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggSherwoodShimkusSimpsonSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SouderSpenceStearnsStumpSununuSweeneyTauzinTaylor (NC)TerryThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtToomeyTraficantUptonVitterWaldenWalshWampWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING—79

AbercrombieAllenArcherBarrBecerraBereuterBishopBoucherBrady (PA)Brown (FL)CampbellClayClaytonConyersCookseyCraneCrowleyDannerDavis (IL)DelahuntDickeyDooleyForbesFowlerFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)Gillmor

GordonGutierrezHastings (FL)HefleyHilliardHulshofHydeKanjorskiKapturKasichKennedyKilpatrickKlinkKolbeLaFalceLantosLaTouretteLazioLipinskiMartinezMcCollumMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMeehanMeek (FL)Menendez

MetcalfMoran (VA)MurthaOwensOxleyPascrellPickettRileySanchezShawShaysShusterSnyderSprattStarkStupakTalentTancredoThompson (MS)ViscloskyWatkinsWatts (OK)WeygandWiseWynn

b 2055

Messrs. CANADY of Florida, ISTOOKand MINGE and Mrs. CHENOWETH-

HAGE and Mrs. KELLY changed theirvote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

So the motion to instruct was notagreed to.

The result of the vote was announcedas above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid onthe table.

f

HOUR OF MEETING ON MONDAY,OCTOBER 30, 2000

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I movethat when the House adjourns today, itadjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow formorning hour debate, and 10 a.m. forlegislative business.

The motion was agreed to.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

f

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate from Mr.Lundregan, one of its clerks, an-nounced that the Senate has passedwithout amendment a joint resolutionof the House of the following title:

H.J. Res. 119. Joint Resolution making fur-ther continuing appropriations for the fiscalyear 2001, and for other purposes.

f

HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, thereis a simple question we confront to-night as we have moved in this com-mon sense Congress to reach com-promise and consensus in a bipartisanfashion. That is, after agreeing tomany provisions on both sides of theaisle, with what some would call rea-sonable and others would call overlygenerous spending packages, Mr.Speaker, we are facing this question:How much is enough?

I would turn to the legislation wepassed at midweek last week in this106th Congress, reasonable plans thatoffered tax relief, but more impor-tantly, ordered a Medicare refinementand restoration plan needed for ourhospitals, needed for our home healthcare, needed for our nursing homes,and other provisions actually requestedby the President of the United Stateswho came to Arizona to embrace a newmarkets initiative, part and parcel ofthe bill we passed last week, and yetsadly so many people on the other sidevoted against it.

Mr. Speaker, how much is enough?

f

HOW MUCH MORE DOES THEPRESIDENT WANT?

(Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, Ithink a lot of the American people aresurprised that the Congress is still in

session. I think a lot of people back inmy district cannot believe that wehave not resolved our differences. Thischart is a little hard to read, but it fol-lows on with what the gentleman fromArizona was talking about. What itshows in red is what the President re-quested in each of his budget requestsper category.

On Education, Labor, HHS, the chartis about the same. Agriculture, righton down the line. In fact, in one of theareas in the Defense budget we are ac-tually giving more than he requested.By the time we are done with this billthat we debated so hotly tonight, atleast the motion to instruct, we aregoing to give the President signifi-cantly more than he originally re-quested, which leads to the real ques-tion that not only we in Congress butthe American people, and frankly,members of the working press, oughtto be asking the President of theUnited States: How much is enough?

b 2100

Now, we have been willing to meetwith the President to negotiate in goodfaith. We have met him more than half-way. But we should not be in sessiontoday. How much is enough, Mr. Presi-dent?f


Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker,yesterday, October 29, 2000, I was un-avoidably detained and missed tworollcall votes, Nos. 572 and 573. I wouldlike the RECORD to reflect that I wouldhave voted ‘‘yes’’ on rollcall No. 572and ‘‘yes’’ on rollcall No. 573.f

CONGRESS FIGHTING BATTLEOVER BUDGET

(Mr. EHLERS asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, it is apleasure to be here this evening. Thisis an historic event. We have never metthis late in our legislative season sinceWorld War II. But perhaps this is notall bad. We are fighting a battle here,too; and that battle is to keep thebudget down.

Over the past few years, when we ap-proached this point, the President de-manded more spending. In order towrap up this session and get home forelections, we capitulated.

This year we are not going to dothat. The President is trying to shang-hai us by saying, we will only let yougo for 24 hours. You have to be hereevery day, even though there is noth-ing to do, because they are not negoti-ating.

I think it is rather unique. But weare here. We are willing to work. Weare eager to work. Unfortunately, thePresident has been out on the WestCoast raising money. But as soon as hegets back and as soon as he is willingto negotiate with us, we are ready and


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11505October 29, 2000willing to negotiate. But we are notgoing to give the ship away. We aregoing to restrain the budget and do thebest we can to keep the budget bal-anced.

f

ISSUE IS NOT HOW MUCH MONEY

(Mr. STENHOLM asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, theissue is not how much money. The ma-jority voted last week to increase thecaps to $645 billion in spending. That is$13 billion more than the President re-quested. The Blue Dog Democrats sug-gested a compromise of $633 billion along time ago. The majority refused totalk to us.

I hope we will stop talking aboutmoney. Money is no longer the issue.Because if we exceed $645 billion capfor 2001, there will be sequestration andwe will bring all the spending back to$645 billion, which is what the majorityhas set for the caps, which is way toomuch spending.

So I hope we will stop this mis-directed rhetoric tonight. Because thatsign there ‘‘how much is enough?’’ hasno relevance whatsoever to any of theissues that we are talking about be-cause we all agree now that $645 billionis the cap.

f

PRESIDENT HAS DEMANDEDBLANKET AMNESTY FOR ILLE-GAL ALIENS

(Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker,the gentleman may or may not be cor-rect in terms of what the issue is. ThePresident always is pushing us to spenda little more on health care, a littlemore on education. But the fact iswhat is the real issue that is keepingus here?

The real issue is the President hasdemanded a blanket amnesty for mil-lions of illegal aliens in our society. Soall this money that he is talking about,a little more for education, a littlemore for health care, will be totally ne-gated even if we give in to the Presi-dent because we will be then addingmillions of more people into eligibilityfor these same government programs.

The President is keeping us here inorder to pressure Congress to issue ablanket amnesty for millions of illegalaliens and then thus making them eli-gible for every government benefit thatsupposedly should be going to theAmerican people.

This is a noble cause for us to standour ground here in Congress to protectthe American people, not to let thePresident bring in millions of illegalaliens in order to consume the scarceresources available for them in healthcare, Social Security, and education.

ISSUE IS WHAT ARE WE SPENDINGMONEY ON?

(Mr. TURNER asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I think itis apparent to all of us that the ques-tion is not how much is enough. We arealready spending more than we oughtto be. The majority voted to spend $645billion when you raise the caps. ThePresident did not ask us but for $637billion.

The issue is what are we spending themoney on? That is why we are here.That is what we are arguing about.

The truth of the matter is most of uson this side of the aisle want to spendmore money on our rural hospitals andour health care providers and lessmoney on the insurance companyHMOs than the Republicans have putin the bill. And the truth of the mat-ter, even Senator JOHN MCCAIN pointedout that there is $21 billion in this leg-islation that is just pure pork.

Every newspaper in the country hasbeen editorializing on the fact that themajority has stuffed this bill with porkfor partisan purposes to help folks thatare in tough races.

So let us get the pork out, and let ussave our rural hospitals that are aboutto close in my district. Let us increasethe reimbursements to our health careproviders. And let us not give the lion’sshare to the big insurance companies.

f

REIMBURSEMENTS TO HMO’S ANDMANAGED CARE

(Mr. HILL of Montana asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, Iwant to bring some clarity to the issuethat we just debated and voted on, andthat is this issue of reimbursements toHMOs and managed care.

I no longer have a managed care in-stitution in Montana. The one that wasthere was forced to close down a yearago. I sat down with HCFA, the Clintonadministration, and that HMO to try tokeep it alive a year ago. And one of thethings that I discovered is that whenthe Clinton administration forced theclosure of that HMO, it knew that itwas going to cost more to providehealth care to those seniors under thefee-for-service Medicare than it wouldunder the HMO. And this was a pro-vider-based HMO.

I thought to myself, why in the worldwould they do that, would they forcepeople into poor coverage, no prescrip-tion drug coverage, and higherdeductibles when they knew it wasgoing to cost more? Then it dawned onme. The Clinton administration wantsto destroy managed care,Medicare+Choice.

What we have here is Democratscoming to this floor pretending thatthey want to keep those seniors whohave that program covered, when the

reality is they want to destroy thatprogram because they do not want sen-iors to have a choice, but they want toblame Republicans for doing it. And itis wrong, and they are wrong for doingit. We did the right thing by votingthat resolution down.

f

CONGRESS HAS MORE TIME THANMONEY

(Mr. THUNE asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, we are stillhere this evening because we havemore time than we have money. Andwhen it comes right down do it, thequestion of the day is ‘‘how much isenough?’’ We have passed appropria-tions bills through this House. We havepassed appropriation bills that met ourbudget. As we went into the conferencenegotiations with the Senate, the num-bers got bid up.

The President now has gotten almosteverything I think he had asked fororiginally as far as the dollars includedin his original budget. But he is de-manding more. And that is why we arestill here, because we have more timethan we have money and more timethan the American people have in theirtax dollars to continue shoveling intoWashington, D.C.

We have an opportunity, Mr. Speak-er, to pass a Medicare package, to passa tax relief package. And all thosethings are going down to the President,and he is insisting on a veto. I thinkthat is a wrong thing to do. It is thewrong thing to do for the people of thiscountry, for the people of South Da-kota, to the rural hospitals, the homehealth care agencies, the nursinghomes, those who need this assistance.We do the right thing.

Let us pass this legislation, and letus get the President to sign it, andthen we can go home.

f


Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, yesterdaymorning I was detained at a meetingon class size reduction and got here toolate to cast my vote on rollcall No. 570,approval of the Journal. I ask unani-mous consent that my statement beput in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.PEASE). Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

f

REPUBLICANS ARE PROTECTINGSOCIAL SECURITY AND SURPLUS

(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the Re-publicans in the House have passed do-mestic discretionary spending that haskept within our budget. In fact, as a


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11506 October 29, 2000percent of gross domestic product, it isthe lowest since 1974.

Now, some of our opponents on theother side of the aisle would like to saythat we have passed these larger andlarger budgets, but the truth is we havebeen in negotiation with the WhiteHouse and we have tried to reach anagreement with him.

As other speakers have said earlier,we have matched him on most of thebills that have been passed. There arejust a few outstanding that are stillbeing negotiated. But the Presidentwants to continue to add more andmore money in and start more andmore new programs.

We are protecting Social Security.We are protecting the surplus on SocialSecurity. We are protecting the surplusfor Medicare. We have even passed abill that gives some tax relief and alsostrengthens Medicare by adding morethan $12 billion and to strengthen hos-pitals, including more than $1 billionfor rural hospitals. In Kansas, ruralhospitals are in desperate need of thislegislation and this bill. But the Presi-dent is holding it hostage and is refus-ing to do it.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just hope that hewill sign these bills into law and wecan finish this session.f

PRESIDENT THREATENS TO VETOFEDERAL EXCISE TAX ON TELE-PHONES

(Mr. PORTMAN asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, we arestill here tonight for one very simplereason. We are here with another bat-tling with the President of the UnitedStates. He would like us to spend moremoney, and he would like us not to cuttaxes for the American people. It is un-believable.

As we are working here tonight, thePresident is threatening to veto veryreasonable, even targeted tax reliefthat helps people save more for retire-ment, helps people obtain health care,helps people be able to improve ourschools and construct more schoolsaround this country.

He has even threatened to veto to-night the repeal of the Federal excisetax on telephones. This is the 1898 tem-porary luxury tax put in place on tele-phones that lives on today. This taxhits particularly people that have fixedincomes very hard.

Think about it, everyone in Americaneeds a telephone. It is very importantto those of us who are worried aboutour economy and worried about what isgoing to keep our economy going thattelecommunications not be taxed. Yetthe President believes this tax, this 3percent tax that is on every one of ourphone bills that goes into general reve-nues that was put in place in 1898 as atemporary luxury tax ought to con-tinue in existence.

We have a surplus all created by theAmerican people. Let us hope this

President begins to give a little mean-ingful, serious, reasonable tax relief.f

LET CONGRESS STAND UP FORPARENTS AND TEACHERS ATLOCAL LEVEL

(Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute.)

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, we arein Washington today talking aboutsome very important issues. Over thelast 3 years, my subcommittee has hadthe opportunity to travel around thecountry and take a look at educationto see what is working in America andwhat is not working in America.

It is exciting to go down to the Stateand local level and see what parents,teachers, and local administrators aredoing to bring about excellence in edu-cation. We need to reinforce those ef-forts and let people at the local levelcontinue to innovate and move for-ward.

We contrast that with what is goingon here in Washington. We have a De-partment of Education that has failedits audit for the last 2 years, has nu-merous cases of waste, fraud, andabuse. And now the President wants toput additional programs under the ju-risdiction of the Department of Edu-cation so that there are more Wash-ington programs and bureaucrats tell-ing our local parents and administra-tors what to do in education.

This is a discussion and a debateabout who controls our local schools.Let us stand up for parents and teach-ers at the local level.f

WHY CONGRESS IS IN SESSION ONSUNDAY NIGHT

(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we arehere on a Sunday night. I want to tellmy colleagues, I am kind of sad. Iwould rather be with my family. But Iwill tell you one thing, it is my duty tobe here and fight for the things that Ibelieve in.

One of the things that I am fightingfor is little old Brantley County, Geor-gia. Because, see, the President has ascheme to federalize school construc-tion. He wants to have school construc-tion run out of Washington, D.C., forevery county school board in theUnited States of America. We wantlocal control.

I want to tell the folks back inBrantley County, Georgia, that you aregoing to continue to be in charge. Weare here to fight for classroom size. Iam with the President on that. Weneed to reduce the size of the class-room. But I am away from the Presi-dent on Medicare reimbursement. Hehas threatened to veto a bill that hasbeen endorsed by the American Hos-pital Association. I am here becausethe President has threatened to veto a

bill that would take away 100 percenthealth care deductibility, which wouldmake health care affordable for smallbusinesses and farmers. That is worthfighting for. And I am here for the So-cial Security lockbox, which the Presi-dent has yet to commit himself to.

That is why we are here on a Sundaynight, and I am not going to leave untilwe get this thing done.f

b 2115

LET US SET THE RECORDSTRAIGHT

(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, wehave heard discussion of the schoolconstruction provisions of the tax bill.Let me set the record straight. WeDemocrats want provisions whereschool boards are given a chance toissue bonds, where the Federal Govern-ment pays the interest costs and thebond money is used immediately tobuild schools. Unfortunately, this taxbill, while it provides some of thosebonds, provides not enough and thenprovides over a $2 billion cost to theFederal Government to liberalize thearbitrage rules in which school boardswill be told by the Federal Governmentto delay building schools, take themoney, put it on Wall Street and try tomake money by arbitrage provisions.That is how Orange County, California,went bankrupt. That is not a way tohelp our local schools. The way to helpour local schools is to reject the taxbill that passed through this House andinstead provide a full $25 billion worthof bonds where the Federal Govern-ment will pick up the interest cost. Weneed to build schools on Elm Street,not skyscrapers on Wall Street.f

HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

(Mr. SCHAFFER asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, howmuch is enough? Three and a halfweeks ago we were supposed to havebeen adjourned, but we are here be-cause of the politics down at the WhiteHouse, the politics of putting partisan-ship ahead of people.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many ofour colleagues ever saw the movie‘‘The Jerk.’’ It is a rags to riches torags story wherein the main characteris evicted, and he is kind of hanging onto the last bits of furniture and itemsin his home as he is walking out thedoor, as he says, I don’t need anythingelse. I have everything I need exceptfor this lamp.

We are seeing that go on over at theWhite House today: We do not needanything else except for amnesty for il-legal aliens. We do not need anythingelse, I got everything I need except


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11507October 29, 2000needles for heroin addict. I do not needanything else except for more Govern-ment employees, and that is all I need,except for this, I need more Govern-ment construction. That is what we areseeing going on at the White House,The Jerk. It is a great movie. Everyoneought to see. How much is enough, Mr.Speaker?f

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.PEASE). Under the Speaker’s an-nounced policy of January 6, 1999, andunder a previous order of the House,the following Members will be recog-nized for 5 minutes each.f

THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT ANDENCOURAGEMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Montana (Mr. HILL) is rec-ognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker,tonight is a difficult moment for mebecause this probably will be my lastopportunity to address this House be-cause when this session ends my serv-ice in this institution will end. I wouldjust like to take a moment, if I could,and reflect upon these last few years. Ithink back to my father, who leftschool when he was 13 years old, theend of eighth grade. He had to do thatin order to get a job, in order to sup-port his brothers and his sisters and hismother. He served in World War II andafter the end of the war, a friend of-fered to lend him $100 to get started ina tire repair shop. He jumped at thechance to take that loan and start thatbusiness because he saw that as hisonly opportunity to realize what we re-ferred to, I guess, as the ‘‘AmericanDream.’’

What I remember about my parentsis how hard they worked because theyworked hard all of their lives. My fa-ther is no longer living. I can remem-ber my mother even taking care ofboarders in our house in order to helpour family make ends meet. So if wemeasure success by how much moneypeople accumulate or how many thingsthey have, then we would not put myparents in the success category. Theymeasured success another way. Theybelieved in certain values. Those val-ues were hard work and family andfaith and individual responsibility, andthey believed that in this country andin our society that if one works hardthen anybody can have their chance topursue their dream and their idea ofsuccess. They believed also that it wasevery generation’s obligation to makesure that they passed that opportunityon to the next generation of Ameri-cans.

My sisters and I inherited more op-portunities than my parents had. I gotto go to college. I raised a family. I hada successful business. I have a terrificwife, three wonderful children, threedelightful grandchildren. When I asked

the people of Montana to elect me torepresent them here, I told them thatfor me this was about our children andabout our grandchildren.

The people in this country, the peo-ple of Montana, were frightened just afew years ago. They thought perhapsthis idea, this American dream, waslost for generations to come, and thereason for that was their government.If we remember, we had deficits, $250billion or $300 billion a year going for-ward as far as the eye could see. Thenational debt was approaching the sizeof our national economy.

Social Security and Medicare, twoimportant programs, were in seriousjeopardy. Medicare was scheduled to goto bankrupt.

It was not just a budget deficit thatthe people of Montana were expressingto me. They said there was another def-icit, too, and that was the deficit in in-dividual responsibility and personal re-sponsibility that they saw in our soci-ety; a runaway welfare system; illegit-imacy; broken families. The list goeson and on. We have made a lot ofprogress in the last few years on theseimportant subjects. The fiscal house ofthe nation is in better shape than ithas been in a long time. We cut over 50Government programs to help get usthere. The budget is balanced, and itlooks like it will stay balanced longinto the future. Medicare at least issolvent for another 20 years. Social Se-curity, we have ended 40 years of raid-ing the surplus in the Social Securitytrust fund, and that money hopefullywill be set aside for generations in thefuture as well.

We lowered taxes for our families sothat those families can make more de-cisions over how their money getsspent, empowering them to make bet-ter decisions as well.

This country is a unique place and itis based upon an idea, an idea, I guesswe refer to it as the American dream,but it is also important for us to real-ize it is based upon principles of free-dom and the principles of liberty, be-cause that is how we pursue ourdreams. That is why we are a creativenation, why we are entrepreneurial,why we are competitive and why this issuch a dynamic place to live, is becauseof these freedoms and this liberty.

I have endeavored throughout myservice here to promote those values,the values of competition, of freedomand liberty, to empower people andgive people the power to make theirown choices.

There are some people that I want tothank tonight, my wife, Betio; mymom, who watches C–SPAN religiouslyand thinks that the gentleman fromArizona (Mr. HAYWORTH) is the bestCongressman, and I am second best; mychildren, Todd, Corey, and Mike; mygrandchildren, Kadrian, Parker, Levy,and one on the way who is not namedyet; my loyal staff who has worked sohard.

I especially want to thank the Mem-bers that I have served with here. What

makes this such a special place, andsometimes I think people watching orlistening misunderstand, is that thepeople carry such passionate views andso much caring about their constitu-ents and the things they believe in tothis floor and debate them on behalf oftheir constituents. I want to thank youall for your advice and your counsel,your help and your support and yourencouragement; and finally I want tothank the people of Montana who tem-porarily entrusted me with this job,caretaker over this office. I want tothank them for the honor and theprivilege they have bestowed upon meto represent them in this special place.f

GOVERNOR BUSH’S TAX PROPOSALThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gen-tleman from California (Mr. SHERMAN)is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, oureconomic prosperity is fragile and thepolitical reasons, the political rhetoricout there in the country threatens toput that prosperity at risk. The Gov-ernor of Texas has mocked the impor-tance of fiscal responsibility. It is inhis political interest to tell the coun-try that decisions made in Washingtonover the last 8 years have nothing to dowith the economic prosperity that wehave enjoyed over the last 8 years. Notonly is he wrong but his statements laythe foundation for some very, very dan-gerous economic policies.

The Governor of Texas is correct thatthe lion’s share of credit for our eco-nomic prosperity goes to Americanworkers whose ingenuity, whose hardwork, whose inventiveness are unparal-leled; but for political gain, he deniesthat there is another essential elementand that is fiscal responsibility here inWashington. When he denies that theFederal Government has anything todo with how our economy performs, hegrants us here in Washington a licenseto be fiscally irresponsible, because ifGovernment really has nothing to dowith the prosperity over the last 8years, then the Government is free todo whatever we want it to do withoutputting that prosperity at risk.

The facts are otherwise. During themid-1980s, during the late 1980s, duringthe early 1990s, Americans were hardworking. They showed ingenuity, dideverything possible to give us pros-perity and yet the country was notprosperous, and this is because we didnot have fiscal responsibility here inWashington. Now for 8 years, the Clin-ton-Gore administration has insistedthat we have fiscally responsible budg-ets; and prosperity has returned to thiscountry. If we are told that those budg-ets have nothing to do with our pros-perity, that lays the foundation for thekinds of huge $2.6 trillion tax cuts thatthis country cannot afford, with the re-sult that Government borrowing willswallow up private savings, returningus to high interest rates and recession.

The second aspect of the Governor’sremarks that are clearly false is when


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11508 October 29, 2000he says that under his plan everyAmerican who pays taxes will get taxrelief. He forgets that 15 million Amer-icans pay FICA tax and do not pay anyincome tax and for these people, thepeople who clean up for us in res-taurants, the people who take care ofour old people in senior citizens’ homesand nursing homes, people strugglingto get by an $15,000 and $18,000 a year,he gives not one penny of tax relief be-cause he is providing over 43 percent ofthe tax relief to the richest 1 percent ofAmericans; nothing for the janitors,everything for the billionaires. Heought to at least be honest enough totell the country that that is what histax policy provides.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, when the Gov-ernor of Texas tells us that his planwill provide only $223 billion of tax re-lief to the richest 1 percent over thenext 10 years, he ignores everything heis doing with the estate tax. He tellsthe country he is going to repeal theestate tax but never includes the fiscaleffect of that repeal in his descriptionof his overall tax and budget policies.

I can only refer to this as fuzzy fiscalfigures and false fiscal facts. The factis that the estate tax will be gener-ating $50 billion a year. That is $500 bil-lion over 10 years, which means underthe Governor’s proposal, the richest 1percent of Americans will save over$700 billion a year under the Governor’sproposal. He admits to only $223 bil-lion. He ignores the other $500 billion.

That is why it is true when it is stat-ed that the proposals of the Governorof Texas would provide more relief tothe richest 1 percent of Americans thanhe proposes to spend to improve ourhealth care system, strengthen Medi-care, strengthen the military, and im-prove education combined.

Mr. Speaker, our choice is clear. Onthe one hand, we can have fiscal re-sponsibility, economic expansion, re-duction and eventual elimination ofour national debt and moderate taxcuts for working families, all combinedwith investments in education, Medi-care, military preparedness and healthcare, or we can provide $700 billion tothe wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.f

THE PROBLEM WITH THE POLI-TICS OF DIVISION INSTEAD OFTHE POLITICS OF UNITY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Georgia (Mr. KINGSTON) isrecognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let mejust say this, that under the plan pro-posed by Governor Bush, the janitor,the worker in the restaurant, would, infact, get great sums of tax relief. Butmore importantly, rather than thisclass division, rather than the politicsof envy, the Bush promise is to makethat restaurant worker the restaurantowner. That is the biggest differencebetween the Bush vision and the Gorevision, which keeps the poor, poor. Andthat is the problem when we have the

politics of division instead of the poli-tics of unity. I think that is what thisis all about.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we want to talk alittle bit about what we are doing hereon a Sunday night, and joining me aremy colleagues from Arizona, Michigan,Minnesota and Colorado; and we aregoing to ask the question, we are herebecause how much is enough, Mr.President? Last year the Labor andEducation bill, Health and Human Re-sources, had a sum of $96 billion.

b 2130

This year, negotiating with thePresident, we are up to $106 billion. Butit is not enough for the President andMr. GORE. They want more money.

So I will ask my colleague from Ari-zona, how much is enough? How muchdoes the President want to spend?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, if my friendfrom Georgia will yield, that remainsthe question, because, the fact is, weare not getting a clear and compellingsignal from the White House or fromour friends on the left.

You see, we worked together toachieve a consensus in many areas, es-pecially on the bill we passed just lastweek, which offered not only tax relief,but Medicare refinement and improve-ment to strengthen Medicare paymentsto hospitals and home health care fa-cilities and nursing homes, but alsosomething the President embracedwhen he came to Phoenix, Arizona, theso-called ‘‘new markets initiative.’’Community empowerment. So we had avery broad bipartisan piece of legisla-tion there, and yet we hear now thatthe President says he intends to vetothe legislation.

So, sadly, the answer to the questionthat my friend from Georgia poses to-night has no quantifiable answer.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gen-tleman from California.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I wouldlike to first of all say that as I wasstepping out of the Committee onRules upstairs, I could hear withoutthe electronic means my friend fromGeorgia talk about the fact that theVice President is pursuing policies thatwill help to keep poor people poor,which I think is right on target. Thatis the one thing I heard, so I com-pliment the gentleman on offering thetruth.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thankthe gentleman for yielding to me, andto congratulate my colleagues for thetime that they are taking this eveningto enlighten the American people onthese very important issues.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wouldask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.HOEKSTRA), does he know how much isenough? I want to refer to our chartagain. How much is enough, Mr. Presi-dent? How much do you want to spend?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, if thegentleman would yield, I think whatwe are finding, especially in the area of

education, where I have spent a lot oftime and our subcommittee has spent alot of time, it is no longer an issueabout money, but, for the President,how much is enough? How much moreauthority does he want to move from alocal and State level to Washington?

We know that he would love to startgetting Washington involved in schoolconstruction, get Washington involvedin hiring teachers. So for the Presi-dent, it is not an issue of money any-more. Republicans have said we willmatch him on money.

‘‘Enough is enough’’ now for thePresident is only when we move the de-cision-making for how we spend thosedollars from the local level to the De-partment of Education here in Wash-ington. That is now where the Presi-dent is saying, ‘‘I need more and I wantmore.’’

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, re-claiming my time, I thank the gen-tleman from Michigan for that, be-cause one of our major issues that isoutstanding right now with the Presi-dent is the fact that he wants schoolconstruction to be federally controlled;and we want to leave it locally con-trolled, where less dollars will be spentand local people will decide what needsto be built. It should not be in thehands of Washington bureaucrats.

I yield to the gentleman from SouthDakota (Mr. THUNE).

Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, how muchis enough? That is the question of theevening. Well, I would suggest to thegentleman from Georgia that is reallya moving target. We do not know, be-cause the President insists upon everybill that comes down there, this muchmore, this much more. I think what-ever the number was yesterday, it justincreased by about 20 percent today.

But if one looks at why we are stillhere, and the gentleman from Michiganis absolutely right, this really is aboutwhether or not you want to consolidatemore power in Washington or whetheryou want to distribute power back tothe people who live in our States andour communities, our families. That isthe issue of the day.f

PREPARING THE BUDGETThe SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

PEASE). Under a previous order of theHouse, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.STENHOLM) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I didnot intend to get into this tonight, butI know my friends on the other side ofthe aisle are not intentionally at-tempting to mislead the people to-night, because I know them too well. Ihave worked with them on too manyissues, and I think it is awfully impor-tant. Anything I say that any of themwish to challenge me on, I will be gladto yield some time, because I do notwant to do that which I accuse you ofdoing.

When we start talking about howmuch is enough, I believe when wepassed the foreign operations appro-priation bill, those of you who voted


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11509October 29, 2000for that voted to increase the caps forspending for this coming year to $645billion. Now, that is more than thePresident has requested to spend.

Therefore, when you start talkingabout the budget, the President origi-nally this year called for $637 billion inspending. My friends on the other sidesaid you wanted to hold it to $625 bil-lion. The Blue Dogs suggested a goodcompromise in between at $633 billion.

Our $633 billion got 170 votes. In fact,we had 37 of you voting with us onthat. Forty-one more of you and wewould not be here tonight arguingabout the numbers, because we wouldhave held spending at $633 billion, notat $645 billion.

Now, for about 16 years I was in themajority, and many times I voted withyou, and I got criticized quite a bit forbeing the big-spending Congress. Well,I was voting with you. This year I didnot vote with you, because $645 billionwas $12 billion more than I thought weought to spend this year. You are theones that increased it.

Now, you can put up your chart. Ihave got a chart over here that willshow absolutely, unequivocally, nomatter what you are saying on this,that you will spend more than thePresident has asked. We can point theblame all we want to.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gen-tleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I have aquestion, not so much for the gen-tleman, because I have a great deal ofrespect for the fact he is indeed a fiscalconservative. Many of us are veryupset that we are spending as much aswe are. But if what the gentleman issaying is true, then perhaps what weought to do is just go back and takethe President’s original request andpass them and send them down to theWhite House. Is the gentleman tellingus that he believes the President wouldsign those bills in those amounts?

That is a simple question, because, ifthat were true, that is what we oughtto do, and we could all go home. But Iknow the gentleman from Texas (Mr.STENHOLM) knows this as well as I do,every day the bar gets moved. We arenot even talking about what the Presi-dent asked for. Most of the stuff thathas been put in the bill right now is atthe President’s or White House’s re-quest.

We are upset we are going over thespending caps. We are now at over $1.9trillion. We think that is enough. Butevery day the bar moves. When I havetold some of our leaders, maybe weought to go back to what the Presidentasked for and give him exactly what heasked for, you know what they all say?He would veto it.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, re-claiming my time, my point was this:if we had agreed on a budget with $633billion in spending, you would have hada very large number of Democratsstanding up with you on that. It is too

late for that tonight. It is too late forthat.

What I am saying is, your leadershipseems to not be able to learn one con-stitutional fact: if you are going tobeat the President, any President, nowor any time in the future, you have gotto have 290 votes. In order to get vetooverride numbers, you have got towork with somebody on this side of theaisle, which you have absolutely re-fused to even consider walking acrossthe aisle to ask any one of us. And theBlue Dogs have given you not once, nottwice, not three times, four opportuni-ties to say, we want to work on holdingspending down.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, if thegentleman would yield further, I wouldsay to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.STENHOLM), I voted with you everytime you put your budget up; and Iwant to tell you, your claim we wouldnot be here I believe is in error, be-cause this institution has a flaw in itsdesign, and the design is it is easy tospend money and it is not easy not tospend it. If there is anything thatneeds changing in this Congress, it isthe appropriations process, wherebystaff members, not committee mem-bers, know what is in the bill, andbackroom deals are done and thespending rises. That is the first thing.

The second thing is the House isgamed against the Senate, the Senateis gamed against the House, and thenthe President games them both, andthe American people are getting a rawdeal.f

A CONTINUATION OF HOW MUCH ISENOUGH

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Arizona (Mr. HAYWORTH)is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I wel-come the opportunity to continue thisdiscussion as we can with the time al-located. Let me yield more time to myfriend from Oklahoma.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, the factis we passed a budget out of this House,and we passed the appropriation billsout of this House within $1 billion ofthat $601 billion. That is a fact. All 13bills went out and went out on time.

Now, the question is, the questionthe American public ought to be askingis, what happened after it left theHouse? And I hope some day they willknow how this process works and putpeople up here who will not allow it tocontinue.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, re-claiming my time, I thank my col-league from Oklahoma. I thank myfriend from Texas for his perspective. Ithink it is important to understandthat there is far more that may uniteus than divide us; and rather thanpointing the finger of blame, I think itis important, after we await the ver-dict of the voters on the first Tuesdayfollowing the first Monday in Novem-ber, if we should be fortunate enough

to return to this institution, we cer-tainly welcome our friend from Texasand other like-minded friends on thatside of the aisle to join us in a gov-erning coalition to work with the nextPresident of the United States, whocould very well be the Governor of myfriend’s home State, to work to unifyand put people before politics and todeal with these real questions.

I do appreciate the fact that he offersa voice of fiscal conservatism. We maynot see eye to eye always on tax reliefor a variety of other issues; but by theby, I think there is a great deal ofagreement, and I do look forward tothat opportunity.

I yield to my friend from Georgia.Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I also

want to say to my friend from Texas, Ido appreciate, number one, your yield-ing time for a real dialogue tonight;and, number two, your consistency ontrying to hold down the budget num-bers, because I think amongst thosehere tonight, we are all in agreementwith you.

Of the other issues that are on thetable, though, one of the ones that con-cerns me and everybody else here, thegentleman from Michigan (Mr. HOEK-STRA), who is a chairman on the Com-mittee on Education and the Work-force, is the President’s scheme to fed-eralize school construction. As youknow, he wants to put in a big unionpay-off and have Davis-Bacon in thereand that will drive school constructioncosts up 25 percent on an average. Wein rural south Georgia just cannot af-ford that. That is one reason why Ithink that we are here tonight, to putschools above politics.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, re-claiming my time, I thank my friend. Ithink this is important, because know-ing my friend from Texas and his fiscalconservatism, it simply makes moresense to make the money work harder.You do not do that when you artifi-cially inflate prices for the cost of con-struction, or, worse still, when youtake the authority for school construc-tion away from local school boards andtransfer that authority here to Wash-ington.

In fact, I yield to my friend fromMichigan, who has great oversight ofthis in his role in the Committee onEducation and the Workforce.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, Ithank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things thatwe found as we went and talked tolocal school districts, but also as wetalked to the different State educationboards, is that they typically get about7 to 10 percent of their money fromWashington, but they get 50 percent oftheir bureaucratic paperwork fromWashington. So, for all of these 760 pro-grams that come out of 39 differentagencies that are targeted at our localclassrooms, with each one of thosethere come costs, burden, and red tapeand strings attached, telling local offi-cials, this is what you need to do inyour schools.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11510 October 29, 2000So what we wind up doing is focusing

on process, rather than on what is goodfor our kids. The people who know ourkids’ names no longer have full controlover what goes on in that classroom. Itis time we put our kids before process,that we put learning before bureauc-racy; and those are the kinds of issuesthat we are wrestling with with thepresident at this time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Following the tra-dition of our friend from Texas, I glad-ly yield him some time to visit onthese issues.

Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gen-tleman for agreeing. Let me say I hap-pen to agree with you on the Davis-Bacon provisions. I have agreed in the22 years I have now been fortunate toserve here.

b 2145

I think it is a terrible mistake to in-clude, especially the new provisionsthat will allow local board decisions tohave Davis-Bacon applied. It has noth-ing to do with prevailing wage. I havealways agreed that Federal contractsought to receive the prevailing wage.But I have spent a good part of my ca-reer attempting to first repeal andthen reform the Davis-Bacon act, to noavail. But I happen to agree with mycolleagues on that.

I do not agree on creating a new rev-enue-sharing program for schools. Ithink we ought to concentrate themoney for school construction. So Idisagree with my Republican col-leagues on that, but here reasonablepeople ought to be able to work thatout, have the legislative process be al-lowed to work.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, Ithank my colleague for that. I thinkagain it typifies much of what we haveheard about, in the midst of this so-called political season where there arehonest disagreements.f

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PRO-VIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OFHOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS 121,122, 123, and 124, EACH MAKINGFURTHER CONTINUING APPRO-PRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR2001

Mr. DREIER (during the specialorder of Mr. KINGSTON), from the Com-mittee on Rules, submitted a privi-leged report (Rept. No. 106–1015) on theresolution (H. Res. 662) providing forconsideration of certain joint resolu-tions making further continuing appro-priations for the fiscal year 2001, andfor other purposes, which was referredto the House Calendar and ordered tobe printed.f

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PRO-VIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OFS. 2485, SAINT CROIX ISLANDHERITAGE ACT

Mr. DREIER (during the specialorder of Mr. KINGSTON), from the Com-mittee on Rules, submitted a privi-

leged report (Rept. No. 106–016) on theresolution (H. Res. 663) providing forconsideration of the Senate bill (S.2485) to direct the Secretary of the In-terior to provide assistance in planningand constructing a regional heritagecenter in Calais, Maine, and providingfor the adoption of a concurrent resolu-tion directing the Clerk of the House ofRepresentatives to make certain cor-rections in the enrollment of the bill(H.R. 2614) to amend the Small Busi-ness Investment Act to make improve-ments to the certified developmentcompany program, and for other pur-poses, which was referred to the HouseCalendar and ordered to be printed.f


The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.PEASE). Under a previous order of theHouse, the gentleman from Minnesota(Mr. GUTKNECHT) is recognized for 5minutes.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, Iwant to come back to this question. Iwill be happy to yield time to any ofmy colleagues who are here on thefloor, but I really do think this is thequestion: how much is enough? I saythat because I was a member of theState legislature in Minnesota; and Imust say, since I came to Washington6 years ago, and we have always had asituation where the President was ofthe Democratic Party and the Con-gress, since I came, has been in controlby the Republicans, and that hascaused more friction perhaps than itreally should. But I was in the Statelegislature when we had a RepublicanGovernor and a democratically con-trolled legislature, and we were some-how able to get things done. I mean Ido not understand why it is that wehave to have this grid lock. I do thinkthis is part of the question, and I alsoagree that there are other questionsthat need to be resolved. But it seemsto me, and I agree with my colleaguefrom Texas, reasonable people ought tobe able to work this out.

We said originally in our budget reso-lution, we thought we could legiti-mately meet the needs of the FederalGovernment and all the people who de-pend upon it for about $1.86 trillion. Mycolleague has pointed out that we havealready exceeded those spending caps.That bothers me. But we are all nowsaying, at least most of us are saying,that what we at least ought to do as wesee more and more surpluses piling up,this year, at least, that 90 percent ofthat surplus ought to go to pay downdebt. I think just about everybodyagrees with that.

When we look at basic things, thereis not that much to argue about. Itcomes down to some simple things, aswe saw on the chart. The numbers wehave in terms of education are almostidentical to what the President askedfor. This is not a debate about howmuch we are going to spend on chil-dren. It is a debate about who gets to

do the spending. We simply believemore of those decisions ought to bemade by people who know the chil-dren’s names. I do not think that is anunreasonable thing.

Then we are having this debate aboutwhether or not we ought to grant blan-ket immunity to illegal aliens. I do notthink many people in this room rightnow think that is a very good idea. Infact, I think if we polled the peopleback in southeastern Minnesota, theywould say that is a crazy idea. But nowthe President is threatening to vetothe Commerce, State, Justice appro-priation over that issue.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if thegentleman will yield, just to reiteratewhat has been agreed to, and I think itis important for those of us who hailfrom Arizona, Texas, other borderStates, what we have agreed to is afamily unification process, because wedo not want to see families separated,but by the same token, when it comesto this notion of blanket amnesty, wehave a problem when we are dealingwith ignoring what is already illegal.And that is where the sticking pointcomes, and while we have had a reason-able approach, bipartisan, to deal withfamily unification, I would just makethat key distinction as we are dealingwith the amnesty question.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if thegentleman will yield, I want to go backagain to the gentleman’s ‘‘How much isenough?,’’ and remind everyone again,that question has been decided.

The House spoke by majority willthat $645 billion is enough; therefore, itis not a relevant argument. The immi-gration question is a relevant argu-ment. Davis-Bacon applications toschool is a relevant argument. Thereare other relevant arguments, butthere is no argument now, at least onthe majority side, and I will say notwith me either, because once the Househas spoken and it is October 29, we can-not go back and redo the budget. Mr.Speaker, $645 billion is the number, andthat is more than the President re-quested.

My only point, had we had this kindof conversation early on and more hadjoined, as the gentleman from Okla-homa joined with us earlier, we wouldnot be arguing about $645 billion wouldbe enough, we would be arguing that$633, and perhaps we would still be ar-guing about the other questions, butreasonable people can work those out,and surely our leaders, negotiating aswe speak, are finding a compromise onthose issues that will be acceptable.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, re-claiming my time, my colleague fromTexas says that we are agreed, but I donot know if the President is agreed, be-cause he has never told us exactly howmuch he wants to spend in some ofthese areas that are still being nego-tiated.

Let me just come back to my pointabout the State legislature.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if thegentleman would yield again on that


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11511October 29, 2000point, briefly, it makes no differencewhat the President says on additionalspending, because on the budget Rulesof the House, if we spend more than$645 billion, we will have to sequesternext year in order to bring the spend-ing back. That is the discipline that weused to have in this body, but we havethrown it out the window for the last 3years.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, Iwant to come back to close on mystory about the State legislature andabout how virtually every governorworks with their State legislature. Atthe end of the session, the legislativeleaders and the Governor sit down andthey decide how much the pie is goingto be, how much the State is going tospend. And once that decision is madeand there is an agreement made, ittakes a matter of about 48 hours forthe various committees to work outhow much goes to transportation, howmuch to education. That is what weneed to do here at the Federal level;and hopefully, we can have better bi-partisanship next year.f


The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Michigan (Mr. HOEKSTRA)is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, howmuch is enough?

When we talk about education, it isabout where the decisions are going tobe made. There are those in Wash-ington who would like to take primaryresponsibility for building our localschools, wiring our local schools, buy-ing the technology for our schools, hir-ing our local teachers, developing ourcurriculum, testing our kids, feed thembreakfast, feed them lunch and developafter-school programs. When they getdone with taking that decision-makingto Washington, they are very willing tostep back and say, the rest is nowunder your control. But in fact, whatthey have done is they have moved thefocal point from our local teachers andour local administrators from taking alook at the needs of our children totaking a look at the bureaucratic re-quirements coming out of Washington.

How much is enough? We haveenough. Local schools get 7 percent oftheir money from Washington, 50 per-cent of their paperwork. That paper-work goes to an agency here in Wash-ington that cannot even get a clean setof books, that every time we give them$1 for education spending at a locallevel, they consume 35 cents of it be-fore it ever gets back to a local class-room.

I yield to the gentleman from Geor-gia.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wantto point out two things. One of the rea-sons I think we cannot get an answerto the question of how much is enoughis because the President is no longer intown. We know that part of the strat-

egy seems to be keep Washington tiedup, keep Congress in Washington, andthen I will hit the campaign trail. ThePresident is on his way to Kentucky tocampaign against the gentlewomanfrom Kentucky (Mrs. NORTHUP). Now,that must feel great if one is the Presi-dent of the United States, but we aretalking about children here. We aretalking about real business here, andwe are talking about, it is time to putpeople in front of politics.

The gentleman knows, since he hasworked real hard on the dollars to theclassroom bill by the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. PITTS) that said ourefforts on education would go to theteacher closest to the student in theclassroom and not Washington bureau-crats. Right now, when we spend $1 oneducation, 50 cents never gets out oftown. That is not acceptable.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, re-claiming my time, I yield to the gen-tleman from South Dakota (Mr.THUNE).

Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for yielding.

I would just say to the gentlemanfrom Texas, as a past supporter of theBlue Dog budget as well, and someonewho did not vote to raise the caps tothe $645 billion level, that I think if theBlue Dog budget had been the oneadopted by the House, it would havemet probably the same fate that thebudget today has met.

We did our work in the House. Wepassed bills at a $602 billion level; andthe President, as is customarily thecase at this point in the legislativeprocess, is extorting us or using I thinkhis leverage at the end game to try andget more money out of the Congress.So that is why this thing keeps gettingbid up and bid up and bid up.

We have, in fact, in the past, donesome good things here. We balancedthe budget. This will be the 4th year ina row. We have stopped the raid on So-cial Security. We have been payingdown systematically the Federal debtover the past 3 years. But all that goodwork could be for naught if we give thePresident everything that he wantsand everything that he asks for, which,as the gentleman noted, also includes anumber of things that we just fun-damentally disagree with, like puttingmore power in the educational bu-reaucracy here in Washington insteadof getting it back in the classroom.

So I appreciate the issues that havebeen raised by our colleagues on theother side here about the budget; butthe reality is, we are still going to bein the same positions that we are intoday when it comes to negotiatingwith the President who wants to spendmore and who cannot answer the verysimple, fundamental question, and thatis, how much is enough?

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gen-tleman from Colorado.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, it isan interesting question, and it is a sad

commentary, I think, on the legislativeprocess in Washington to just see whatis taking place here. We have Demo-crats and Republicans essentiallyagreeing that we are spending toomuch money. Why is that?

At this point in the game, it wouldseem that if we agree we are spendingtoo much money, it seems logical thatmaybe a few months ago, a few weeksago, we might have been able to agreeon spending less. But we do have tocompromise not only with Republicansand Democrats, but we have to com-promise with the White House as well,and we have compromised and com-promised and compromised, trying to,in good faith, reach agreement withthe White House, the President’s lib-eral spending habits, and yet as a re-sult of our efforts, there is a point intime when it is a legitimate questionto ask, how much can we spend? Howmuch is enough? That is the point weare at now. We have conceded on issueafter issue after issue with the WhiteHouse.f


The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Colorado (Mr. SCHAFFER)is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, wehave to wonder, when is it going toend? That is the question that is on theminds of all of us here. We are here inWashington on a Sunday night, whichis completely out of character, firstand foremost, but 31⁄2 weeks beyond thebeginning of the new fiscal year. Wehave debated with the White House solong now that the fiscal year has al-ready started, we are passing these 1-day continuing resolutions, and I amafraid, I would say to my colleagues,that what really seems to be drivingthe agenda down there at the WhiteHouse is not a real sincere effort to tryto come to some resolution on thisbudget, I think it is motivated by a po-litical ambition to try to scare theAmerican people to believe that we arenot paying enough, that we are notspending enough. I hope that we cansend the message down to the WhiteHouse that we have spent enough, thatwe have already reached enough.

Before I yield to some of my col-leagues, I want to reflect on the com-ment of a 16-year-old girl that I justmet back here in the back of the Cham-ber. She is from Albert Lea, Minnesotain the gentleman from Minnesota’s dis-trict, and her name is Sara Schleck,she is a page back here and working forthe House. I said, you are here on aSunday night; what do you think aboutbeing here on a Sunday. She said tome, she said, Congressman, is not ourGovernment big enough already?

Mr. Speaker, that is the questionmost Americans should be asking, anda 16-year-old girl certainly is percep-tive enough to realize that we are herebecause there are people who just want


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11512 October 29, 2000to spend more and for Sara’s sake andthe sake of my five kids we are willingto stay here as long as it takes to cometo the right agreements with the Houseto make sure we do not spend the coun-try into oblivion. But my goodness, wehave answered this question. We havespent more than enough already. TheWhite House wants more, and I justhope that we can come to an agree-ment that still leaves Sara’s future intact and her debt certainly no greaterthan it is today.

I yield to the gentleman from Michi-gan (Mr. HOEKSTRA).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, Ithink we need to build on the progressthat we have made. I think we wouldall agree that getting to a surplus for 3years now and on our way to a 4th yearof a surplus is great progress and greatwork. Having worked on the Com-mittee on the Budget, if we had saidthat a few years ago, we would havesaid, by the year 2000, if we would havegotten that kind of track record, peo-ple would have said, no way. But wehave done that. So we need to build onthat record. We have stopped the raidon Social Security and Medicare, so letus focus on the good things that wehave done here as well. Let us build onthose things.

The same thing for education. Let usbuild on the positive progress that wehave seen at the local level and then atthe same time on a parallel track, letus fix the broken bureaucracy here inWashington.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yieldto the gentleman from South Dakota.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I wouldsay one of the good things we havedone, we passed a Medicare packagehere last week; and it included sometax relief for people around this coun-try too, a lot of things that I thinkmany of us agree on, and I hope the ad-ministration agrees on as well. But theveto is threatened, and that is unfortu-nate, because we have a lot of ruralhospitals and home health care agen-cies and nursing facilities that arereally struggling out there. I think thePresident needs to explain to theAmerican people and to all of those or-ganizations who are supporting thislegislation why he is going to veto it.

b 2200

This is something that in rural areaslike South Dakota is very, very impor-tant to the people of my State to makesure that we provide quality healthcare.

In a bipartisan way we have come upwith a package that addresses a lot ofthose issues for rural hospitals, forskilled nursing facilities, for homehealth agencies and where we have ad-dressed also some other things that Iam very interested and allowing tech-nology to better serve rural health careneeds through telehealth. Those issuesare included in this package.

The President is going to veto it.That is the wrongheaded thing to do,and that is putting politics in front of

people, and that is unfortunate. It isthe reason that we are here. But whenthe gentleman from Michigan (Mr.HOEKSTRA) talked about some of thegood things that we have done here inthe Congress, that certainly is an ex-ample of it.

I think that it is something most ofus here this evening would argue aregoing to benefit, to a very big extent,the folks, the people in our respectivecongressional districts and States.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yieldto the gentleman from Texas (Mr.STENHOLM).

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding, andI would say this one Member is gladthe President is going to veto the taxMedicare bill, because it does not dealadequately with the health problems inmy district, in my opinion.

In requesting additional spending, Iam well aware that we have to findthat money someplace else, because nomatter how many times we say howmuch is enough, we have agreed $645billion is enough. When I say I am gladthe President will veto the bill, I hopewe will work out a better package forrural hospitals, teaching hospitals, allof the things that need a little bettershake in that.

I say that realizing we have to takethe money from someplace else, and Ithink the HMOs are getting a little bittoo much. I think we can perhaps trimsome other places. A very respectedMember of the other body has said inthis spending $21 billion is very ques-tionable.

I do not think that it is wrong for usto suggest a little more on hospitals athome would be a better use of some ofthat money.f

A CONTINUATION OF HOW MUCH ISENOUGH?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.SIMPSON). Under a previous order of theHouse, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.TURNER) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want tospeak to an issue raised by the gen-tleman from South Dakota (Mr.THUNE), my friend, regarding the con-cern that I think we all have regardingour rural hospitals.

The main reason that I object to thebill that was passed on this floor thatthe President has said he will veto isjust the issue the gentleman raised,and that is, it is inadequate in terms ofits funding for our rural hospitals anddedicates too much of the money setaside to increase funding for Medicareto the insurance company HMOs.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter herefrom a hospital administrator in mydistrict, George Miller. He is the ad-ministrator of the Christus Jasper Me-morial Hospital. He writes to me andhe says we are extremely concerned be-cause as the present language reads inthe bill, the one we passed, one-third toone-half of BBA relief over 10 yearswould go to HMOs, leaving less for pro-

viders and beneficiaries in east Texas,such as the Christus Jasper MemorialHospital. Further, the bill does notprohibit HMOs from dropping benefitsor leaving the community as they havedone here in Texas and left many ofour patients without HMO coverage.We need your help, AdministratorGeorge Miller, Jasper, Texas.

That is the concern that I have aboutthe bill that was passed, and that iswhy I support the President’s threat-ened veto of the bill. The truth of thematter is, HMOs are abandoning ourseniors. I only have four counties outof the 19 that I represent that evenhave an HMO plan offered to themafter December 31 of this year.

I clearly, in representing my con-stituents, want to see more of that in-crease that we have provided in thisbill applied to the rural hospitals, thehealth care providers, rather than giv-ing 40 percent of that new money tothose HMOs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlemanfrom Georgia (Mr. KINGSTON).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, mesay, number one, that I appreciate thegentleman’s sincerity on this issue.However, in terms of the President, Ihave not seen any alternatives. And asthe gentleman knows, this bill was en-dorsed by the American Hospital Asso-ciation, the American Cancer Society,the American Federation of HomeHealth Care Providers, the NationalAssociation of Children’s Hospitals, theNational Association of Rural HealthClinics, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation,the National Association of Commu-nity Health Clinics.

I hope that the President, ratherthan to veto it, putting politics infront of people, I hope he will say,okay, here is how we can construc-tively make changes and fine tune thisthing. I think if it was up to the hand-ful of us tonight, we could work out thedifferences real quick. And I, too, rep-resent a rural area; and we can havegenuine disagreements on it, but I doquestion some of the motives down on1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, it is al-ways easy to question motives, and Ireally think that what we have to do istry to form our own views on theseissues. I am sharing with my col-leagues mine, and that is too much ofthe increase in Medicare money in thisbill goes to the insurance companyHMOs, and there are only four countiesin my district that even offer an HMOMedicare choice plan.

I am not sure how long they aregoing to be there. I would invite mycolleagues to take a look at the reportjust issued by the General AccountingOffice, which tells us a whole lot aboutthe status of these Medicare HMOchoice plans. Basically, the message ispretty clear. HMOs are not working inMedicare for either our seniors or forthe taxpayers, because what we haveseen, last year we had several hundredthousand seniors receive notices ofcancellation of their HMO+Choice


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11513October 29, 2000plans. I believe it was 328,000. And herethis year, we have had almost a millionreceive a notice of cancellation.

The bottom line is, our seniors knowthat these HMOs cannot be dependedupon, and I think what we see in theGAO report is that not only are theydropping out and canceling our seniors,but on average, it is costing the tax-payer more for a senior to sign up forthese Medicare HMOs than regular fee-for-service Medicare costs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlemanfrom Oklahoma (Mr. COBURN).

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, let mejust give my colleagues some facts. Oneof my friends that I went to highschool with managed the health carefor Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart discovered 7years ago that HMOs are a terrible wayto provide health care; it costs more. Itcosts them 19 percent more. They nolonger have any HMOs.

The other thing, and I am sure thatthe gentleman is not aware of this, isthat both sides of the aisle, when thesebills were both in the Committee onWays and Means and in the Committeeon Commerce, had near unanimousvotes on all of these issues, specificallythe HMO funding, much to my chagrin.f

A CONTINUATION OF HOW MUCH ISENOUGH?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gentle-woman from Connecticut (Mrs. JOHN-SON) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.Speaker, I want to respond to my col-leagues in their discussion on ruralhealth care.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to saythat in this Medicare bill that theHouse voted on recently, we had putmore money into rural health carethan at any time in the existence ofMedicare. For the first time, we dra-matically increased the floor for ruralhealth payments to a degree that thePresident never proposed, never antici-pated, and, frankly, this house hasnever proposed in the past either.

My colleague from New Mexico (Mrs.WILSON) did propose in the Committeeon Commerce to raise those thresholdsto very high levels so the rural areaswill be able to provide the qualityhealth care that those people deserve,and that should be the standard of carethroughout the Nation.

I am proud of what this bill did, andI am disappointed that my colleagueson the other side of the aisle are notrecognizing that this is a unique bill inits generosity to rural areas. That iswhy the rural providers all support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlemanfrom Georgia (Mr. KINGSTON).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want-ed to quote the American Hospitals As-sociation on this, and the reason why Ikeep getting back to the AmericanHospitals Association on this bill isthat these are the folks whose mem-bers have to pay the bills and have tomake ends meet on Medicare.

One of the things I heard over andover again from our hospitals on behalfof our seniors and directly from seniorsis we need Medicare relief, and this iswhat this bill does. The American Hos-pitals Association says we are urgingMembers to vote in favor of this legis-lation and have recommended that thePresident not veto this legislation. Iam just so concerned that the Presi-dent is putting politics over people.This is legislation that does seek a so-lution to solve a problem, and it is notperfect.

I do not think we can have a perfectpiece of legislation in a legislativebody consisting of 435 people and 100Senators, but it is a step in the rightdirection.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentle-woman for yielding to me.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.Speaker, I would point out under cur-rent laws these plans would get a 2 per-cent increase. All we are doing in thisbill is a 3 percent increase. This is notbig stuff as it goes down here. This isnot worth vetoing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlemanfrom South Dakota (Mr. THUNE).

Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I want tothank the gentlewoman for yielding tome, because I appreciate the respon-siveness of the committee to a lot ofthe requests that we made with respectto rural areas, because this is a verydifficult, very complex issue. It is aquality-of-life issue for people in ruralAmerica. We have long distances.

I appreciate very much the inclusionof the telehealth provisions in this, be-cause allowing technology to help usbetter meet the health care needs inrural areas is really, I think, the waveof the future. One of the reasons wehave had such difficulty withMedicare+Choice is for the reasonsthat the gentlewoman mentioned and,that is, that making sure that we morefully fund this blend, that we allowsome sort of floor there that enablesprograms, Medicare+Choice programs,to better succeed in rural areas hasbeen a real challenge.

I agree. I mean, everybody wouldprobably write a more perfect versionof it; but I do believe, as I look at thisbill and the efforts that were made onbehalf of the Committee on Ways andMeans and the Committee on Com-merce on trying to fashion something,it is responsive to it. It is sensitive tothe needs of rural areas, and that iswhy I think, as the gentlewoman men-tioned, a lot of these groups, includingrural health care providers, have en-dorsed and supported this legislation.

Granted, not everyone is probablygoing to come on board. The gentlemanfrom Texas (Mr. TURNER) obviously isnot in support of this, but I think whenwe look at the organizations, the posi-tions they have taken, the groups theyrepresent, this is an effort, a verystrong effort to try and address a lot ofthe shortcomings in providing healthcare to rural areas to our senior popu-lations. I thank my colleagues for theirwork on that.

Again, I would be very disappointedif the President were to veto this, be-cause I think it would be a real loss forrural areas in this country, who underthis bill would benefit in some signifi-cant way.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.Speaker, I yield to the gentleman fromGeorgia (Mr. KINGSTON).

Mr. KINGSTON. I understood all theDemocrats on the Committee on Com-merce voted for this; am I correct?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. TheCommittee on Commerce was a unani-mous vote, but I believe it was a voicevote. On the Ways and Means sub-committee, which was the committeethat has governed Medicare year afteryear after year after year, gets into allthe complicated reimbursement issues.Improving managed care choice reim-bursements by 4 percent was voted forunanimously by Republicans andDemocrats.

In addition, we accepted an amend-ment by a Democrat member of thesubcommittee to even improve the re-imbursements above that to bringplans into the market, again, whenthey had not been there before; andagain that would help the rural areas.f

EXPLANATIONS FOR WHY THEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ISBEING KEPT INThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gen-tleman from California (Mr. ROHR-ABACHER) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker,we have heard many explanations ofwhy we are being kept in. It is impor-tant again to reiterate the President isasking us to spend more money in sev-eral different areas. Whatever his ini-tial request was, it is irrelevant.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr.STENHOLM) has come up and very elo-quently explained to us his point ofview on why that is no longer relevant.But the fact is, the President’s de-mands at this time are what is rel-evant. What is relevant to us and whatis keeping us is the President of theUnited States is threatening to vetopieces of legislation unless we includemore money, more money in differentareas like health care, education, anddifferent things that he has in mind forhis priorities.

However, amongst that list of de-mands, it is not just more money forthese things, but amnesty, a generalblanket amnesty for millions of illegalimmigrants into our society.

I think the American people who arepaying attention to what is going on inCongress right now, when we say thatthe President is putting politics beforepeople, he is putting politics before theAmerican people. For some reason, hemust believe that granting blanket am-nesty to millions of illegal immigrants,making them eligible for these edu-cation and health benefits that shouldbe going to our own people, that thatin some way is going to get him votesfor somebody. Give me a break.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11514 October 29, 2000The American people should be out-

raged that their President is holdingthe Congress hostage, trying to forceus in order to get home to campaign,for us to grant a blanket amnesty tomillions of illegal aliens which then inthe long run will drain money fromeducation benefits, drain Federal dol-lars from health care benefits, willmake our Social Security and Medicaresystems less stable.

b 2215

Why, because we put millions of newpeople into the system who have comehere illegally from other countries.When they were in the other countriesof course, they never paid into thosesystems. So granting an amnesty, blan-ket amnesty for millions of illegal im-migrants is demonstrably against thewell-being of our people; and Congressshould stay here and fight to the lastounce of our strength to prevent thistravesty from happening.

We have also compromised some-what. We have said we will go alongwith the President and agree to a fam-ily reunion for those immigrants whoare here legally now and have familiesand have been separated and overseasfor a number of years waiting to get inand we will let them come into thecountry. There is a responsible numberof people that we would then permit tocome in for humanitarian reasons.

But to grant a blanket amnesty formillions, the last time we did this was1986 and what happened after 1986? Itwas like a welcome sign had been litover the United States, ‘‘come on in’’to everybody in the world who wouldwant to participate in our free societyand receive government benefits, Imight add.

What we had was a flood of illegalimmigration that in my State of Cali-fornia has come close to destroying theviability of our health care system, ofour education system. If we take a lookat the education scores in California,much of it has to do with the fact thatwe have had a massive flood of illegalimmigrants into our society and wehave to pay for their education, eventhough they just arrived and neverpaid into our system. That is unfair toour people.

Mr. Speaker, we care about the peo-ple of the United States of America.Yes, we care for other people as well.And most immigrants, illegal andlegal, are wonderful people. But thisbill that the President is demanding in-sults those people who are legal immi-grants, who have stood in line andproven to be our very best citizens be-cause they have come here legally.They respect our laws and they lovethe United States of America. We cher-ish their citizenship. But we have madefools out of them if we grant amnestyto people who have just jumped theline and come into our country ille-gally, thumbing their noses at ourlaws.

We must resist the President’s effortsto force this Congress to ignore the

well-being of our own people and bringin millions upon millions of illegal im-migrants and give them blanket am-nesty. It is unfair. It is not right. Wehave agreed to a compromise here. Wehave agreed that we will have somefamily reunification and that is a re-sponsible position, because it helpsthose people who are here legally andalready in our country to unite withtheir loved ones. But a blanket am-nesty is outrageous, and I ask theAmerican people to pay close atten-tion.f

ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TOOFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCTCONFEREES ON H.R. 4577, DE-PARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES, ANDEDUCATION, AND RELATEDAGENCIES APPROPRIATIONSACT, 2001Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, pursu-

ant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I herebynotify the House of my intention tooffer the following motion to instructHouse conferees on H.R. 4577, a billmaking appropriations for fiscal year2001 for the Department of Labor,Health and Human Services and Edu-cation.

The form of the motion is as follows:Mr. HOEKSTRA moves that the managers on

the part of the House at the conference onthe disagreeing votes of two Houses on theSenate amendment to the bill H.R. 4577 beinstructed to choose a level of funding forthe Inspector General of the Department ofEducation that reflects a requirement on theInspector General of the Department of Edu-cation, as authorized by section 211 of theDepartment of Education Organization Act,to use all funds appropriated to the Office ofInspector General of such Department tocomply with the Inspector General Act of1978, with priority given to section 4 of suchAct.

f

ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TOOFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCTCONFEREES ON H.R. 4577, DE-PARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES, ANDEDUCATION, AND RELATEDAGENCIES APPROPRIATIONSACT, 2001Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, pursu-

ant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I herebynotify the House of my intentions tooffer the following motion to instructHouse conferees on H.R. 4577, a billmaking appropriations for fiscal year2001 for the Departments of Labor,Health and Human Services, and Edu-cation.

The form of the motion is as follows:Mr. SCHAFFER moves that the managers on

the part of the House at the conference onthe disagreeing votes of the two Houses onthe Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4577be instructed to insist on those provisionsthat—

(1) maintain the utmost flexibility possiblefor the grant program under title VI of theElementary and Secondary Education Act of1965; and

(2) provide local educational agencies themaximum discretion within the scope of con-

ference to spend Federal education funds toimprove the education of their students.

f

HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.SIMPSON). Under the Speaker’s an-nounced policy of January 6, 1999, thegentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.COBURN) is recognized for one half ofthe time remaining before midnight asthe designee of the majority leader.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to-night with the gentleman from Arizona(Mr. SHADEGG) to talk about healthcare in America. It is Sunday night. Weare in Washington. The politics, ratherthan people, are front and center stagewithin the House and the White Houseand the Senate.

A lot has happened in the last 6 yearssince I have been in Congress, butnothing has happened to fix the realproblems. I want to spend just a littlebit of time creating a set of cir-cumstances that the American publicmight hear tonight about where wefind ourselves.

If Americans are in an HMO today orin an insurance plan that is a PPO, aMedicaid HMO or if they happen to befortunate enough to have pure fee-for-service medicine, the one thing thatthey know is that over the last 10 or 15years they have lost a tremendousamount of their freedom. They have noability to choose the physician or thehealth care provider that is going tocare for them. That very personal as-pect of their life, they no longer have achoice.

If Americans are in Medicare, theycannot go outside of Medicare to a phy-sician who would not take Medicare.They have no right to do that underthe laws of Medicare. A doctor in thiscountry today, if, in fact, they do nottake Medicare and then treat a patientwho is in Medicare, will be fined fortreating that patient because they arenot a contractor to Medicare, eventhough the patient might want to paythat money themselves.

The point I am making is that all ofus, the vast majority of us, have lost asignificant amount of freedom when itcomes to making decisions about ourown health care. That has been dis-placed by one or two or three other or-ganizations. The first place it has beendisplaced is by the Federal Govern-ment. The second it has been displacedby the payer, it is actually a part ofwages, that benefit, that health care,who is making that decision for theemployee. They decide what group ofdoctors they can go to.

If Americans have Medicaid and arein a Medicaid HMO, they do not havethe choice of going to the doctor thatthey want to. They will go to the doc-tors they are told to go to.

Mr. Speaker, we have lost a tremen-dous amount of freedom. We haveheard a lot of discussion in the cam-paign rhetoric about a patients’ bill ofrights. I want to say that if we reallyhad our freedom back, a patients’ bill


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11515October 29, 2000of rights would not be necessary. Andthe way to get our freedom back is toallow each of us to have that benefit,and we decide personally what we doabout our own health care. That is ahuge step in the opposite direction thecountry is going.

The second thing I want to talkabout is what we have been hearing inthe political rhetoric of the campaignabout prescription drugs. Every politi-cian in the country has an answer onprescription drugs, except the right an-swer. The problem with prescriptiondrugs in this country is they are tooexpensive. And the reason they are tooexpensive is because there is no longercompetition within the pharmaceuticalindustry. There is no longer a truecompetitive industry in the pharma-ceutical industry.

How do I know that? Because we haveseen the studies. We have seen the col-lusion. We have seen the fines, hun-dreds of millions of dollars of finesbeing charged to pharmaceutical com-panies. A letter was sent over a monthago to the Attorney General of theUnited States asking her to look ag-gressively at competition in the phar-maceutical industry. She has yet to an-swer that letter that was sent by my-self early this summer.

The fact is we know in America, inour competitive society, that the bestway to allocate resources, to keepprices the lowest they can be, is tomake sure we have competition. Whatis the politician’s answer? Let us cre-ate a Government program. Let us cre-ate more Government control, ratherthan less.

Mr. Speaker, what we need to do inthe pharmaceutical industry is to en-hance and enforce the laws that wehave today; and we will see pharma-ceutical prices go down. The Americanpublic is subsidizing prescription drugsfor the rest of the world. It is time thatstopped. A Government program willnot stop that. A Government Medicareprogram for prescription drugs will notstop that. All that will do is lowersomewhat the prices for seniors andraise them for everyone else.

So if we continue to fix the wrongproblems in our country, what we aregoing to have is a worse health caresystem, not a better one. Some peoplewould like to see that because they be-lieve the Government ought to be incontrol of all of it. I do not happen tobe one that feels that way.

This House passed a bill this pastyear called the patients’ bill of rights.It is extremely flawed in its ability tohelp patients and to put doctors backin charge, with their patients, of thecare. It is a step in the wrong direc-tion. We should not be doing a pa-tients’ bill of rights. What we should bedoing is a patients’ bill of fairness sothat we own our health care, we makedecisions about our own health care,and we are responsible for our ownhealth care.

Those benefits that now come to usthrough an employer should come to us

directly, allowing us to choose. As aMedicare patient, allowing them tochoose. As a Medicaid patient, allowingthem to choose. The only people whoreally have freedom of their healthcare, and they do not have much healthcare because they do not have insur-ance, but nobody is telling them whothey can and cannot go to.

Mr. Speaker, our country was found-ed on liberty. We have lost tremendousliberty when it comes to health care inour country. A Government fix is notthe answer. The answer is to re-institute what we know works: Rig-orous competition to allocate scarceresources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlemanfrom Arizona (Mr. SHADEGG).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I willstart here and then come down thereand use some of those charts. I wouldlike to pick up on some of the remarksthat the gentleman has made. Most im-portantly, the key factor here ischoice.

In the gentleman’s remarks, hepointed out that most of us, at leastmost of us in the workforce, those whohave a job, if we are lucky enough tohave health care at this point in time,if we have health care coverage, welikely get that health care coveragethrough our employer. That is good,because it means we have health carecoverage; and that is an advantage.

But there are some tragedies in-volved in that structure. First of all itmeans that thousands of Americans,tens of thousands of Americans, indeed44 million Americans who are unin-sured, they do not get the chance toget their insurance through their em-ployer, so many of them do not haveany insurance at all. That is not right,and we need to deal with the problemof the uninsured.

I think the right way to deal with itis to give them a refundable tax creditand let them go buy an insurance pol-icy that is theirs, that is a portable in-surance policy that belongs to themand lets them go buy the health careplan they want.

But the other problem with the otherhalf of this structure is those peoplethat get their insurance from their em-ployer. The problem with that struc-ture is we lose all choice. If we workfor any employer in America largeenough to buy health care insurance,we are offered either one choice or afairly small list of choices, unless wework for a very, very large employer.

I like to talk about Joe Jordan’sMexican food restaurant, which iswhere my wife, Shirley, and I went onour second date. Joe Jordan and hisfamily did not go into the Mexican foodbusiness because they thought theywere good at buying health insurance.They went into the Mexican food busi-ness because they were good at makingand cooking Mexican food. And yetunder our structure today, Joe Jordanhas to select the health insurance forhis employees and they get no choice.

Mr. Speaker, we can change that. Wecould go back to a system where we

gave individual people choice in healthinsurance and let them buy the healthinsurance that meets their needs. Andthe key to that would be if the planthey bought did not satisfy their needs,if they went out and bought an HMObecause they thought it was the mostcost-effective type of care they wantedand that HMO did not service theirneeds or do a good job by them or theirfamily, they could fire that HMO andgo hire another one.

The gentleman from Oklahoma saidwe would not need a patients’ bill ofrights if health care were a matter ofchoice, but it is not. We get it throughour employers.

Earlier this year, I introduced legis-lation to give people choice, to letthem buy a health care plan of theirown, or to let their employer give themessentially the right to go buy with hisfunds their own health care plan. Withthat kind of choice, we would, as thegentleman said, we would not need apatients’ bill of rights. Because if theirHMO did not treat them right, theywould fire that HMO and they would gobuy an HMO that serviced them welland did a good job by them. Just likethey do with their auto insurance com-pany or homeowners insurance com-pany or any of the decisions they makein there lives.

b 2230

But we are at the point where we aredebating on the floor of this House, wehave all year and indeed last year aswell, the issue of a so-called Patients’Bill of Rights. I think it is importantto talk about the differences and thechoices in that legislation and why thebill that passed this floor is so bad andindeed would do damage to health carein America. I would like to do thatwith the charts down there, so the gen-tleman and I will trade places.

This chart right here kind of showsthe fundamental question that facesAmerica on the issues of health carefor the working people of America whoget a health care plan from their em-ployer. It is a simple, straightforwardquestion, ‘‘Health care in America, whoshould make the decision?’’ You getthree choices: HMOs, lawyers, or doc-tors and patients.

I think the answer to that question isvery obvious. I think doctors, togetherwith their patients, ought to makemedical decisions in America. But it isimportant to understand how the sys-tem works today. The system workstoday to say doctors and patients donot get to make the choice. No. Thesystem today provides that HMOsmake medical decisions; indeed, HMObureaucrats often make medical deci-sions.

But somebody out there watchingmight say, well, why are lawyers onthis chart? That does not make anysense. I thought it was a battle be-tween HMOs on the one hand and doc-tors and patients on the other hand.Well, that is what one thinks it shouldbe, but that is not what it is.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11516 October 29, 2000Because some of the legislation that

has gone through this House and thelegislation that the President talksabout, the legislation that is discussedby our Democrat colleagues, would notleave power in the hands of HMOs. In-deed, it would take power away fromHMOs. But, sadly, it would not movethat power over to patients and doc-tors. It would instead move that powerto trial lawyers. And that will sethealth care back rather tragically.

Since the gentleman is a doctor, per-haps he would like to comment onthat.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, there isno question today that oftentimes, andeven as I have been in Congress as Ihave continued to practice medicine,proper care has been denied patients inmy practice by HMOs and insurancecompanies.

It is not just HMOs, it is insurancecompanies, as well, that are makingthose decisions. And it is not nec-essarily medical personnel within thosecompanies, but clerks, trained individ-uals who know how to read a check-offchart that decide who gets care andwho does not.

I want to go back to what I talkedabout first. The greatest freedom wehave in this country is the right tochoose, the right to choose what kindof practitioner we are going to go to,whether or not we are agreeable to andsatisfied with the individual that wehave chosen to do very, very personalthings with us as we manage our healthcare and do preventive health care.And in fact too many in this countryhave lost that right.

I do not believe the answer to it is tocreate another government bill. Al-though that may be a short-term solu-tion, it fixes the wrong problem. Theproblem is not allowing people the taxcredits, the deductibility and the op-tions of making those choices them-selves and, most importantly, also hav-ing a small financial responsibility as-sociated with that.

One of the things that we know inmedicine today is there is tremendousover-utilization. And one of the reasonsit is over-utilized is because there is nopersonal cost to utilize it. And when wesee that, what we know is we do not al-locate the resource properly. So as in-dividuals become empowered and theyalso take on a small portion of that re-sponsibility, their decisions about howthey utilize that asset and that servicewill change. But, most importantly,bureaucrats should not be making thedecision and certainly not lawyers.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I cer-tainly agree with the gentleman. Itseems to me, if we can someday get toa system of choice where people canpick their own health care and fire itwhen it does not serve them well,whether it is an HMO or an insurancecompany, we will have advanced healthcare in America greatly.

But the gentleman in his remarksmade clear that he thought the legisla-tion which had passed this House ear-

lier and the legislation which is beingtalked about, indeed our Democrat col-leagues held a press conference just theday before yesterday where they talkedabout the tragic death of a Patients’Bill of Rights and how that legislationwas vitally important, and they aretalking about it in all their press con-ferences; and the President is saying,well, this Congress failed the Americanpeople by not passing a Patients’ Billof Rights.

The gentleman pointed out in his re-marks, and I agree with him com-pletely, that the Patients’ Bill ofRights, which our colleagues on theother side of the aisle would like us topass, is indeed fatally flawed. Andthere was a good reason not to passthat legislation and it is a reason thathas never been discussed on the floor ofthis House, and I think it deserves tobe discussed; and I think the Americanpeople need to know about it, and Ithink our colleagues need to knowabout it.

I put up another chart here, and itraises the same question, who shoulddecide how doctors care for patients?Right now, as this chart illustrates,the standard of care in America is cur-rently set by HMOs and HMO bureau-crats when they tell doctors how tocare for patients.

How does that happen? Well, yourdoctor decides to recommend a certainlevel of care or treatment for you. Heapplies to the HMO for that and theHMO says no, largely and oftenthrough a bureaucrat. The HMO says,we do not think that is the proper care.We think something else is the propercare. Well, that is a structure underwhich the HMO tells doctors how tocare for patients.

But let us talk about the bill thatpassed the floor here, the so-called Nor-wood-Dingell bill. What does that billdo? Does that bill empower doctors toset the standard of care and to decidehow patients should be cared for, ordoes it not? The sad truth is it does notdo that.

The Norwood-Dingell bill would, in-stead of allowing doctors to decide thelevel of care, the standard of care, whattreatment a patient should be given, itsays that lawyers should make that de-cision. That is a tragic decision. And itdoes that by saying that anytime alawyer wants to, that lawyer can sim-ply go out and file a lawsuit. He or shedoes not have to wait until the casehas been reviewed by an independentpanel of doctors to decide if the careshould have been given by the HMO or,perhaps, if the HMO made the right de-cision. Instead, we skip that processand let the lawyer go straight to court,which means that the standard of carein America will not be decided by doc-tors, it will not be decided by doctorsconsulting with their patients, it willnot even be decided by doctors con-sulting with an HMO. It will be decidedby doctors filing lawsuits and goingstraight to court.

We believe, I believe strongly, wherewe ought to be is that the standard of

care should be decided as a result of areview of a request for care by an inde-pendent external panel of doctors.

I am sure the gentleman has personalexperiences with HMOs denying carethat he requested for his patients.

Mr. COBURN. I do. I think, in fair-ness of the debate, I want to make surethat people are aware that, when thatbill passed the House, I did indeed casta vote for it. And there was a very goodreason that I cast a vote for it. Ithought we ought to move the processalong to try to solve some of the prob-lems. And it is very apparent to methat what I would like to see and I be-lieve the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.SHADEGG) would like to see in terms ofdeductibility and people truly havingchoices across this country is not goingto happen this year.

So then the question becomes shouldwe do something in the meantime untilwe can put power of choice back intothe hands of every American who needshealth care.

I can relate an experience that to methat I think just shows the problemsassociated with managed care in thiscountry, and it is denial of care that isrecommended by a doctor when in fact,and this is a real incident and I willnot go into the details of the case orthe individual’s name out of medicalconfidentiality, but needless to say, Ihad a patient who needed a diagnosisthat was turned down. As it ended up,I ignored them and went on and did itanyway. And it was a cancer and it wasidentified. And then they were all toohappy to pay for the procedures thatthey had been denied prior to that.

So how do we solve that? If you donot have an aggressive doctor that isgoing to buck the HMO and you haveno external appeals panel, then theonly way to solve that is to go tocourt. Well, that is not a good way tosolve it because what happens is pa-tients do not get treated. That is whythe standard of care ought to be theprofessionally accepted standard ofcare across this country. That can bestbe decided not by an HMO bureaucratand not by a doctor working for anHMO or managed care plan, becausethey quite frankly have a bias and thatis for their employer, as it should be,but by three independent doctors. Andevery denial that is felt qualified by adoctor ought to have that chance to bereviewed by their peers to see if in factthat is the standard of care.

There is a couple things that comeout of that. Number one, where weknow this is working, which is in Texasnow, is that 45 percent of the time thedoctors on the panel say the doctor iswrong. What happens then? It improvesthe quality of care because it raises thelevel of knowledge of the doctor thatwas asking for something.

The 55 percent of the time when theplan is reversed, the patient gets thecare that they need and the planlearns. So any system that is designedought to be designed so that it ad-vances care and lowers cost, not in-creases them. Delay in diagnosis, delay


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11517October 29, 2000in treatment is the number one causeof medical malpractice suits in thiscountry today. And I would tell youthat the managed care industry is tan-tamount to being a large portion ofthat because of the restrictions.

As my colleague has said, and Iagree, we must have an exhaustion be-fore we go to lawsuits before we aregoing to care for patients.

Mr. SHADEGG. We have put up agraph here that we developed to try tographically illustrate this point. All ofthe legislation that has been here onthe floor of the Congress and over inthe Senate talks about a process, andthe process is what should we do whena patient and his or her doctor make arequest of the managed care organiza-tion or the HMO for care? How do wedeal with that request? How does heprocess that request so that you getthat request processed and get theright result?

I think the right result is the bestpossible care at the earliest possiblemoment. And it is true, doctors some-times seek care that is not necessary.They seek care that the patient doesnot really need because they are beingpressured by the patient. Indeed, some-one argue some doctors seek care justto make the money from deliveringthat care. And I think we talked aboutthat kind of abuse of the system. Andmanaged care has done a good job ofputting that in check.

I think another abuse that occurs isthat doctors sometimes are not on topof the current standard of care. Theydo not know what is the best treatmentfor a particular condition because theyhave not read the literature and man-aged care again has stepped in andsaid, no, we are going to require you todo what is best.

But the real problem in this area isthat the current structure where anHMO gets to decline a doctor who isasking for care and say, well, no, thatcare is not medically necessary and ap-propriate, the real demand for a Pa-tients’ Bill of Rights arises out of thepotential for abuse, so that the man-aged care plan turns down the patientand his or her doctor requesting careon the basis that it is really not medi-cally necessary and appropriate.

That vague term creates a loopholethrough which managed care compa-nies can deny needed medical care forreasons that are not really medicalbut, rather, are financial, that is, tomake the HMO’s profit line or bottomline better.

How do we solve that? How do youcorrect that? Well, all of the legisla-tion that has gone through here, theso-called Patients’ Bill of Rights legis-lation, looking at this potential forabuse, an HMO declining care and say-ing it is not medically necessary andappropriate, when they are really notdoing that for a good medical reason,they are doing that to save money,they are doing that to improve theHMO’s bottom line.

All of this legislation has talkedabout is structure. There should be a

doctor and their patient. They make aninitial claim. Having made an initialclaim and assuming it is turned down,they then go to internal review. Theinternal review is the HMO itself tak-ing a look at that claim, hopefully thistime through medical personnel, doc-tors, and saying, yes, the care is need-ed, go ahead and deliver it, or, no, it isnot.

Now, everything is good up to thatpoint. But the question is what hap-pens if at that internal review by theHMO’s own in-house doctors they saythe care is not needed? Well, how doyou determine if that was the right de-cision and the care really was not need-ed for medical reasons and some othercare would be appropriate, or the careis not needed at all, or did they makethat decision for the wrong reason? Didthey decline the care just because theywant to make a profit and they do notwant to deliver the expensive care thatis being asked for?

The legislation that I believe, andthe gentleman just talked about this,the legislation that we feel is the im-portant model here, and the flaw in theNorwood-Dingell bill occurs right here,what we believe has to happen at thatpoint is that, when the HMO and itsown doctors turn you down for the careand tell your doctor, no, you cannothave the care, we believe it is vitallyimportant that the next step that youas a patient have a right to go to andyou and your doctor have the right togo to is an external review panel, righthere, an external review panel made upof three doctors who are completelyindependent of the plan and completelyindependent of you and your doctor.They are totally independent, and theyhave the ability and the expertise toreview the claim.

They are essentially three inde-pendent medical arbiters who reviewyour case, review what your treatingphysician said was needed, and reviewwhat the plan said and the plan’s rea-sons for denying the care. Our goal isthat that panel of three independentexperts would say, you know what, thiscare is medically necessary and appro-priate. Plan, you should deliver it. Andit should be binding on the plan thatthey must deliver it at that point intime. That lets three independent doc-tors not controlled by the plan, notcontrolled by you and your doctor, getyou the right decision at the earliestpossible moment.

b 2245

That is a timely decision. That is afast decision by that external reviewpanel. If, in fact, they say the care isneeded, then the HMO is bound by thepanel’s decision; and if you have beeninjured, you recover monetary dam-ages. But the flaw in this system, theflaw that is in the other idea, is theydo not want to require cases to gothrough this external review and thatis illustrated right here on this chartof the Dingell-Norwood bill. This is aschematic, just like the other one, of

the Dingell-Norwood bill. There is aninitial claim just like is the case underthe legislation we have advanced. Thenthere is internal review, and that is thenext step and the plan’s doctors get toreview your case. Remember those arethe plan’s doctors. They are the oneswith the incentive to deny care. Thatis the place where the abuse can occur.

Here is the key difference and here iswhy that patients’ bill of rights, thatour colleagues on the other side of theaisle want, what the President wants,is a tragically flawed proposal that willnot help patients and will not help doc-tors. Right here at internal review in-stead of requiring that case to goquickly to external review, to a panelof three doctors who would say you getthe care or you do not get the care, andyou can recover damages if you havebeen injured, they create a loopholeand it is the lawyer’s loophole, andthat loophole is all you have to do is todecide to talk to a lawyer and thatlawyer gets to say, you know what, Ido not want an external review becausethat external review by three inde-pendent doctors might turn my clientdown and if in an external review myclient is turned down, my lawsuit isgone; my monetary damages are gone;that will destroy everything I want. Sowhat have they done? They have writ-ten into the Norwood-Dingell bill thata lawyer simply steps in right here, thelawyer simply alleges injury, hey, myclient has been injured, I think he hasbeen injured and I am ready to go tocourt.

And at that point, the external re-view by doctors, the three independentdoctors who are going to review thatcase, the three independent doctorswho were going to set the standard ofcare and tell the HMO how they shouldbe treating patients, that external re-view of doctors is gone. Instead, youknow where that case is? That case isnot quickly decided by an independentpanel of three doctors. That case ismoved into our courts, and everybodyknows that courts and lawsuits takeforever. It will take who knows howlong to drive this case through thatcourt and who knows how frivolous thecase will be, but the lawyer now has achance to extort monetary damages totry to make the case settle even if it ismeritless.

What happens to the poor patient?The poor patient waits, but the triallawyer does well. That is the fatal flawin the Norwood-Dingell legislation thathas been put here on the floor, that thegentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.COBURN) talked about. You just have toask yourself if you want to empowerpatients and doctors, then should younot give that ability to an external re-view panel? On the other hand, whyshould you let lawyers decide whichcases go to external appeals or whichcases go straight to court? That is theflaw that the gentleman from Okla-homa (Mr. COBURN) was talking aboutin the Norwood-Dingell bill. It is a billthat is designed to get patients intocourtrooms, not to get them care.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11518 October 29, 2000I think care has been a key compo-

nent of what you have talked about inthis important debate, and it is whatthe gentleman says, I think that theNorwood-Dingell bill is flawed becauseit will not get people care. It will getthem a lawsuit.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thankthe gentleman for his comments. Iwant to go back to really what weopened with, because so much partisan-ship has gone on and so much of thepolitics that the American people areseeing today throughout have to dowith the patients’ bill of rights. As Iunderstand the medical system indus-try profession and patients today, andby the way I just remind my colleague,as he knows, that I have continued mypractice, since I have been in medicine,delivered over 400 children since I havebeen here in this past 6 years and havecontinued to engage the managed careindustry when I have been at home, weshould not be having this debate. IfAmericans truly had the freedom thatthey once had, we would not be havinga debate. We would not be about fixingthe wrong problem.

Mr. SHADEGG. Does the gentlemanmean we will not be debating this com-plicated flow chart that they want tocreate as a matter of Federal law thatis going to try to arbitrarily decidefrom Washington how to process theseclaims and kind of have a win or losebattle between doctors and insurancecompanies on the one hand and triallawyers on the other hand? We wouldgive that power to patients and letthem choose?

Mr. COBURN. Well, if we think aboutit today, that if you are in a fee-for-service plan that you are paying foryourself, you have all of those rights. Ifyou have no insurance, you have all ofthose rights today. The people that donot have those rights are in the pro-grams that have been designed by theFederal Government and have been de-signed by the large corporations to tryto control the costs. And there is no in-centive for the individual consumer,who is a part of those systems, to helpcontrol the costs. So if in fact we moveto a point where we had some personalresponsibility and accountability andour health care was in our hands in-stead of some third party, whether itbe the Federal Government or our cor-poration that we work for, which is agreat benefit but, in fact, in today’stime that is one of the things that ispart of our remuneration is our healthcare.

The other thing I would say is thatmost Federal employees have thoserights, too. They get fee-for-service.We give Federal employees a wonderfulchoice of options, and they can go fee-for-service and they have every rightthere that they have. How is it thatFederal employees, except military andretired military, how come people whoare in fee-for-service that are payingfor their own have those rights but therest of us who are dependent on a pro-gram no longer have that freedom?

That is a basic question that Ameri-cans ought to be asking themselvesany time they hear any politician dur-ing this election cycle talking about apatients’ bill of rights. They are talk-ing about the wrong problem.

Mr. SHADEGG. They are talkingabout a bureaucratic Government pro-gram that tries to mandate somethingfrom Washington, D.C., and I could notagree more with the gentleman. As thegentleman knows, I have introducedlegislation that would let peoplechoose their own health care.

Indeed, the legislation we introducedwould say to an employee, whetherthey worked for Joe Jordan’s MexicanFood, the one I talked about, the Mexi-can food restaurant in Phoenix, Ari-zona, or whether they worked for alarge employer, Caterpillar Tractor,General Motors, whoever it was, wouldlet that individual employee exercisechoice so that they could hire or firetheir health insurance plan based ontheir own decision, not their employ-er’s decision.

I think, in discussing this issue, it isimportant to note that the currentFederal Tax Code allows employers togive employees health insurance, andthey are not taxed on that benefit.That is the reason that most people gettheir health care from their employer.If their employer gives them an extrathousand dollars, they pay taxes onthat thousand dollars and they givesomewhere around a third of it to 50percent of it to the Federal or theState or the local government in in-come taxes. On the other hand, if theiremployer simply hands them a healthcare benefit worth a thousand dollars,they get that full thousand dollars invalue.

The plan we are talking about, givingpeople choice to go buy the plan theywant, actually is allowed under thecurrent Tax Code. Under the currentTax Code, your employer can say toyou, I am going to give you the $1,000dollars or the $500 or the $1,500 or the$2,000 that I spend on your health careand as long as you go spend that onhealth care and confirm that fact backto your employer, it is not income toyou and it is still a deduction to youremployer. So we can move to a choicesystem. We can give people freedom ifAmerican employers will simply do it.

Mr. COBURN. It is really interesting.The tax bill that the President is say-ing that he is going to veto also adds,for those people who work for an em-ployer who does not provide it, above-the-line deduction for their health carebenefit. So what we actually are doingwith the tax bill that is going to thePresident is, if you work for an em-ployer that does not provide healthcare, we are giving you the same ben-efit we are going to give that employer.You are going to be able to deduct thatabove the line of your adjusted grossincome so that you do not pay taxes onthat income, and it becomes a straightdeduction. That is another way of giv-ing you freedom.

Mr. SHADEGG. We have talked aboutthe flaw in the Norwood-Dingell billwhich would allow a trial lawyer tostep in, circumvent external review,take the power to set the standard ofcare away from doctors and take thatdecision to a courtroom, and why wethink that is a bad idea here. Maybe weought to talk about some of the othertrade-offs that are going on here.

It is absolutely true that there areabout 13 individual patient protectionsin the legislation, and I support thosepatient protections. They includethings like the right of a woman tohave an OBGYN as her primary carephysician; the right of patients like mywife, Shirley, and I to have a pediatri-cian as our child’s primary care physi-cian; the right of all of us to go to anemergency room even if it is not anemergency room signed up with ourHMO and get care. And each of thoseare important rights, but only impor-tant rights as long as we are trapped ina system where we cannot fire ourHMO and hire one we want.

The reality be known, we would notneed, as the gentleman has said, a pa-tients’ bill of rights. We would not needthis complicated flow chart. We wouldnot need to bring trial lawyers into thewhole discussion. We would not need tobe talking about cutting out the abil-ity of doctors to set the standard ofcare if, as a matter of right, we couldgo as individuals, as employees of acompany, and say, you know what, I donot want the HMO you picked for me.I want to go buy a plan that I can hire,a plan that I can fire, a plan that hasalready in it, and I get to pick it and Iget to sign up for it, the right of mywife to see an OBGYN of her ownchoice; the right of she and I to pick apediatrician as a primary care physi-cian for our children; our right to go toan emergency room of our choice. If wehad that kind of freedom, then weclearly would not need not only the li-ability scheme in this flawed Dingell-Norwood legislation, we would not needthe patient protections.

Sadly, that is not where we are. Weare debating yet one more massive gov-ernment scheme to try to regulate themarketplace.

Mr. COBURN. I want to thank thegentleman for sharing this time withme. I look at the American health caresystem today. Prior to being a physi-cian, I managed a fairly large businessand my first degree is in accounting.As I look at the health care system inour country today, it reminds me of aSoviet-style run health care system,and here are some facts that peopleshould know. That HMOs actually costmore for care than fee-for-service; a re-cent study, 18 percent more. Also it isfunny that that 18 percent, that is theamount of money that comes out of anHMO for paperwork and profit. So only82 percent of the dollars that are paidin to managed care actually ever go forcare. If we could somehow in Americathrough competition and efficiencymake that 5 percent or 6 percent, we


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11519October 29, 2000would have 12 percent. Well, we aregoing to spend about $1.1 trillion dol-lars this year on health care, and if wetake 12 percent of that, what you cansee is that we would have about $150billion to $160 billion that would go tocare.

Well, nobody would be lacking in thiscountry. We would be able to care foreverybody that is not insured, every-body that does not have care today, if,in fact, we had a system that was notbound up in paperwork. I have almost33 employees in my medical practicewith three great partners that havecovered for me since I have been here.Of that group, somewhere between 8and 11 every day are doing nothing butchasing paper associated with healthcare. It has nothing to do with gettingsomebody well. It has nothing to dowith anything except for us gettingpaid or sending something to lawyersor sending something to insurancecompanies. That is eight people thatcould be working to make somebodywell. To me, I think that the fact that18 percent of the dollars in the insur-ance managed care and HMO industrytoday are going for paperwork andprofits rather than for care leaves awhole lot lacking. There is no wonderthat we are having difficulty keepingup with the rising costs.

The last point that I would make isthat the fastest growing segment inthe cost of health care this year is pre-scription drugs. Our economy will notwork unless we have competitive mar-kets. There is no doubt, if you just geton the U.S. Government FTC’s website, you will find where they have fourlarge pharmaceutical companiesthrough the last year that have ac-counted for more than a billion dollarsworth of price fixing, a billion dollarsin excess prices. Well, that is 1 percentof the cost of pharmaceuticals thisyear are associated with price fixingthat we know of, that there has alreadybeen consent decrees against. Howmuch more is there?

The second thing that we know isthat they are going to spend some-where between $4 billion and $6 billionthis year advertising on television.Who pays for the $4 billion to $6 bil-lion? We do. What happens with that?

You see something, oh, I need that.So I go to the doctor so, number one,we are increasing utilization. What Ihave found in my practice is it takesme twice as long to take care of a pa-tient that comes in because they wanta drug from a prescription that theysaw on TV because now I have to figureout is that the right drug for theirsymptoms? And if it is not, I have toconvince them it is not the right drug.So I spend my time working againstthe advertising to get the patient whatthey really need.

The third thing is the pharma-ceutical companies spend $5 billion ayear courting doctors, and it ought tostop. They spend $5 billion buyinglunches in doctor’s office. They spend$5 billion for golf outings for doctors.

They spend $5 billion on dinners fordoctors. It is time the American peoplesaid that is enough. We do not need topay $5 billion for benefits for doctors,$6 billion for television advertising,and let us get rid of the $1 billion to $5billion in collusion.

If you add that up, we would see a 15percent reduction in pharmaceuticalprices, not a 15 percent increase.

Mr. SHADEGG. I take it insteadwhat we are proposing is yet anotherGovernment program to pay for pre-scription drugs and to subsidize thecost of those drugs.

b 2300

I wholeheartedly agree with the gen-tleman that the answer to the problemis choice. Let patients have choice. Un-fortunately, as is often the case, that isnot in the debate in Washington rightnow. The debate as we enter the last 10days of this political campaign is a de-bate over the failure of the UnitedStates Congress to deliver patientrights legislation and to pass what hasnow, I guess, become famous, since itwas referred to by the Vice Presidentin one of the debates, as the Dingell-Norwood or Norwood-Dingell bill, andthat is the debate here.

Often we debate issues, and we areway behind the marketplace. TheAmerican people are ahead of us. Thathas become a political issue. Why hasthe Congress not passed Norwood-Din-gell? The answer that we hear is, well,you cannot get through the Senate;there is a terrible problem with it. It isa vitally important piece of legislationfor the American people.

As we kind of close out this discus-sion tonight, I think it is important tobe sure that people understand that itis not a lack of resolve to take care ofpatients and doctors. The gentlemanand I wrote a bill over a year ago, a pa-tients’ rights bill, because of this de-bate that has occurred in America, be-cause of the abuses caused by HMOs;but that bill empowered doctors andpatients to make health care decisions.

That bill said, as this flowchart I justshowed illustrated, that every singlecase, every single case, where an HMOturned down somebody’s doctor andsaid, no, you are wrong, the patientdoes not need that care, 100 percent ofthose cases would go quickly throughinitial claim, internal review andstraight to an external review panel ofthree doctors.

Those three doctors had to be prac-ticing physicians, a provision the gen-tleman insisted on. We did not wantphysicians who had not practiced in 20years telling physicians currently prac-ticing what they should be doing. Wewanted physicians practicing rightthen. They had to have expertise in thearea.

Those three doctors would say, Plan,you are dead wrong. When you deniedthat care that the treating physiciansaid was necessary and you said youwould not pay for it, you were wrong.That care should occur and occur now.

Under our legislation, people would beable to not only get the care, but suefor the damages.

One of the things that made meangry in this debate is the current sys-tem in America says if an HMO gov-erned by this Federal law called ERISAwe are trying to amend, by their neg-ligence, if they injure or kill someone,there is no recovery.

I have talked on the floor of thisHouse about the tragic case of FlorenceCorcoran, whose baby was killed by anegligent decision by an HMO, and theFederal courts interpreting the currentlaw said, we are terribly sorry, Mr. andMrs. Corcoran, your baby was killed bythe negligent decision of United HealthCare; but under our law, you recovernothing.

The legislation we want to past willaddress this problem. If we cannot getto choice and freedom, we will say 100percent of those cases go to a panel ofthree doctors. Mr. and Mrs. Corcoranwould have gotten in front of threedoctors, had a speedy decision. Wewould have set the standard of care,the baby would probably not have died,and the lawsuit would not be nec-essary.

The Dingell-Norwood bill, the billthat Vice President AL GORE said thatAmerica deeply needs, does not dothat. It does not take the case to apanel of doctors; it takes the casestraight into a courtroom, so that atrial lawyer can get rich.

I am not against trial lawyers. I be-lieve in the tort system. I think whenthere has been an injury, they ought torecover. I wish the lawyer representingthe Corcorans had won. They deservedto win. They deserved to recover.

That is not the answer that gets peo-ple care. The answer that gets themcare gets them first to a review by anindependent panel of doctors to saywhat care should be delivered. Then, ifthere has been a bad decision, there hasbeen injury, then let it go to court. Butdo not destroy the system by letting itgo straight to court and letting triallawyers decide what the standard ofcare is.

Mr. COBURN. The other thing is, hadMrs. Corcoran had the freedom tochoose and had she had her own healthinsurance as part of her benefit and hercontrol, her baby would be alive todayas well, probably.

I just want to summarize a couple ofthings. Number one, there are two realfalse claims out there in the politicalarena today. One is the only way tosolve the prescription drug for seniorsis to create a Federal program. I be-lieve that is wrong. I believe in thelong run all that does is hurt seniors,and it will hurt everyone else, becauseit fails to fix the real problem, lack ofmarket, lack of competition, to allo-cate those resources.

The second thing is that we are re-quired under the political arena thatwe have today to defend passing a Pa-tients’ Bill of Rights, and what hashappened is we are about to pass a very


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11520 October 29, 2000bad law. It passed the House. It has notpassed the Senate. What will happen ifwhat comes is a tremendous increase incosts, tremendous loss of insurance,and exactly the opposite direction.

Now, I happen to be cynical enoughto believe there are certain people thatwant that to happen, because they be-lieve we ought to have a government-controlled health care system. Believeyou me, when we get that, if you lovethe post office today, wait until yousee totally government-run healthcare.

There is not one individual that Italked to that knows anything abouthealth care, from the pharmacist tothe physical therapist to the operatingroom nurse to other doctors to nursesor employees in my office. When I men-tion the word HCFA, Health Care Fi-nancing Administration, they go bal-listic, because HCFA does not knowwhat is going on, but they are runningall the rules. For us to create anothersystem in which we hand more toHCFA is asinine.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I sim-ply want to reiterate what you said.The reality is that many people wantthis very complicated scheme. Theywant a Norwood-Dingell bill to pass,not because they think that will takecare of patients. They understand turn-ing this whole system over to the triallawyers, taking it away from HMOs,but not giving it to doctors, but rathergiving it to trial lawyers, they under-stand that that will drive costs dra-matically through the roof.

But that is not against their goal, be-cause their goal is to have the currentHMO system, to have the currenthealth care system fail, and then toforce America to turn to a singlepayer, Hillary-Care, one-system-fits-all, the Federal Government runs thehealth care system-type program.

I believe that will be a tragic flaw forthis Nation. If we go to a flawed sys-tem that lets trial lawyers circumventindependent doctors making the deci-sion, if we do not give patients theright to choose their own doctor, thenet result is that costs will go throughthe roof and we will get to a single-payer system.

I want to thank the gentleman for al-lowing me to participate in this Spe-cial Order. It is important that our col-leagues saw the flaw in this current pa-tients rights legislation. I hope theywill join us in passing legislation thatwould give people choice. Let themhire and fire their health care plan, theway they hire and fire their auto insur-ance plan or their homeowner’s insur-ance plan, or, for that matter, the waythey decide where they live or whatbrand of shoes or coats to buy. Givepeople choice, and they will take careof themselves.

Mr. COBURN. I thank the gentlemanfrom Arizona (Mr. SHADEGG). It a pleas-ure to work with the gentleman, asusual. I appreciate all of the work hehas done in health care in this Con-gress.

I think the American people ought toask themselves one question, do I getto choose my doctor, my health plan,and, if not, why not? When you hear allof the political rhetoric, it will all pen-cil down to choice, and what is hap-pening today in America is we are los-ing freedom, we are losing liberty,when we cannot even have the basicright to choose our own doctor.f

RUSSIA’S ROAD TO CORRUPTIONThe SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

SIMPSON). Under the Speaker’s an-nounced policy of January 6, 1999, thegentleman from California (Mr. ROYCE)is recognized for the remainder of thetime.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise toenter into the RECORD and share withmy colleagues a report that was re-cently released by the gentleman fromCalifornia (Chairman COX). It is enti-tled ‘‘Russia’s Road to Corruption.’’

This is the Speaker’s advisory groupon Russia. In addition, I would like toshare with Members that the New YorkTimes reported this month that, with-out reporting to Members of the Houseor the Senate, Vice President GOREconcluded a secret agreement in 1995with then-Russian Prime MinisterViktor Chernomyrdin not to enforceU.S. laws requiring sanctions on anycountry that supplies advanced conven-tional weapons to Iran. Specifically,Vice President GORE, purportedly onbehalf of the United States, secretlyauthorized Russia to continued the saleof advanced weaponry to Iran.

Now, this occurred while there was aU.S. law on the books, and let mequote from a comment made by thegentleman from California (ChairmanCOX) at the time. He said, ‘‘The 1992 actrequired the President to sanction anycountry that transfers goods or tech-nology that contribute knowingly andmaterially to the efforts by Iran orIraq to acquire destabilizing numbersand types of advanced conventionalweapons.’’

At the very moment Vice PresidentGORE was making this secret deal withChernomyrdin, bipartisan majorities inCongress were deeply critical of theClinton Administration’s failure tosanction Russian arms sales to Iran.

It is now clear why the administra-tion took no action. Vice PresidentGORE actually signed off on the Rus-sian sales to Iran. The secret Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement reportedlyallowed Russia to sell weapons to Iranfor 4 more years, including an advancedsubmarine. This is the ultra-quiet KiloClass Russian submarine.

b 2310Also, to sell torpedoes and antiship

mines, and hundreds of tanks andarmed personnel carriers. This sub-marine, as but one example, is exactlythe type identified by Congress when itpassed the law as posing a risk to U.S.forces operating in the Middle East.

The secret deal cut by Vice PresidentGORE directly contradicts the 1992 law

he coauthored. As then Senator GOREsaid on April 8 of 1992, ‘‘We do feel thatthe sanctions package has got to layout the choice for dealers in these tech-nologies in very stark terms. It isabundantly clear that we need to raisethe stakes high and we need to actwithout compunction if we catch viola-tors.’’ That is what was said then.

The report of the Speaker’s advisorygroup noted a series of interlockingflaws in the Clinton-Gore policy to-wards Russia. Unjustified confidence inunreliable officials like Chernomyrdinwas the first that they pointed out; re-fusal to acknowledge mistakes and re-vise policies accordingly, and excessivesecrecy designed to screen controver-sial policies, to screen them from boththe Congress and from the U.S. public.This secret agreement exemplifiesevery one of these flaws, stated thegentleman from California (Mr. COX).Tragically, as the Times report notes,the decision to flout U.S. law gained usnothing from the Russians.

The September 2000 advisory groupreported concluded, in spite of evidencethat both Russian government agenciesand private entities were directly in-volved in proliferation to such Statesas Iran and Iraq, the Clinton adminis-tration continued to rely on personalassurances from its small cadre of con-tacts in the Russian government. Ad-ministration officials, including VicePresident GORE and Deputy Secretaryof State Talbot, accepted these assur-ances, despite clear evidence of contin-ued proliferation rather than believe oradmit that proliferation could continuedespite the stated opposition of theirpartners.

To continue, I wanted to share withmy colleagues a second issue, a secondsecret Gore-Chernomyrdin deal, thatwas described not by The New YorkTimes this time, but this one by theWashington Times on October 17 of thisyear. In a classified ‘‘Dear AL’’ letterto the Vice President in late 1995,Chernomyrdin described Russian aid toIran’s nuclear program. The letterstates that it is quote, ‘‘ot to be con-veyed to third parties, including theU.S. Congress.’’ Not to be conveyed tothe U.S. Congress. It appears to memo-rialize a previous personal agreementbetween the two men that the U.S.would acquiesce in the nuclear tech-nology transfer to Iran.

As with the first Gore-Chernomyrdindeal, this agreement too was kept fromCongress. This letter fromChernomyrdin to GORE indicates thatVice President GORE acquiesced to theshipment of not only conventionalweapons to Iran in violation of theGore-McCain Act, but also nucleartechnology to Iran. According to VicePresident GORE, the purpose of this se-cret deal was to constrain Russian nu-clear aid to Iran in the construction oftwo nuclear reactors. If that is so, VicePresident GORE plainly did not suc-ceed. In August of this year, the CIAreported that ‘‘Russia continues to pro-vide Iran with nuclear technology that


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11521October 29, 2000could be applied to Iran’s weapons pro-gram.’’

Now, our House Committee on Inter-national Relations chairman, the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN),asked the administration on October 18if it had pointed out to Vice PresidentGORE’s Russian partner in this that itis not the American way for the Presi-dent to keep secrets from Congresswhen it comes to such serious nationalsecurity concerns as proliferation ofnuclear technology. The gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. GILMAN) has yet toreceive an answer.

The law requires that ‘‘The text ofany international agreement to whichthe United States is a party be trans-mitted to Congress as soon as prac-tical, but in no event later than 60days’’ after it is reached. The law doesnot contemplate that Congress will dis-cover such agreements 5 years after thefact by reading about them throughleaks to a newspaper, commented thegentleman from California (Mr. COX),the chairman of this committee. TheSenate Foreign Relations Committeerequested the first secret Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement on arms toIran on Friday, October 13, the day TheNew York Times revealed it. Weekslater, the administration has yet toproduce either it or the second Gore-Chernomyrdin letter dealing with nu-clear transfers to Iran.

Lastly, I wanted to cite from Rus-sia’s Road to Corruption, the Speaker’sAdvisory Group on Russia chaired bythe gentleman from California (Mr.COX) comments about the ongoing Rus-sian assistance to Iran’s ballistic mis-sile program. To quote from the report,‘‘Throughout the 1990s, despite re-peated pledges by the Yeltsin govern-ment given during summits, Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission meetings,administerial level meetings, Russianprivate and government entities con-tinue to provide critical technologicalassistance to Iran’s ballistic missileprogram.’’

In testimony before the House Com-mittee on International Relations inOctober of 1999, proliferation expertKenneth Timmerman testified that topClinton administration officials wereaware of Russian aid to Iran’s missileprograms and did little to counter it.

In March of 1997, a CIA intelligencereport labeled ‘‘secret’’ reportedly dis-closed the then Iranian PresidentRafsanjani was pleased with the grow-ing ties between Iran and Russia andthat he expected Iran to benefit fromRussia’s highly developed missile pro-gram. Iran’s President stated that heconsidered obtaining Russian militarytechnology one of Iran’s primary for-eign policy goals, yet the Clinton ad-ministration, anxious to present a posi-tive image of Russian-American rela-tions, continued to accept the commit-ments from Yeltsin and Chernomyrdinduring this period at the Clinton-Yeltsin summit in Helsinki, at theJune Clinton-Yeltsin summit in 1997,and at the Gore-Chernomyrdin meeting

in 1997 that Russia would hold its mis-sile technology assistance to Iran, andall of this, while in November 1998, theRussian Duma passed a resolution call-ing for increased military cooperationwith Iran.

Nevertheless, the Clinton administra-tion still refused to adjust U.S. policyto the torrent of information from theU.S. Intelligence community that cor-roborated the evidence from U.S. al-lies. American policy was based on theassurances from the administration’ssmall circle of official Russian counter-parts. Objective intelligence, objectivereporting was discounted. While infor-mation from Russian sources, whoclearly stood to be injured by the impo-sition of sanctions, was accepted.

The bipartisan Iran Missile Prolifera-tion Sanctions Act of 1997, whichpassed the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities, closed many of theloopholes invoked by the Clinton ad-ministration to justify its refusal touse sanctions. The act required suspen-sion of U.S. Government assistance toforeign entities that assist Iran’s bal-listic missile program, but PresidentClinton vetoed that bill on June 23 of1998. One month after that veto, Irantested its Shahab 3 missile, 10 yearsahead of the U.S. Government’s origi-nal estimate of when it would be capa-ble of doing so.

Under threat of a congressional over-ride of the veto of the Iran Missile Pro-liferation Act, the President finallyissued an Executive Order. However,the Executive Order did nothing to ad-dress Russia’s export control system,which even National Security AdviserSandy Berger said was necessary whenhe announced the sanctions.

b 2320

In testimony before the Senate Intel-ligence Committee in February of 2000,Director of the Central IntelligenceAgency George Tenet testified thatIran probably will soon possess a bal-listic missile capable of reaching theUnited States. The impact of Russianassistance was clear. Only a year ear-lier, Tenet had testified that it wouldtake many, many years for Iran to de-velop a missile capable of reaching theUnited States.

The Clinton administration’s willfulblindness to Russian proliferation hasalready done immense damage. The ex-tensive Russian assistance has allowedIran to improve significantly its bal-listic missile capability. As a matter offact with Russian assistance, Iran isnow building a 2,600 mile-range Kosarmissile based on a Soviet era SS5 mis-sile engine.

This missile could ultimately formthe basis for an Iranian Interconti-nental ballistic missile. Russia has alsoignored the Clinton administration’sineffectual objections to its plans tobuild nuclear reactors in Iran.

Both the Clinton administration andoutside experts fear that Iran will usethe civilian reactor program as a coverfor a secret nuclear weapons program,

but the Clinton administration hasfailed to move effectively to end thisRussian assistance. Moreover, congres-sional attempts to influence Russianbehavior by reducing U.S. bilateral aidto the Russian central governmenthave been undercut by continued un-conditional administration support foraid to Russia through the IMF and theWorld Bank and other multinationalinstitutions.

Iran is seeking to acquire Russian as-sistance in building other weapons ofmass destruction as well. In Decemberof 1998, the New York Times reportedthat high-ranking Iranian officialswere aggressively pursuing biologicaland chemical expertise in Russia.

In interviews conducted with numer-ous former biological weapons exerts inRussian, more than a dozen stated thatthey had been approached by Iraniannationals and offered as much as $5,000a month for information relating to bi-ological weapons. Two weapons expertsclaimed they had been asked specifi-cally to assist Iran in building biologi-cal weapons.

The Russian scientists who had beenapproached noted that the Iraniansshowed particular interest in learningabout or acquiring microbes that canbe used militarily and genetic engi-neering techniques to create highlyresistent germs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield time to the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.WELDON), my colleague; and he hassome points to make for the RECORD aswell.

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr.Speaker, I thank the gentleman andgood friend for yielding. I thank thegentleman for following up on this Spe-cial Order. I was not aware we would beup so soon, but I appreciate your inter-ests.

The gentleman and I have traveled toRussia together. As the gentlemanknows, we have tried to find a way tobuild a relationship with Russia, onethat differs significantly from what wehave seen over the past 8 years.

Let me start off by following up withthe comments the gentleman has justmade, which I think the most impor-tant issues confronting this electionand that is the status of our relation-ship with Russia and the problems thatRussia currently presents to us from athreat’s standpoint.

The best way to characterize wherewe are today is look at where we werein 1992. As President Bush was fin-ishing up his last year in office, BorisYeltsin was leading the overthrow ofthe Communist system and the dissolu-tion of the Soviet Union.

I am sure my colleague remembersthe vivid pictures on CNN of BorisYeltsin standing on a tank outside ofthe Russian White House waving anAmerican flag and a Russian flag withtens of thousands of Russians aroundhim as he proclaimed the end of Com-munism, the end of the Soviet Union;and he announced that there would bea new strategic partnership, Russia andAmerica working together.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11522 October 29, 2000After 7 years of Clinton-GORE, last

fall what did we see on CNN? We sawthis picture: we saw tens of thousandsof young Russians outside the Amer-ican embassy in Moscow throwingpaint at our embassy, firing weapons atour embassy, and burning the Amer-ican flag. In fact, it got so bad that fora while our State Department had toissue warnings to Americans thatwanted to travel to Moscow becausethe hatred for America had grown sogreat in such a short period of timethat the Russian people were ada-mantly opposed to any Americans intheir country.

How could this policy and how couldthis feeling between Russia and thepeople of Russia against America growso rapidly? In fact, one of PresidentPutin’s first speeches this year, afterhe was sworn in in January, was to an-nounce a new strategic partnership forRussia. That partnership was Russiaand China against the West, againstAmerica.

It is because our policy for the past 7years, 8 years under Clinton and GOREwas based on a personal relationshipbetween Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsinand AL GORE and ViktorChernomyrdin, and they felt as long asthose two people were in power in Rus-sia, nothing else mattered. Instead ofdoing institution building, building theinstitution of the parliament, the courtsystem, the free market economy, ifthey just focused on those two people,those two personalities, then Americawould be okay. That worked in the be-ginning, when Yeltsin was strong andwhen he was honest.

As Yeltsin became an alcoholic andsurrounded himself with thieves whowere the oligarchs running the Russiabanking system; as Chernomyrdin gotinvolved in corruption and in the oiland gas industry, the Russian peoplebecame to lose confidence in their lead-ers, but there was Bill Clinton and ALGORE still supporting these two failedleaders.

We knew 5 years ago that theoligarchs were siphoning off billions ofdollars of IMF money and becausePresident Clinton and AL GORE did notwant to embarrass their friends, theypretended they did not see it. They pre-tended it was not happening.

Just last year we saw the Bank ofNew York, several officials being in-dicted by the Justice Department forallegedly siphoning up to $5 billion ofmoney that should have been going tothe Russian people. So the Russianpeople saw this IMF money and WorldBank money coming in, but they saw itnot going to help them improve theircommunities, but rather they saw thatmoney be shifted to Swiss bank ac-counts and U.S. real estate invest-ments.

What did we see? We saw Russiasending technologies to our enemies.We saw Russia, as my colleague justpointed out, sending technology toIran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea,all covered by arms control agree-

ments, and this administration notwanting to call Russia on those, be-cause again it was based on personalfriendships.

One instance in particular that I canrelate to was in January of 1996, I wasin Moscow. It was a month after TheWashington Post had run a front pagestory that highlighted the fact that wehad evidence, America had evidencethat Russia had sent guidance systemsto Iraq to improve the accuracy oftheir missiles. Now, that is a violationof an arms control treaty called theMissile Technology Control Regime. SoI asked the American ambassador toRussia, Tom Pickering, who is nownumber three at State, I said, Tom,what was the response of the Russianswhen you asked them about The Wash-ington Post story? He said, Congress-man WELDON, I have not asked themyet. I said, why would you ask them? Itis a gross violation of a treaty. He saidthat has to come from the WhiteHouse.

I came back to Washington, and Iwrote to the President. I wrote him aletter. He wrote me back in April, andhe said, Dear Congressman WELDON,you raise serious concerns; and, in fact,if Russia did send those items to Iraq,that is a flagrant violation and I assureyou, we will take aggressive action. Wewill impose the required sanctions, buthe said, Congressman WELDON, we haveno evidence.

That is the story they used 37 timesin violations of arms control agree-ments in 8 years. Well, I say to the gen-tleman from California (Mr. ROYCE) Ibrought the evidence tonight so theAmerican people can see them. As Ihave shown around the country, this isa Soviet Union accelerometer and thisis a Soviet gyroscope. These weretaken off of Russia SSN19 missiles thatused to be pointed at America’s cities.

Under arms control negotiations,these devices are supposed to be de-stroyed. They are not supposed to bereused. We caught the Russians notonce, not twice, but three times givingthese devices to Saddam Hussein. Whatwould Saddam use them for? He woulduse these devices to provide the guid-ance system to make those SCUD mis-siles more accurate, those same SCUDmissiles that killed those 28 youngAmericans in Duran, Saudi Arabia, in1991.

These devices would make those mis-siles have much more accuracy. Iraqcannot build these; neither can Iran.They are too sophisticated. The onlyway Iraq or Iran can get these devices,the only way Syria and Libya can getthese devices is if Russia sells them tothem or gives them to them, and thatis why we have arms control regimes.

We caught Iraq getting these devicesfrom Russia three times. We imposedno sanctions. Why would we not dothat? People would say to me, well,Congressman WELDON, you mean to tellme the President would deliberatelynot hold Russia accountable? The an-swer is yes. Why? Because 1996 was the

year Yeltsin was running for reelec-tion. In fact, the secret cable is nowpublic that Bill Clinton sent to BorisYeltsin in 1996. It was the Dear Borismemo, and it was a cable that theAmerican people can get in the back ofa book called ‘‘Betrayal,’’ written byBill Gertz.

b 2330

That cable to Boris Yeltsin from BillClinton says, ‘‘Don’t worry, Boris, wewill not do anything to weaken yourchance for reelection this year.’’ So thepolicy, whether it was the theft of IMFmoney or whether it was the transferof technology, was to keep BorisYeltsin in power.

My colleague mentioned another in-cident involving transfer of technologyto Iran and the Iran Missile SanctionsAct. My colleague did not mention onepart of that equation I would like to gointo some elaboration on.

Before the vote on that bill in theHouse, even though it was supportedoverwhelmingly by Democrats and Re-publicans. In fact it was a huge bipar-tisan base of support. The week beforethe bill came up for a vote, I got a callfrom Vice President AL GORE and hisstaff said to my staff, Vice PresidentAL GORE wants Congressman WELDONto come down to the Old Executive Of-fice Building to talk about the IranMissile Sanctions bill.

So I went down to the White House.I was joined in the Old Executive OfficeBuilding by CARL LEVIN, by JOHNMCCAIN, by JOHN KYL, by Jane Har-man, the gentleman from New York(Mr. GILMAN) and Lee Hamilton. Therewere about 12 of us who sat in the roomas the Vice President of the UnitedStates, the current candidate for thePresident, sat with Leon Fuerth, histop security advisor, and for 1 hour theVice President lobbied us not to passthe Iran Missile Sanctions bill. Be-cause he said if we did, it would upsetthe relationship between Bill Clintonand Boris Yeltsin and he and ViktorChernomyrdin.

When he finished, all of us in theroom, Democrats and Republicans,Senators and House Members, said tothe Vice President: Mr. Vice President,it is too late. You do not get it. Thetechnology is flowing like water downa waterfall, and you are not stoppingit.

Two days later, in spite of that per-sonal lobbying by the Vice President ofthe United States, the bill came up onthe floor of the House for a vote and 396of us voted in favor of that bill, slap-ping the Vice President and the Presi-dent across the face, because we knewthey were being ineffective and weknew that instead of doing what wasright, they were standing up for theirfriends, Boris Yeltsin and ViktorChernomyrdin.

We broke for the Christmas recessand we came back in February. In Feb-ruary, the Senate was going to take upthe same bill. In February, the billcame up. A week before the vote, the


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11523October 29, 2000Vice President’s office called my officeagain and said: The Vice Presidentwould like Congressman WELDON tocome back down to the Old ExecutiveOffice Building. I went back down.

Again, there were 10 to 12 Members ofthe Senate and the House, Democratsand Republicans. The same group. Thistime the Vice President had two peoplewith him, Leon Fuerth, and JackCaravelli from the National SecurityCouncil. They met with us for 90 min-utes to try to convince us not to let theSenate vote for the Iran Missile Sanc-tions bill.

When he finished, we again told theVice President: Mr. Vice President, youdo not know how serious this is. Thistechnology is helping Iran and Iraq de-velop new capabilities. But there wasthe Vice President, currently runningfor the presidency, telling us do notworry, we are going to take care of allof this. We are getting Yeltsin andChernomyrdin to go along with us.

The Senate voted 96 to 4 in favor ofthat bill. The Vice President also toldus and ensured us that he would takecare of everything. That he was the onenegotiating with Chernomyrdin, as mycolleague pointed out, and I think hementioned this earlier about the memothat the CIA wrote to him. We haveevidence that his partner, ViktorChernomyrdin, was involved with oiland gas corruption and the CIA senthim a memo to warn him that hisfriend and partner in Russia was not aclean person.

The White House has now acknowl-edged, though they initially denied it,they have now acknowledged that peo-ple remember that memo. And there isa CIA analyst who has said he saw thememo with the words scribbled acrossthe front. The Vice President wrote aword across the front that we are notsupposed to use on the floor of theHouse, but it started with ‘‘bull’’ andwe just cannot complete the rest of theword, because Vice President GORE didnot want to hear from the CIA thatthey had information that his friendand partner was involved with corrup-tion in Russia.

So the policy of this administrationfor 8 years was deny reality. Then wefind out, as my colleague just pointedout, that Vice President GORE went be-yond denying reality. He did his owndiplomacy and actually negotiatedwith Chernomyrdin the allowance forRussia to transfer technology to Iranwhich was strictly prohibited by thelaw that was passed by this Congress.In fact, when he was in the Senate itwas passed under the leadership ofJOHN MCCAIN.

It is outrageous that a Vice Presi-dent could secretly allow a countrylike Iran, when this Congress had goneon the record expressing our grave con-cern with what Iran was doing, thatthis Vice President could allow thattechnology to continue to flow to Iran.And we now find out that Russia didnot pay attention to what the VicePresident said. They went beyond the

original understanding. In my opinion,this requires a serious investigation bythe Congress.

Now, we are not going to be able todo this before the election. But theAmerican people deserve to know whatthis Vice President did in a secret ne-gotiation with the prime minister ofRussia, a man who eventually left of-fice in disgrace, that the CIA said wasinvolved in corrupt activities. Thiscountry deserves to know what thisVice President did in arranging forsome kind of a secret allowance forIran to get technology from Russia,even though the law of the land in thiscountry prohibited Russia from send-ing that technology to Iran.

How many other guidance systemswent to Iran? How many other weaponsbesides the submarine and the armsthat went to Iran? And what is the im-pact going to be on our security?

In fact, I would say to my colleaguethat I think this Congress ought toconsider taking some type of actioneven before we leave this week to showour absolute outrage that any electedofficial, President or Vice President,would unilaterally take action thatwould eventually harm America.

Let me say before returning back tomy colleague, I do not rise as a rabidconservative Republican, and I knowmy friend feels the same way I do,wanting to trash the administration. Ihave been to Russia 21 times. Everytime I have gone, I have taken my col-leagues on the other side with me. Infact, I have enjoyed a great relation-ship with the Democrats in our bipar-tisan Duma-Congress initiative. Eachyear, when the administration soughtvotes on the Cooperative Threat Re-duction Program, the Nunn-Lugar pro-gram, I would get calls from the WhiteHouse and from people in the adminis-tration asking me to lobby my Repub-lican colleagues to support the initia-tive, which I did.

So I supported this administration insome of their policy issues toward Rus-sia, and I am absolutely outraged, how-ever, that this new revelation has comeout that the White House has still notprovided documentation to us, evenafter the chairman of the Committeeon International Relations, the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN)has written to the White House re-questing copies of the memo and theletters that were written from ViktorChernomyrdin to AL GORE in which hesays specifically: Do not tell any thirdparties about this agreement, includingyour Congress.

Mr. Speaker, Viktor Chernomyrdinhas no right to be above our Constitu-tion. He has no right to send a letter toVice President AL GORE saying ignorethe Constitution of America; we willhave some secret arrangement where Iwill tell you that only certain types ofthings can be shipped to Iran. Eventhough Vice President GORE knewthere was a law on the books that spe-cifically prohibited the transfer oftechnology to Iran, even though Vice

President GORE knew that our vote onIran proliferation was 396 votes in theHouse and 96 votes in the Senate.

As my colleague, I think, agrees withme, the biggest scandal of the past 8years is what this administration hasdone to our defense and foreign policy.The past 8 years will go down in his-tory in my opinion as the worst periodof time in undermining America’s secu-rity. Not just because of what we did inthese secret relationships in supportingpeople in Russia as opposed to institu-tions in Russia, but because of what wehave done to force Russia into a newcoalition where Russia and China havegone together in what they both char-acterize as a strategic partnershipagainst America and the West.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to be try-ing to rebuild the confidence and thetrust between these countries and usfor the next 25 years. That is the leg-acy of this administration. It is a leg-acy that I think is absolutely embar-rassing.

b 2340

Now, my colleague I think wasquoting from the Task Force, which Iwas a member of, where we looked indepth at these issues. And the Amer-ican people need to look at theseissues, as well. Because the rhetoriccoming out of the Vice President’smouth, the rhetoric coming out ofthose who were supporting what theywould say has been a strong foreignpolicy is just rhetoric.

In fact, if you look around the worldtoday, the instability in the relation-ships that America has with Russia,with China, the situation in the MiddleEast, the problems with North Koreaare all problems that are not going togo away and problems which we haveto address up front.

I know my friend feels like I do, wewant Russia to be our good friend, wewant the Russian people to be our goodfriends, and we want the Russian peo-ple to know that we are on their side.We are embarrassed that our adminis-tration ignored the transfer of illegalmoney out of Russia to illegal bank ac-counts. We are embarrassed that someof the current problems of the Congresswith Russia were caused because we didnot hold Yeltsin accountable whenthere were institutions in Russia thatwere in violation of arms controlagreements.

And as a result, when Yeltsin wasabout ready to leave office last year,all the polls in Moscow showed thatonly two percent of the Russian peoplesupported Boris Yeltsin. But eventhough only two percent of the Russianpeople supported Boris Yeltsin, therewas Bill Clinton and AL GORE still sup-porting Boris Yeltsin and ViktorChernomyrdin and his successor. Be-cause Viktor Chernomyrdin eventuallyleft and a whole multitude of primeministers came in behind him.

It was summed up best by a visitingDuma deputy who came over in themiddle of the Kosovo conflict. We had a


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11524 October 29, 2000press conflict and he said, you will,America for 70 years the Soviet Com-munist party spent billions and billionsof dollars to convince the Soviet peoplethat Americans were evil, and theyfailed. But your President and your ad-ministration in just a few short yearshas been able to convince the Russianpeople that Americans are evil.

What a terrible statement for anelected official of the Russian Duma tomake that for 70 years the Soviet Com-munists tried to convince Russiansthat we were evil and they failed, andyet our policies from 1993 up until theKosovo fiasco just a few short yearsago turned the Russian people againstus.

We have to correct all of that, and wealso have to hold this Vice Presidentaccountable for the actions he tookunilaterally.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have onequestion that I would like to ask thegentleman and that concerns the lawas it pertains to these internationalagreements.

Now, according to the law, as I un-derstand it, when there is an agree-ment with a foreign power, that infor-mation is supposed to be given to Con-gress as soon as practical or no laterthan within 60 days.

My question is this: Since we are nowin a position where some 5 years afterthe agreement we are finding out aboutsuch agreements in the New YorkTimes, what recourse does Congresshave under the law at this time inorder to assert our constitutionalrights to be informed about what theadministration is doing negotiatingwithout sharing that information witheither the Senate or with the Houseand in particular negotiating whenthere are laws on the books?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr.Speaker, the 1995 law that was passed,which was championed by JOHNMCCAIN, basically prohibited Russiafrom sending technology to Iran.

There is now evidence in a secretagreement that Vice President GOREworked out with Viktor Chernomyrdin,the same Viktor Chernomyrdin thatthe CIA told Vice President GORE wasinvolved in corruption with Russia.That agreement never came to theCongress. No member of the Senate in-telligence Committee, the House Com-mittee on Intelligence, no member ofthe leadership in either party wasaware that Vice President GORE on hisown made an arrangement with ViktorChernomyrdin to allow Russia totransfer certain technology to Iran.

Now, the State Department and theWhite House are not denying this.What they are claiming is the tech-nology was not covered by this law.That is hogwash. This technology wascovered. But what Vice President, whatthe President for that matter, has thepower to overrule the Congress?

I mean, this gets back to shades ofwhat the Democrats raled about duringthe Vietnam era and during the era ofthe Central American fiasco. No Presi-

dent has the right, no Vice Presidenthas the right especially, to enter into asecret agreement with a foreign leaderthat does not involve the express ad-vice and consent of the Congress. Andyet that is what Vice President GOREdid.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, it is myunderstanding that during the debateon the original 1995 law itself, the veryexample given in the debate was thesuper secret kilo class type of sub-marine that could be transferred fromRussia to Iran because of our concernsof what that would do to our strategicinterests in the Middle East.

How would it be possible for the ad-ministration now to claim that in factit did not intend or their interpreta-tion is that it is not covered by thestatute when in fact the debate on theoriginal law mentioned that kilo classsubmarine?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr.Speaker, the gentleman is absolutelycorrect. And for other colleagues whoare listening in their offices, the kiloclass submarine is a submarine thatcan do tremendous harm to America,our Navy, and our allies.

Iran now has that because of whatVice President GORE did secretly inthis agreement with ViktorChernomyrdin. And even MadeleineAlbright now has acknowledged whathe did. My colleague probably is awarethat there is a classified letter thatwas written by Secretary of State Mad-eleine Albright in this year to RussianForeign Minister Igor Ivanov. And thatis what it says. This is quoting Mad-eleine Albright.

‘‘Without the 1995 Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement, Russia’sconventional arms sales to Iran wouldhave been subject to sanctions based onvarious provisions of our laws.’’

So now we have the Secretary ofState this year affirming that whatwas done by Vice President GORE se-cretly in 1995, if that had not beendone, those transfers would havecaused sanctions to be placed on Rus-sia.

I mean, this is amazing. Russia istrying to become a democracy and itappears as though we are going to a to-talitarian state where the Vice Presi-dent thinks he could do whatever hewants. He does not have that author-ity.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, there isone other issue that is of concern tome.

When we were in Moscow, we had anopportunity to speak to various offi-cials in the Russian Government; and,upon our return, there was a story inthe media about the fact that supportamong the Russian people for theUnited States was down to single digitsfor our policies and their feelings aboutthe intentions of the United States wasdown to single digits.

When we contrast that with the atti-tudes after the fall of the Berlin Walland after the disillusion of the formerSoviet Union, at that particular time

the support for U.S. policy and inten-tions was registered to be the majorityof Russians. In one poll I recall it was70 percent.

How does that go from 70 percentlevel of support down to a level of sup-port that is around four or five per-cent? And at the same time, how do wego from a situation where we had a re-lationship with Russian parliamentar-ians to one where today a former KGBofficer, now the President of Russia,states that his strategic alliance isgoing to be with China, not with theUnited States, but with China? Howdoes that happen over the span of a fewyears?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr.Speaker, I think it is just basically be-cause the policy of this administration,two people, Bill Clinton and BorisYeltsin, was as long as they got alongwith their counterparts in Russia,Boris Yeltsin and ViktorChernomyrdin, to them nothing elsemattered.

In fact the Duma felt totally left outof the process. The Duma members toldme. In fact, one of my Duma deputyfriends, a very respected member of theDuma, Vladimir Luhkin, used to be theSoviet ambassador here in the U.S. Hewas recently the chairman of the Com-mittee on International Affairs, and heright now is the chairman of the pro-Western Yablako faction. I am going totell you what he said to me. And Inever said this publicly before.

I was in Moscow and arrived the dayafter President Clinton left Moscowright after the economic collapse.

b 2350Luhkin called me into his office. He

said, CURT, I have a very serious con-cern that I have to raise with you. Isaid what is it, Vladimir? We have beenfriends. He said, the word around theDuma is that your President had dis-cussions with Boris Yeltsin over whatthe U.S. response would be if Yeltsindisbanded the parliament altogether.He said, the fact that your Presidenteven engaged in those discussions isterribly alarming for us, because thatwould mean that your President doesnot even support our constitution,which is the basis of our democracy.

So here we have the members of theDuma seeing our administration go toMoscow and openly discuss withYeltsin, and I assume Chernomydin,the possibility of them disbandingtheir parliament and simply havingwhat basically they used to have inRussia, one or two people running thesystem. That is why the Russian peoplehave no confidence.

If I were a citizen in Russia, I wouldnot trust America, either, after I sawthe world community sending billionsof dollars into Moscow to help the Rus-sian people build roads and schools andcommunities and to see the bulk ofthat money siphoned off to Swiss bankaccounts. I would not trust America ei-ther.

Mr. ROYCE. One of the commentsthat interested me was former Foreign


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H11525October 29, 2000Minister Federov’s comment, where hetold American officials do not give usmoney through the IMF into the cen-tral bank without strings, because ifyou do that that money will end up,quote, in Swiss bank accounts. Whywas it, why was it, that we continued,against the advice of their own foreignminister who was trying to make re-forms, to continue to put money intothe government there instead of as analternative attempting through democ-racy building to put the funding intobuilding up political parties in Russia,building up a Democratic culture inRussia, assisting those who were tryingto reform the country, why did all ofthe support go directly through theheads of state that were controllingthe system, including the privatiza-tion? The gentleman alluded to ViktorChernomydin’s role there and in the re-port the indication is from the Russia’sRoad to Corruption, the Speaker’s Ad-visory Group on Russia, the indicationis that one of the main beneficiariesout of the entire privatization schemewas Chernomydin who ended up hold-ing a large percentage of the oil andgas interests in Russia through so-called privatization, how could the ad-ministration allow this to occur with-out instead removing the resourcesfrom the government and putting theresources towards the forces of reform?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Thegentleman knows full well that beforeBoris Yeltsin would leave office hemade sure that his successor, who hehand picked, President Putin, wouldgive him and his family amnesty. Sothat when Putin took over for Yeltsin,he immediately signed the first seriesof decrees, presidential decrees, thatgave lifetime amnesty for Boris Yeltsinand his family because two of hisdaughters were involved in much ofthis corruption.

To answer the gentleman’s question,the reason why that amnesty was givenwas because the Russian people knowfull well that Yeltsin was taking careof his friends. He was taking care ofthose around him. He was the one whohand picked the bankers, the oligarchswhere he was shuffling the moneythrough. So the people that gotwealthy were those close friends ofBoris who kept him in power. Now thisadministration should have had the in-tegrity to say to Yeltsin, look, we wantdemocracy and free markets to suc-ceed. We are not here to take care ofyour friends. But because they were soenamored with this personal friendshipand relationship, they ignored the re-ality of what was occurring. That iswhy the Russian people in the end saidwe have no respect for America becauseyou do not care about Russia’s people;you care about your friends. You careabout Boris Yeltsin and his family.You care about Yeltsin’s friends andcronies and you care aboutChernomydin and his friends and hisfamily.

What we said for the past 5 years ingoing over to Russia, to our govern-

ment, is why do we not put the moneyout into the regions where the regionalgovernors are making reforms? Let usreward them. Let us help them buildnew institutions, new communities.This administration wanted everythingto go through Yeltsin and central Mos-cow because they wanted Yeltsin to bethe strong man. They did not want theregions doing good things on their ownbecause they would not be as loyal toYeltsin. So we in fact helped cause theproblem in Russia that focused every-thing in Moscow, through Yeltsin andChernomydin and their friends, andnow we find out that AL GORE even hadsecret dealings and agreements withViktor Chernomydin that jeopardizedthe security of the U.S. and most spe-cifically, and this is the key point, thefirst threatened nation to what Russiagave Iran is not the U.S.; it is Israel.The people of Israel now tonight canthank AL GORE for a secret deal thathe evidently worked out withChernomydin that allowed technicalsupplies and equipment, componentsand military hardware and submarinesto go to Iran, which will directlythreaten Israel’s security.

Now AL GORE can talk a good gamebut the facts are, that is where the al-lowance was to send this technology,and the number one enemy of Iran isIsrael. That is an absolute travesty.That is an absolute disgrace because,as the gentleman pointed out, Iran nowhas the Shahab 3 and Shahab 4 missile;they are now building a Shahab 5. Irannow has the ability to hit Israel di-rectly and with this agreement thatChernomydin and AL GORE work outprivately, Vice President AL GORE inmy opinion helped Iran develop thattechnology that now directly threatensthe safety of the people of Israel.

Mr. ROYCE. There was one last ques-tion I wanted to ask, and that had todo with the issue of privatization. Ithink for us as confusing as the com-ments of Foreign Minister Federov,who says he warned the administrationnot to give this money to the centralbank without strings attached, not toturn it over to the government inpower without a method of auditing itand making certain that it went forthe purposes to which it was intended,even more confusing are what we arehearing now about the privatizationschemes in Russia and how the bene-ficiaries of that did not turn out to bethe Russian people but instead certainoligarchs, how can it be that this ad-ministration that was involved in giv-ing assistance in helping through theIMF and the World Bank and helpingwith financial assistance, how could itbe the case that we could end up withso much in assets turned over insteadto a very small group, cadre of people?

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Thatis amazing. I do not know how. In fact,my colleague was with me when wemet with Skuratov, who was the pros-ecutor general in Russia who is theequivalent of Janet Reno who told ushe evidence of hundreds of insider peo-

ple around Yeltsin who were involvedin insider trading with GKO bonds, whomade tons of money off of the eco-nomic problems of Russia. I do notknow how this could occur. It is out-rageous, but the fact is that we nowhave to live with this.

I am outraged at this most recentstory that my colleague brought up to-night, and I would urge our colleaguesto take some kind of aggressive bipar-tisan action to hold this Vice Presidentaccountable for what he did. We haveto stand up for what is right, and in myopinion what the Vice President did isnot just wrong, it is unconstitutionaland this Congress has a responsibilityto make a statement on that before weleave this year, and I would say thatshould happen sometime this week.

f

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of ab-sence was granted to:

Mr. SNYDER (at the request of Mr.Gephardt) for today and October 30 onaccount of a family medical emer-gency.

Mrs. FOWLER (at the request of Mr.ARMEY) for today and the balance ofthe week on account of medical rea-sons.

f

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission toaddress the House, following the legis-lative program and any special ordersheretofore entered, was granted to:

(The following Member (at the re-quest of Ms. ESHOO) to revise and ex-tend his remarks and include extra-neous material:)

Mr. SHERMAN, for 5 minutes, today.(The following Members (at the re-

quest of Mr. COBURN) to revise and ex-tend their remarks and include extra-neous material:)

Mr. KINGSTON, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. HAYWORTH, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. GUTKNECHT, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. HOEKSTRA, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. SCHAFFER, for 5 minutes, today.(The following Members (at their own

request) to revise and extend their re-marks and include extraneous mate-rial:)

Mr. STENHOLM, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. TURNER, for 5 minutes, today.Mr. HILL of Montana, for 5 minutes,

today.Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, for 5

minutes, today.Mr. ROHRABACHER, for 5 minutes,

today.

f

ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTIONSIGNED

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committeeon House Administration, reportedthat that committee had examined andfound truly enrolled a joint resolutionof the House of the following title,which was thereupon signed by theSpeaker:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH11526 October 29, 2000H.J. Res. 119. Joint resolution making fur-

ther continuing appropriations for the fiscalyear 2001, and for other purposes.

f

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I movethat the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accord-ingly (at 11 o’clock and 58 minutesp.m.), under its previous order, theHouse adjourned until tomorrow, Mon-day, October 30, 2000, at 9 a.m., formorning hour debates.f

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ONPUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports ofcommittees were delivered to the Clerkfor printing and reference to the propercalendar, as follows:

Mr. LINDER: Committee on Rules. HouseResolution 662. Resolution providing for con-sideration of certain joint resolutions mak-ing further continuing appropriations for thefiscal year 2001, and for other purposes (Rept.106–1015). Referred to the House Calendar.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART: Committee on Rules.House Resolution 663. Resolution providingfor consideration of the bill (S. 2485) to directthe Secretary of the Interior to provide as-sistance in planning and constructing a re-gional heritage center in Calais, Maine, andproviding for the adoption of a concurrentresolution directing the Clerk of the Houseof Representatives to make certain correc-tions in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2614)to amend the Small Business Investment Actto make improvements to the certified de-velopment company program, and for other

purposes (Rept. 106–1016). Referred to theHouse Calendar.

f

TIME LIMITATION OF REFERREDBILL

Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the fol-lowing action was taken by the Speak-er:

[Omitted from the Record of October 28, 2000]H.R. 4144. Referral to the Committee on

the Budget extended for a period ending notlater than October 30, 2000.

[Submitted October 29, 2000]H.R. 1689. Referral to the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure extendedfor a period ending not later than October 30,2000.

H.R. 1882. Referral to the Committee onWays and Means extended for a period endingnot later than October 30, 2000.

H.R. 2580. Referral to the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure extendedfor a period ending not later than October 30,2000.

H.R. 4548. Referral to the Committee onEducation and the Workforce extended for aperiod ending not later than October 30, 2000.

H.R. 4585. Referral to the Committee onCommerce extended for a period ending notlater than October 30, 2000.

H.R. 4725. Referral to the Committee onEducation and the Workforce extended for aperiod ending not later than October 30, 2000.

H.R. 4857. Referral to the Committees onthe Judiciary, Banking and Financial Serv-ices, and Commerce, for a period ending notlater than October 30, 2000.

f

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONSUnder clause 2 of rule XII, public

bills and resolutions of the following

titles were introduced and severally re-ferred, as follows:

By Mr. HORN (for himself, Mr. BURTONof Indiana, Mr. BALLENGER, and Mr.MICA):

H.R. 5600. A bill to establish an Office ofManagement in the Executive Office of thePresident, and to redesignate the Office ofManagement and Budget as the Office of theFederal Budget; to the Committee on Gov-ernment Reform.

By Mr. YOUNG of Florida:

H.J. Res. 121. A joint resolution makingfurther continuing appropriations for the fis-cal year 2001, and for other purposes; to theCommittee on Appropriations.







f

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsorswere added to public bills and resolu-tions as follows:

H.R. 4825: Mr. ALLEN.


Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

.

S11317

Vol. 146 WASHINGTON, SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2000 No. 139

Senate(Legislative day of Friday, September 22, 2000)

The Senate met at 4 p.m., on the ex-piration of the recess, and was called toorder by the President pro tempore[Mr. THURMOND].

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd JohnOgilvie, offered the following prayer:

Gracious Father, our loving Lord, onthis Sunday afternoon, we listen in-tently to Your assurance spokenthrough Jeremiah, ‘‘I have loved youwith an everlasting love; thereforewith loving kindness I have drawnyou.’’—Jeremiah 31:3. We open thismeeting of the Senate with these amaz-ing words sounding in our souls. Canthey be true? Your grace is indefati-gable. It is magnetic. You draw us toYourself and we receive strength and

hope. We are secure in You and there-fore can work with freedom and joy.We know Your Commandments are asirrevocable as Your love is irresistible.We have the strength to live Your ab-solutes for abundant life. And so we ac-cept Elijah’s challenge: ‘‘Choose thisday whom You will serve,’’ and Jesus’mandate: ‘‘Set your mind on God’skingdom above everything else!’’—Mat-thew 6:33; NEV. In His powerful name.Amen.f

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEThe Honorable LARRY CRAIG, a Sen-

ator from the State of Idaho, led thePledge of Allegiance, as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of theUnited States of America, and to the Repub-

lic for which it stands, one nation under God,indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

f

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITYLEADER

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.ALLARD). The majority leader.

f

PRAYERS OF THE CHAPLAIN

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on thisSunday we thank the Chaplain for hiswords and for his prayer on this specialday—and every day. It means a greatdeal to us, and we take great comfortin it.

NOTICE—OCTOBER 23, 2000

A final issue of the Congressional Record for the 106th Congress, 2d Session, will be published on November 29, 2000,in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks.

All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters ofDebates (Room HT–60 or S–123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.through November 28. The final issue will be dated November 29, 2000, and will be delivered on Friday, December 1, 2000.

None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to anyevent that occurred after the sine die date.

Senators’ statements should also be submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or bye-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ‘‘Records@Reporters’’.

Members of the House of Representatives’ statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany thesigned statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of,and authentication with, the hard copy, signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT–60.

Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record maydo so by contacting the Congressional Printing Management Division, at the Government Printing Office, on 512–0224, be-tween the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily.

By order of the Joint Committee on Printing.WILLIAM M. THOMAS, Chairman.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11318 October 29, 2000SCHEDULE

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senatewill be in a period of morning businessuntil 6:45 p.m., with Senators speakingfor up to 10 minutes each. A vote on acontinuing resolution that funds theGovernment for another day will occurat approximately 6:45 p.m. if the papershave been received from the House. Wewill try, once again, to see if we canget a vote before that time. The House,I believe, goes in at 6, so we probablywill not have the papers before 6:45. Wewill see if we can go ahead and arrangefor a vote to occur before that time buthopefully no later than 6:45. Senatorswill be updated throughout the after-noon’s session.

By previous order, the Senate willconvene on Monday at 5 p.m. to con-sider another continuing resolution.That vote will occur at 7 p.m. and willbe the first vote of the day. I might saythat there have been meetings with theappropriate Members of Congress andthe administration on Saturday. Therehave been ideas exchanged—are beingexchanged even now—that are beingdeveloped. I think we are very close,even though it is never over until weget an agreement on the final four orfive issues that are still in play.

I think it would be wise for the Sen-ate, the House—the Congress—and theadministration to complete their workas soon as possible so that we can leaveto be with our constituents and attendto our duties back in our respectiveStates. But it is more important thatwe look after the people’s businessfirst. We will continue, as we have beennow, until an agreement can be workedout. We are prepared to exchange somesuggestions today, and hopefully wewill get some additional informationlater on this afternoon.

It is still my hope that perhaps byTuesday we could have the final two orthree votes that would be required.That would mean the Labor-HHS ap-propriations bill, in whatever finalform it might be, would have to be filednot later than Monday night. So wewould need to have time, of course, forthat to be filed and printed and forSenators to have a chance to review it.I presume that would then mean thatthe vote, if it came on Tuesday, wouldbe late on Tuesday. But I will conferwith Senator REID—we were just talk-ing about it—and with SenatorDASCHLE to make sure we give Sen-ators the maximum amount of notifi-cation when those substantive recordedvotes might occur.

Again, I do not want to give the im-pression it is just about to be done, butthat would be our fervent hope. We willgive as much advance notice as pos-sible for a final vote on the tax reliefpackage, and also the Labor-HHS ap-propriations bill, and bankruptcy. I ex-pect to file cloture on the bankruptcybill today or tomorrow, depending onwhat might be happening with theschedule.

With that, Mr. President, I see Sen-ator REID is here. Would the Senatorlike me to yield to him?

Mr. REID. For a brief statement.Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.Mr. REID. I hope the optimism I hear

in the leader’s voice is well founded. Ihope so. I think we have all workedhard and should wrap this up. I say tothe leader, however, I hope today wefollow daylight savings time, eventhough that is not what we have shownin the Senate. As you can see, it isreally 5 after 4, not 5 after 5, as theSenate clock shows us. So we will haveto make sure we go by the real timeand not by what is shown in the SenateChamber.

Mr. LOTT. Absolutely.Mr. REID. Is that reasonable?Mr. LOTT. That certainly is reason-

able.f

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE UNI-VERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI FOOT-BALL TEAMMr. LOTT. Mr. President, I extend

my hearty congratulations to the Uni-versity of Mississippi football team.Their homecoming was yesterday. Mydaughter and wife and son-in-law,along with a large number of friends,were there; I, however, was not there; Iwas here. But our very worthy oppo-nent was the Running Rebels of theUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas. Itwas a hard-fought victory in overtime.The University of Mississippi prevailed43–40. So I know all present would beinterested in having that information.I extend my congratulations to Sen-ator REID on his outstanding team andhis outstanding quarterback who al-most gave me a very miserable Satur-day night but, thank goodness, goodfortune did prevail.

Mr. REID. Mr. Leader, of course wecomplained about the officiating.

Mr. LOTT. It sounds like somethingyou would hear in Washington.

Mr. REID. It was a great game. Eventhough the University of Mississippi—‘‘Ole Miss’’—was favored by 10 points,it took overtime for them to win by 3points. So it was a good game and aworthy opponent, and the officiatingwas very good.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr.President.f

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIMEThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, the leadership timeis reserved.f

MORNING BUSINESSThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, there will now be aperiod for the transaction of morningbusiness, for not to extend beyond thehour of 6:45 p.m., equally divided be-tween the two sides, with Senators per-mitted to speak therein for up to 10minutes each.

The Senator from Idaho.f

OUR ENERGY CRISISMr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thought

this time was an opportunity of which

I could take advantage to talk aboutsomething we all experienced thismorning when we awakened here onthe east coast. That was the chill offall in the air.

I think most of us had failed to rec-ognize that we were late into Octoberbecause the weather has been so mildand so generally warm. But we arereally at the threshold of winter, andas winter comes, so does cold weather.And as cold weather comes, the aver-age American reaches to the thermo-stat on the wall of his or her home andbegins to turn it up.

This fall, as that experience occurs,something else is going to happen inAmerica that will be very dramatic,and that will be the turning up of theheating bill because, whether it is elec-tricity or oil for space heating, the costof those commodities in the averageAmerican’s household budget has in-creased dramatically.

In fact, in the Northeast, where homeheating oil for space heat is a majorcommodity, those costs will have bet-ter than doubled since last year andcould go even higher this year as theamount of supplies for those needs con-tinues to not increase at the rate of de-mand.

Why has this happened? Why are weat the threshold of an energy crisis inthis country that we have not experi-enced in a long, long while?

In nearly every part of the energyconsumer basket—be it electricity, orhome heating oil, or automobile gaso-line, or diesel for our truck transpor-tation, or fuel for the great turbines ofthe jet engines that fly Americansacross America—there is no surplustoday.

That is a historic fact. This countrywas built on the abundance of energy.Our successes in our economy have al-ways been the result of having the nec-essary energy to accomplish what wewanted. It was always one of the least-cost items in that accumulation ofcosts that made up the price to theconsumer of a product on the marketshelf. That is no longer the case.

For the next few moments, I wouldlike to once again address, as have Iand other Senators for the last yearand a half, the energy crisis we are nowinto and why we are there.

Largely, it gained our attentionabout a year ago when we becameaware that the members of the OPECcountries were going to move the priceof oil from about $10 a barrel to $28–$30a barrel. It had been selling for around$10 in the world spot market, and itwas beginning to increase because theywere beginning to decrease their pro-duction.

Admittedly, no one was makingmoney at $10 a barrel. Whether it is oilof the Middle East or oil in Texas orOklahoma or on the overthrust belt ofthe west in Colorado and Wyoming, oilis not profitable at $10 a barrel simplybecause of the cost of production andcompliance, especially in this country,with environmental rules and regula-tions. Somewhere at $17 to $20 a barrel

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11319October 29, 2000is where it begins to be profitable. Sofor a long time, for the last severalyears, we were operating on less-than-profitable oil for at least the producers.

For the consumer, it was a bonus. Iremember just a year ago, across thePotomac in Northern Virginia, Ibought regular gasoline for 90 cents agallon. Today, one is going to pay atleast $1.60 to $1.75, maybe even morethan that, depending on your locationand the location of the particular serv-ice station. That is a dramatic in-crease. That is a 110–120 percent in-crease. So that 90-cent gas, while therewas a bit of a price war going on out inNorthern Virginia at the time, wasstill based on $10-a-barrel oil.

We know that has changed. We saw itchange. Now we see the Arab nationsreceiving anywhere from $28 to $30, $31,$32, $33 a barrel for their crude oil.That all translates into a much greatercost at the pump to the consumer, butit also translates into a variety ofother things.

As we know, the petrochemical in-dustry of this country is involved in al-most all we do and sometimes a lot ofwhat we wear because of the byprod-ucts of the petrochemical industry, beit plastics or nylon or a combination ofconsumer goods. Slowly but surely, theincreased cost of those byproducts isbeginning to roll across the Americaneconomy.

The other evening I did a conferencecall in Idaho with a group of farmers.They happened to be sugar beet farm-ers and potato farmers. The price of po-tatoes is well below break even thisyear. It has been for 3 years. Many ofthose farmers will not make moneyagain this year, and they are very frus-trated. Some of them will lose theirfarms. It is also true in sugar beets,with the price of sugar at near an all-time low.

What they were most concernedabout was their energy costs. As we allknow, agriculture is a large consumerof energy. It is an intensive industry.Those large tractors and trucks used inthe process of farming all consumelarge quantities of energy. The pes-ticides, insecticides, herbicides are allhydrocarbon or petrochemical based.All of their costs have started goingup. Fertilizer costs will nearly doublethis year as a direct result of energycosts because when you are dealingwith phosphates and phosphate fer-tilizers, huge volumes of energy areused to transform those from the rockto the fertilizer product that ulti-mately goes to the ground that thefarmer uses.

All of those costs are going up, andall of them are based on one simplefact; that in this economy, the energycosts to the consumer have nearly dou-bled in just about a year. So the farm-ers, while their prices were at an all-time low, were talking to me about en-ergy. What is this country going to do?What is this administration going todo. What is this Congress going to doabout an energy policy that would ulti-

mately begin to bring those pricesdown. They were dramatically con-cerned.

When the Congress gets back in Jan-uary and February, we are going tohear a hue and cry coming out of theNortheast in relation to the cost ofspace heat and home heating oil, eventhough we have tried to deal with thatin short-term measures. But those aresome of the circumstances in which weare involved.

The consumer is still going to thepump, and they are still filling up theirvehicles. In most instances, consumersare working. They all have good jobs atthis time. We are at nearly full em-ployment. Nobody has really stoppedto factor in that over the course of ayear, they are going to be paying morethan $300, $400, sometimes $500 out oftheir household budget for their energycosts than they did a year ago. But itwill be the single highest increase inrelation to cost over a 12-month periodof any one item the American con-sumer will buy this year. It will betheir energy. Never in the history ofthis country has energy gone up thatfast for that sustained period of timeand affected all segments of the econ-omy.

Those are some of the realities weare facing. Let me, for a few moments,explore why it has all happened. Wenow import about 56 percent of oursupply of crude oil. That has gone upvery dramatically over the last fewyears. In 1975, when we established theStrategic Petroleum Reserve, we were36-percent dependent on foreign oil.The political rhetoric at that time—Iwas not here; the Presiding Officer wasnot here—was loud and boisterous:Never again will America be dependenton foreign sources of oil; we will estab-lish a Strategic Petroleum Reserve incase of a national or an internationalcrisis. Never will we have to be heldhostage to the attitudes or the polit-ical concerns of a small group of Arabnations known as OPEC.

That was 1975 when we were 36-per-cent dependent. So we established SPRand we put hundreds of millions of bar-rels of oil in a salt dome down in Lou-isiana as a special reserve to be used inan international or national emergencywhere supply would be disrupted.

Today, we are 58-percent dependenton foreign oil, not 36-percent depend-ent.

I have run my 10 minutes and thereare others here to speak. I ask unani-mous consent to continue for 5 moreminutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CRAIG. We have not heard thisadministration in any way talk aboutthe need to change things very much.Why is that the case? Why are we nowat the threshold I have described?

The large reason is that for the last8 years, during a time when this de-pendency on foreign oil has sky-rocketed, we have had no energy policycoming from the Clinton-Gore adminis-

tration. In fact, in almost every in-stance, they have, by rule and regula-tion or by process slowed down produc-tion in our fundamental sources of en-ergy, be it domestic crude production,down 14 percent over the last decade;be it any exploration because of newenvironmental regulations; the inabil-ity to get out on the land and explore,even though our oil companies havethe highest environmental standards toprotect the land and to protect the en-vironment around any new discoveriesand developments.

Out in my State of Idaho and in thePacific Northwest, this administrationis talking about taking down four verylarge hydrodams. They believe that bydoing so and turning the Snake and theColumbia Rivers back to a more nat-ural flow, they could actually improvefisheries. Somebody says: It is only 5percent of the supply.

Well, 5 percent of the supply of thatregion from those four dams generatesenough electricity for the entire city ofSeattle, WA—again, another attitudeas to why we are not producing thisand solving this problem but simplygetting more deeply into this problem.

Well, there are a lot of other reasons,and my time is short. But as a result ofall of those problems and no solutioncoming from the administration—well,they did have one solution. They sentBill Richardson, the Secretary of En-ergy, to the Middle East, and he had inhis briefcase a tin cup. He got it outand he held out his tin cup and he saidto the Arab Emirate oil nations: Pleasefill up my cup; please turn your valveson. You see, we have no energy policy.You are our supplier. We are victim toyour political and economic whims.

That has been the energy policy ofthe Clinton administration. That is theonly real thing they have attempted todo, other than the politically chargedaction to open the SPR and bringabout 30 million barrels of oil out ofthere to somehow change the price andthe supply. Of course, we have held sev-eral hearings on that and, no, thathasn’t happened. But this year, I, Sen-ator FRANK MURKOWSKI, TRENT LOTT,and many others introduced the Na-tional Energy Security Act of 2000, S.2575. We brought it to the floor. It is amajor, new effort to bring our depend-ency on foreign oil at or below 50 per-cent, to encourage and maximize utili-zation of alternative fuels and renew-able energy and increased domesticsupply of not only oil but gas produc-tion, because natural gas has betterthan doubled in price in less than ayear.

Yet this administration sits happilyby, as if nothing were occurring, know-ing very clearly, but not wanting totalk very loudly in this political sea-son, that their energy policy will drivecosts to the consuming public to ahigher rate than ever in the history ofour country. Their only real good argu-ment is that they did it all in the nameof the environment.

In closing, let me talk about the en-vironment we are about to experience.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11320 October 29, 2000It is going to be a cold environmentthis winter. That is a normal environ-ment then. When elderly people andpoor people have to make choices thiswinter between food and medicine andheat, that is not a very good environ-ment. We will do all we can here tosupply them with alternative resourcesto hold down their heating bills, butthere is one remaining fundamentalfact about why they must make thosechoices in this environment. We havelived for 8 years without an energy pol-icy coming from this administration,except one—the tin cup in the hand ofBill Richardson—and a policy thatsomehow the production of hydro-carbons in our country was environ-mentally damaging. I think most of usknow that is no longer true today.

So I thought as I awoke this morningand felt the cool in the air and turnedup the thermostat on the wall, while Imay be able to afford my heating billthis winter, I know a good many peoplewon’t be able to afford theirs. That is atragedy in this country that should nothave to happen—a country that has al-ways been so wise to allow the market-place to provide one of the great abun-dances that we have always had thathas set our Nation apart from all oth-ers, in our ability to produce and suc-ceed, and that was an abundant supplyof energy.

In 8 short years, that abundant sup-ply has dwindled to a point where wereally have no surpluses at all today.The average demand for growth in en-ergy goes up 1.4 percent in our countryon an annualized basis, and we haveonly increased production by 0.4 per-cent in the last 8 years—in all seg-ments of energy. That tells you onething very clearly. Somebody hasfailed along the way, and I must tellyou, serving on the Energy Committeeand studying and examining this issuevery thoroughly over the last severalyears, I know who has failed. It is theClinton-Gore administration. Theyfailed to recognize the reality of themarketplace, the reality of the worldproduction supply, and disallowing usfrom producing our way out of it.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Nevada is recognized.f

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have thegreatest respect for my friend fromIdaho. We served together in theHouse, and we have worked togethermany years on public resources issuesdealing with the West. I don’t mean tobe disagreeable, but on this issue wesimply disagree. I am going to take acouple of minutes because I have toldthe Senators from Ohio and Iowa theycan speak next.

The oil problem started in the Repub-lican administration; it certainlywasn’t the fault of the Republican ad-ministration. There was an embargo bythe OPEC nations. Following that,there was an bipartisan effort to

change things. There were incentivesto develop oil shale, do alternative en-ergy with wind and solar and geo-thermal. But with the oil glut thatcame about, all of that was takenaway. Some of the research involvingalternative energy was simply not re-newed by Congress. That is too bad.

During the years of the Clinton-Goreadministration, they have tried veryhard every year that I have served oncommittees and subcommittees withjurisdiction to deal with energy mat-ters. They have tried every year—espe-cially in the appropriations process—toget more money for development of al-ternative energy sources. They havebeen stymied every time.

We should also understand that if wecould reduce the consumption of fuel inAmerica—for example, if we had morefuel-efficient cars and if we had auto-mobiles that were 3 miles per gallonmore efficient, we would save a millionbarrels of oil a day.

There are things we need to do here.We need to join in a bipartisan effort,not a finger-pointing effort, to developenergy policy in this country. None ofus wants to be dependent on foreignoil. In fact, with the oil being so cheap,there was no incentive for us to do it.Congress failed, and it wasn’t simplythat we didn’t meet what the adminis-tration wanted. Certainly, this legisla-tion has been suggested by my friendfrom Idaho, has as its centerpiece oildevelopment in ANWR, the pristineArctic wilderness, which we are notgoing to do.


ator from Iowa.f

TAX LEGISLATION

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, lastweek, we started to debate a tax billand it had to be brought down becausethere wasn’t consent to move ahead onit. Before we adjourn and go home,hopefully, we will pass a tax bill. Butthere are a lot of provisions in that billthat are very good; common sense dic-tates them; and a lot of these are verybipartisan. So the President hasthreatened to veto the tax bill. I wantto bring up some of these issues andask the President why he would vetosomething as good as these provisions,where there is bipartisan consensusthat we ought to pass them.

Obviously, this bill doesn’t containeverything I would like to see in it asa Member of the Senate. As a memberof the Finance Committee, we have achance to be on the ground floor of thedrafting of the legislation coming outof that committee. On the other hand,no one person, even a member of thecommittee, can get everything hewants in the bill. There are even somethings in this bill that I don’t like, buton balance it will do a lot of good fora lot of people. Therefore, I think itshould be enacted.

To begin with, the bill contains anumber of provisions I authored or co-

authored with some colleagues andthese are the bipartisan provisions thatI am thinking about. For instance, onthe issue of pensions, I worked veryclosely with Senator GRAHAM of Flor-ida—several critical pension provi-sions. As we anticipate the upcomingretirement of the baby boomers, we arealways astonished at how much it isgoing to cost during their retirement.Retirement is expensive, not only dueto rising life expectancy but also be-cause inflation and taxes must befactored into the cost of retirement.

We keep insisting that babyboomers—now 10 years away from theirretirement—must do more to preparefor that retirement. How can they dothat if we don’t give them the toolsthey need? This bill has a lot to dowith that because it would make smallbut significant steps to improve theability of baby boomers and subsequentgenerations to prepare for retirement.This bill will increase retirement sav-ings and the national savings rates byallowing workers to save more in theirpension plan or in their individual re-tirement account.

How can the President find disagree-ment on that point—the necessity ofhaving better pension systems, the ne-cessity for updating the individual re-tirement accounts so more can besaved in those accounts and so morepeople can be encouraged to save inthose accounts?

Our bill would restore section 415limits for pension contributions closerto—not all the way, I am sorry to say—where they were before the 1993 tax in-crease bill was passed.

You remember that 1993 tax increasebill? As Senator MOYNIHAN said on thefloor of the Senate, it was the largesttax increase in the history of the worldafter Bob Dole said it was the largestincrease in the history of the country.

That was a pretty significant tax in-crease in 1993. You remember that itpassed on the tie-breaking vote of VicePresident GORE as he sat right there inthe chair. He cast the tie-breaking voteto pass a tax bill that most all Repub-licans thought was bad for the country.Even some Democrats thought it wasbad for the country. When Republicanswere in the minority, it would havestill died on a 49-to-49 vote—except forthe tie-breaking vote of the Vice Presi-dent.

This bill will restore some of the badaspects that the 1993 tax bill had onpensions contributions with these 415limits. This bill increases existing IRAcontribution limits because under thisbill Americans would be able to con-tribute $5,000 annually. That is an in-crease up from the current $2,000 max-imum contribution. This IRA limit hasnot been increased in the 18 years sincethe last time it was effective.

For workers without a pension, apretax individual retirement account isone of the best ways they can save forretirement. This limit is being in-creased for traditional IRAs and RothIRAs.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11321October 29, 2000Why would the President want to

veto that for people who don’t haveanything other than individual retire-ment accounts with the present $2,000limit? You can see what has happenedto that $2,000 limit because of inflation.After 18 years, it is not anywhere nearthe incentive for savings that it was in1982.

Increasing it to $5,000 would be a tre-mendous incentive for people who don’thave pensions to save on their own forretirement, in addition to a baby boomgeneration that is not going to get outof Social Security as much as my gen-eration will get out of Social Securitywhen they retire.

Consequently, that helps make up forsome of the shortcomings of the SocialSecurity surplus for the baby boomgeneration.

Further, the bill encourages morepeople to save through an IRA by ac-celerating the scheduled increases inIRA income eligibility requirements.Individuals making up to $50,000 andcouples making up to $80,000 could par-ticipate in an IRA. And the bill allowscatch-up contributions for IRAs of anadditional $1,500 for those age 50 orover.

That will give people an opportunitywho have been hit by the inflation-less-ening value of the $2,000 individual re-tirement account now that they are 50and over to put aside an additional$1,500 to make up for some of the short-comings of Congress not keeping the$2,000 limit adjusted for inflation.

Why would the President want toveto a bill that gives people who aresaving an opportunity to make up forsome of the shortcomings of Congressover the last 18 years, or even the nega-tive impact of the 1993 tax bill on someof these pension provisions?

This bill also encourages small busi-nesses to start and maintain pensionplans.

One of the problems with the pensionlaw is that there is tremendous dis-couragement for companies with under100 employees to go to the expense ofsetting up a pension plan. For employ-ers with over 100 employees and withthe overhead that companies such asthat have, it is not such a problem.You find larger corporations have pen-sion plans—not small businesses.

The provisions encouraging expan-sion of coverage are vital and overdueimprovements in pension law.

I will give you an example. The billmodifies the top-heavy rules whichonly apply to small businesses. Thetop-heavy rules have been rightly criti-cized because they place burdens onsmall business pension plans. Thosesame requirements are not applicableto big business. The top-heavy rulesmake sponsoring a pension plan expen-sive, complicated, and out of reach formany small employers. In fact, theERISA Advisory Council in this admin-istration even supported the outrightrepeal of these top-heavy rules.

This bill does not repeal the top-heavy rules, as much as we should, ac-

cording to the Advisory Council’s rec-ommendation. It simply modifies themost onerous aspects of the rules tomake having a plan more attractive forsmall firms.

The bill also reduces plan costs andPBGC premiums for small businessesand eases administrative burdens bystreamlining onerous pension regula-tions. These changes help to make theexperience of maintaining a plan lessdifficult for small companies. Further,the bill simplifies annual reporting re-quirements, eliminates IRS user feesfor new plans. These provisions encour-age small businesses to provide pensioncoverage. When small businesses startup new plans, American workers win!

The bill contains many provisionswhich will help rank and file workersspecifically.

For example, this bill enables work-ers aged 50 and over to make so-calledcatch up contributions to their retire-ment plan.

That may sound like something thatis new and we shouldn’t do. But weallow State and local governmentworkers to make these catchup con-tributions under current law if theyare within 3 years of retirement.

I know of no reason why we shouldnot make the benefit of catchup con-tributions available to all workers—not just for those of State and localgovernments. We would do so in thisbill for workers in for-profit businessesand also not-for-profit businesses.

Unfortunately, this bill will notallow workers who make $80,000 ormore to make these ‘‘catchup’’ con-tributions despite the fact there is notsuch an $80,000 limit on the current lawfor State and local employees.

This is a further inequitable situa-tion—something we give State andlocal government employees but wedon’t give employees in the privatesector. We make up some of that inthis legislation but not 100 percent, Iam sorry to say. I regret that the billmade this restriction necessary be-cause of negotiations that were goingon between the House and Senate.

The bill reduces the vesting periodfor receipt of the employer’s matchingcontribution and defined contributionplans—such as a 401(k)—from 5 years to3. Make no mistake about it; this is ahuge help to many workers. This willparticularly help women, maybe be-cause of taking care of an elderly rela-tion, or maybe to start a family orwomen who are in and out of the work-force or maybe even in some cases menwho are in and out of the workforce,but they are more apt to be women.

This will give them an opportunityto enhance their match so they canmake up for lost time because of notbeing in the workforce.

This bill makes another importantchange to law that will help low- andmodest-income workers. The bill re-peals the 25 percent of compensationlimit on savings and defined contribu-tion plans.

That is a savings barrier that frus-trates those of modest income. Most

workers in this Nation will be savingthrough section 401(k) plans or section403(b) plans or section 457 deferred com-pensation plans. In a 401(k) plan, forexample, the limit for saving is 25 per-cent of compensation or a maximum of$10,500. Our bill repeals the 25 percentof compensation for the benefit of lowand modestly paid workers who couldbe very thrifty people but are prohib-ited from saving more. They may wantto sacrifice during their work years tohave a better quality of life in retire-ment, but the present limit of 25 per-cent will keep them from doing that.We ought to make it possible for peoplewho want to look ahead to do more forenhancing their retirement and havemore savings for that retirement to beable to do it. This legislation does that.

I don’t know why the Presidentwants to veto such good provisions forlow- and modest-pay workers. In Iowaand much of the Midwest, people arenot only thrifty but they are very fru-gal. Let them save their money if theywant to; that money belongs to them,not to the government.

The bill also greatly enhances pen-sion portability. Because of these pro-visions, workers will be able to taketheir pension money with them whenthey leave one job to go to another job.Their retirement plan contributionswill not be stuck in the plan of theirprevious employer. When more of thosematching contributions are vested as Ijust mentioned a minute ago, a largeraccount can be rolled over to an IRAand to the retirement savings plan of asubsequent employer, regardless ofwhether the employer is for profit, notfor profit, or a government employer.

Under current law, you can’t makethose rollovers. The pension port-ability provisions of this bill are agreat way to reduce pension plan leak-age. The issue of leakage is real, and Ihope we get to examine it in more de-tail next year and even improve itmore than this present legislationdoes.

The business also improves pensionfunding so benefits will be more secureover the long term. Good pension fund-ing is one of the very foundations ofthe ERISA law. Most plans are wellfunded but some are not funded prop-erly at all. We need to be taking a clos-er look at the underfunded plans andshine the spotlight on them.

I want to look at the reasons whysome plans have not been better fund-ed, and I hope to look at the status ofthe underfunded plans in greater detailnext year.

Finally, I take note for my col-leagues and cosponsors that this billdoes not include everything I wouldhave liked, and I hope we will be ableto do more for pensions according towhat Senator GRAHAM of Florida and Isuggested in our legislation, which hadmany cosponsors.

When all is said and done, there are alot of good provisions in this bill, par-ticularly those that deal with womenwho are in and out of the workplace so

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11322 October 29, 2000they can make up lost time on theirpensions if they want to pay more intoit. It does an awful lot for low- and me-dium-paid employees so that they canmake up for the fact, if they want tosave more for retirement, that thepresent 25-percent limit doesn’t allowthem to do that.

The bottom line is, why would anyPresident want to veto such a goodbill?


ator from Ohio.Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in

keeping with the back and forth, wouldit be all right for me to speak for up to15 minutes?

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to beas agreeable as possible, but the Sen-ator from Idaho took 15 minutes in-stead of 10 minutes, and the Senatorfrom Iowa took 15 minutes rather than10 minutes, and I called my friend fromWisconsin, who rushed over here anddropped everything to speak.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I askif I could have unanimous consent tospeak for 30 minutes after the conclu-sion of the remarks of the Senatorfrom Ohio.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection it is so ordered. The Senatorfrom Ohio is recognized.f

CHANGE OF VOTE

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, onrollcall vote No. 289, I inadvertentlyvoted yea, when I intended to vote nay.I ask unanimous consent that on roll-call vote No. 289, I be permitted tochange my vote from yea to nay, whichin no way will change the outcome ofthe vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.f

NOTHING TO BRAG ABOUT

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, thisis the day the Lord has made; let us re-joice and be glad. This is Sunday, whenit is the Sabbath for millions of Ameri-cans. Many of my colleagues have ex-plained why we are here today, but Ihope this is the last Sunday that theSenate, the U.S. Congress, is in sessionunless it is for a crisis of national orinternational concern. I hope this isthe last Sunday that we would be herefor anything but that.

Next Tuesday, the citizens of this na-tion will go to the polls and elect thenext president of the United States.One of the first challenges that the newpresident will face is the need to recap-ture what has been lost for a genera-tion of Americans: trust in the FederalGovernment.

The American people used to believein the competence of the Federal Gov-ernment to provide services and meetthis nation’s needs in a variety ofways. Unfortunately, in too many in-stances, this is not happening. Today,the Federal Government is held out asa source of scorn and ridicule.

The fact of the matter is that theFederal Government has brought mostof this on itself through a gross inat-tention to management.

In 1993, Vice President GORElaunched his ‘‘Reinventing Govern-ment’’ initiative. Purported to makegovernment ‘‘work better and costless,’’ it had every intention to turnthe diminished reputation of the Fed-eral Government around.

However, this initiative will be re-membered not for its modest accom-plishments, but for missed opportuni-ties. It has rejected bold efforts to re-form Federal programs and personnelissues, and actually contributed to thegrowing human capital crisis that willbe a major headache of the next admin-istration.

It will be one of the most formidabletasks of the next administration.

As we have all seen, the Vice Presi-dent is trying to run away from thelabel of being for ‘‘Big Government.’’In recent remarks in Arkansas, and inthe presidential debates, he pointed toReinventing Government as proof thathe favors small government.

He claims credit for shrinking theFederal Government by 300,000 posi-tions. In the third Presidential debateheld earlier this month, the Vice Presi-dent boasted that, due to his efforts,the Federal Government is ‘‘now thesmallest that it has been since . . .John Kennedy’s administration.’’

The Vice President’s record of rein-venting government is second only tohis record of inventing the Internet forgenuine achievement and accuracy.

The truth is: more than 450,000 posi-tions have been removed from the Fed-eral Government since January 1993,not 300,000 as the Vice Presidentclaims. However, his offense lies notjust in the fuzzy math but also in tak-ing credit for reductions where he doesnot deserve it.

More than 290,000 of the personnelcuts that were made—64 percent of thetotal—came from the departments ofDefense and Energy. These cuts weremade at the end of the Cold War in theresulting Pentagon budget reductions,as well as through four rounds of mili-tary base closings.

My colleagues should be aware thatthis process began before the advent ofthe Clinton-Gore administration andexisted independently of the Rein-venting Government initiative.

Other significant personnel reduc-tions were also independent of Rein-venting Government, including 15,000employees of the Federal Deposit In-surance Corporation who weredownsized at the end of the savings andloan crisis, and 8,500 employees of thePanama Canal Commission—now just aforce of seven after the canal’s hand offto Panama.

In truth, most of the non-defense po-sitions discussed by the Vice Presidenthave not been eliminated, but merelytransferred to the private sectorthrough Federal contracts and Federalmandates. Paul Light, of the highly-re-

spected Brookings Institution, has doc-umented a ‘‘shadow workforce’’ of al-most 13 million contractors, grantees,and state and local government em-ployees who serve as a de-facto exten-sion of the Federal workforce—yetwithout the oversight and account-ability. Evidence suggests that over-sight of the contractor workforce ispoor, yet contract managers were tar-geted for downsizing by ReinventingGovernment.

Far more noteworthy than the VicePresident’s characteristic exaggera-tions, however, is the sorry state of thecivil service seven years after Rein-venting Government was initiated.

As chairman of the Senate Sub-committee on Oversight of GovernmentManagement, I have led an ongoing re-view of overall government perform-ance. I have found an appalling lack offorethought by the Clinton-Gore ad-ministration toward workforce plan-ning as well as the training and devel-opment of Federal employees. The ‘‘A-Team,’’ the people who get the jobdone, and who, for the last 7 years,have been ignored.

In testimony earlier this year beforemy subcommittee, nonpartisan expertstestified that inattention to manage-ment has taken a heavy toll on theability of the Federal workforce to dothe job the American people deserveand expect.

Don Kettl, from the University ofWisconsin, testified:

The problem is that we have increasinglycreated a gulf between the people who are inthe government and the skills needed to runthat government effectively.

Paul Light of the Brookings Institu-tion put it more bluntly. He testifiedthat the downsizing initiated by Rein-venting Government:

Has been haphazard, random, and there isno question that in some agencies we havehollowed out institutional memory and weare on the cusp of a significant human cap-ital crisis.

The U.S. General Accounting Officemay well designate human capital as aFederal ‘‘high risk’’ area when it re-leases its next series on governmenthigh risk problems in January 2001.The numbers are alarming, and most ofthe people are not aware of this, evenMembers of this body.

Right now, the average Federal em-ployee is 46 years old. By 2004, 32 per-cent of Federal employees will be eligi-ble for regular retirement, and 21 per-cent more will be eligible for early re-tirement.

Taken together, more than half theFederal workforce—900,000 employees—could potentially leave in just 4 years.Obviously, if that happens, neitherVice President GORE nor GovernorBush would have any problems meetingtheir campaign promises regarding thisnation’s Federal workforce.

Regrettably, the Clinton-Gore admin-istration squandered 7 years before get-ting serious about this potential retire-ment wave. Indeed, Reinventing Gov-ernment targeted human resources,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11323October 29, 2000contract oversight, financial manage-ment and other professionals fordownsizing, leaving the Federal Gov-ernment without the expertise it nowneeds to recruit talented, technology-savvy people to fill the coming vacan-cies.

When it comes to the achievementsof Reinventing Government, VicePresident GORE has nothing to bragabout. In my opinion, this effort is a li-ability for the Vice President, not afeather in his cap. Reinventing Govern-ment has failed to improve Govern-ment management or confront the fun-damental question of how the civilservice should be deployed to serve ournation. Cutting costs by only cuttingjobs fails to acknowledge the centralconcern Americans have with Govern-ment, and that is ineffective programs,Government waste, command and con-trol policies, and in many instancesjust plain gridlock.

Agencies with less staff but the sameworkload only experience more of thebureaucratic meltdown which under-mines the public trust and demoralizesthe remaining Federal workforce.

Wouldn’t it be better if we focused onputting the right individuals in the jobthe American people actually want theFederal Government to accomplish—missions such as strengthening our na-tional defense, saving Social Security,and saving Medicare—and giving themthe training they need to get the jobdone?

When I asked OMB how much moneythey spent on training, they said theydidn’t know. So my subcommittee dida survey of the Federal agencies and weasked them: How much do you spendon training? They didn’t know. We didget letters back from a couple of agen-cies and they said: We know, but wewon’t tell you because if we do, you,Congress, will take the money awayfrom us.

Mr. President, I am not advocatingthe Federal Government fill every va-cancy, person for person. What we needto do is ensure that every Federalagency has assessed its current and fu-ture workforce needs and has plannedaccordingly. Agencies must have theflexibility to design the recruiting andtraining programs that will allow themto attract and retain quality personneland ensure they are deployed in themost effective way. In other words, theFederal workforce should be treated asan investment, not an expense.

Earlier this year, when I had begunto examine the management of humancapital in my subcommittee, I askedfor the training budgets of all Federalagencies. As I mentioned, they did notknow; they did not collect the informa-tion. That is incredible.

The coming human capital crisis cre-ates an opportunity for the next ad-ministration to reshape the 21st cen-tury Federal workforce, to improveFederal performance and efficiency,and to invest in the people who makethe Government run. My hope is thatin 4 years the next President will

boast, not just of reducing the size ofGovernment, but also of a well plannedreorganization of Federal jobs, and ofhaving equipped our Federal workforceto support a more focused and morestreamlined Federal mission so theycan work harder and smarter and domore with less.


ator from Wisconsin.f

A FEDERAL MORATORIUM ONEXECUTIONS

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thelast time the Federal Government exe-cuted someone was in 1963. That year,the Federal Government executed Vic-tor Feguer, who had kidnapped andkilled a young doctor. At 5:30 in themorning of February 15, 1963, at FortMadison, IA, a Federal hangman tied anoose around Feguer’s neck and puthim to death.

Feguer’s execution was the first andlast Federal execution of the 1960s. Infact, the Federal Government has car-ried out executions fairly infrequentlyduring the entire twentieth century.Only 24 Federal executions took placebetween 1927 and 1963. One-third ofthose were for wartime espionage orsabotage.

But, Mr. President, all of that isabout to change. In the next 2 months,two inmates on Federal death rowcould become the first to be executedby the Federal Government in nearlyforty years. Their names are DavidHammer and Juan Garza.

As many of my colleagues recall,Congress modernized the federal deathpenalty in 1988 and then significantlyexpanded it in 1994. Those votes areabout to have very real consequences.Like it or not, the national debate overthe death penalty is actually inten-sifying and will build further nextmonth, the months after that, and inthe year to come.

And we should have this debate. Weshould have this debate, because theFederal Government is heading in adifferent direction from the rest of thecountry. The States have learned someserious lessons about the administra-tion of capital punishment, and theFederal Government, above all, shouldlearn from them.

After the Supreme Court’s 1976 deci-sion reinstating the death penalty,most States swept the cobwebs offtheir electric chairs and resumed exe-cutions. And most of these states havenot looked back since. Just last year,the United States set the record for thenumber of executions in one year inthis modern death penalty period: 98executions. And already this year,there have been 70 executions in theUnited States.

But recently, in States all acrossAmerica, awareness has been growingthat the death penalty system has seri-ous flaws and that its administrationhas sometimes been far from fair. FromIllinois to Texas to North Carolina to

Pennsylvania, I believe that a con-sensus is building that there is a prob-lem. Since the 1970s, 89 people—Mr.President, 89 people—who had beensent to death row were later proven in-nocent. Nine of these 89 were exoner-ated on the basis of modern DNA test-ing of biological evidence. Defendantshave sometimes been represented bylawyers who slept during trial, weredrunk during trial, or who were so in-competent that they were later sus-pended or disbarred. Prosecutorial andpolice misconduct sometimes have ledto faulty convictions. The death pen-alty has been applied disproportion-ately to African Americans and thepoor. The revelations of problems withthe system mount. These are very real,serious problems that fail to live up tothe fundamental principles of fairnessand justice on which our criminal jus-tice system is based.

Just last month, the Justice Depart-ment released data on Federal deathpenalty prosecutions. That Justicestudy showed racial and geographicdisparities in the administration of theFederal death penalty. The study foundthat whether the Federal Governmentseeks the death penalty appears to re-late to the color of the defendant’s skinor the Federal district in which the de-fendant is prosecuted. Both the Presi-dent and the Attorney General have ac-knowledged—they have acknowl-edged—that this data paints a dis-turbing picture of the Federal deathpenalty system. The Attorney Generaladmits that she does not have answersto the questions raised by the DOJ re-port.

My colleagues may believe that thesystem is flawed, but some of themseem to fear that the people will objectto efforts simply to address these in-equities. The American people, how-ever, are in fact ahead of the politi-cians on this, as they are on so manyissues. A majority of the Americanpeople are troubled. They are troubledby these flaws in the death penalty sys-tem that they support a moratoriumon executions. An NBC/Wall StreetJournal poll taken this past July foundthat 63 percent of Americans supporteda suspension of executions while ques-tions of fairness are reviewed. And in abipartisan poll released just this lastmonth, 64 percent of Americans sup-ported a suspension of executions whilequestions of fairness are reviewed.

Mr. President, as you have said andothers have said, the Federal Govern-ment can often learn from the States.Let’s apply that to the administrationof the death penalty.

With so many nagging questionsraised and still unanswered, how canthe Federal Government go forward—how can the Federal Government goforward with its first execution in al-most 40 years?

I believe it is unconscionable for theFederal Government to resume execu-tions under these circumstances.

Earlier this year, I introduced twobills that would suspend executions

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11324 October 29, 2000while an independent, blue ribbon com-mission simply reviews the death pen-alty system. The National Death Pen-alty Moratorium Act would suspendexecutions at the state and federal lev-els. The Federal Death Penalty Mora-torium Act would suspend executionsat the Federal level. And I am pleasedthat Senators LEVIN, WELLSTONE, DUR-BIN and BOXER have joined me on oneor both of these bills. The five of usmay not—in fact, do not—agree onwhether the death penalty is a properpunishment, but we are united in ourbelief that our nation should pause andthoroughly review the system that hassent many who were later proven inno-cent to death row.

Addressing flaws in the death penaltysystem is, Mr. President, unfortu-nately, yet another chapter of the un-finished business of this Congress. Withtwo executions scheduled for after ad-journment, I must urge President Clin-ton to suspend Federal executions andorder a comprehensive review of theFederal death penalty system.

Next Congress, when we return, I in-tend to reintroduce my legislation. Ishall keep pushing forward on thisissue. We have made progress this year,but we still have a long way to go to-ward restoring the integrity of ourcriminal justice system. I look forwardto working with my colleagues towardthat goal in the year to come.f

THE OMNIBUS TAX BILL

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I risenow to oppose yet another monstrousproduct that this majority has loosedon the Senate, this one an omnibus taxbill. In a number of speeches this year,as early as this May, I have tried toraise objections to the procedures thatthe majority is employing in this ses-sion of the Senate. It is proverbial that‘‘a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.’’ Ifany more proof were needed that theseprocedures are bad, the fruit of this taxbill provides it.

Let me begin by recounting how badthe tree is that bore this bill. The pro-cedures that the majority has em-ployed to bring this bill to the floor areegregious. And when the majority em-ploys the procedures that it has on thisbill, it is not surprising that they yieldsuch an unattractive outcome. Whathas happened? A small number of Sen-ators and Congressmen, all from oneparty, have cooked up this bill behindclosed doors. Of the bill’s major provi-sions, none has enjoyed considerationon the Senate floor. The majority lead-ership has then shoveled the contentsof this back-room agreement into aconference on a comparatively minorSmall Business Administration loanmeasure. When the fruit of such a proc-ess has, as this bill has, experienced nodiscussion, no vetting, and no amend-ment, it cannot help but have somerotten parts to it.

And there is much that is rottenabout this bill. It would spend, Mr.President, a significant amount of the

surplus—about a quarter of a trilliondollars—before, before having takenany steps to save Social Security, or toreform Medicare, or to lock away on-budget surpluses to pay down the debt.Now, Mr. President, there are of coursesome provisions in this bill that Iwould support. But first and foremost,it is irresponsible to spend this much ofthe projected surpluses before havingtaken a single step to address our long-term fiscal responsibilities.

And so, Mr. President, I ask unani-mous consent that an editorial on thispoint that appeared in the WashingtonPost entitled ‘‘Say Goodbye to the Sur-plus’’ be printed in the RECORD at theconclusion of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr.

President.Beyond that, Mr. President, this bill

is also blighted by its lack of fairness.As have so many of the other fruits ofthis majority, this tax bill would dis-proportionately favor the verywealthy. When we as Senators decideon tax policy, we must ask ourselves:With a limited amount of surplusavailable, whose taxes should we cutfirst? Should tax relief go first to thewealthiest among us? The majority an-swers ‘‘yes’’ every time. Instead of theRobin-Hood-in-reverse priorities of themajority, we should instead be seekingto direct tax relief first to those whoneed it most: the hard-working Amer-ican middle-income family.

According to an analysis prepared bythe Institute on Taxation and Eco-nomic Policy, 64 percent of the benefitsof this tax bill would go to the top one-fifth of the income distribution. Andless than a fifth of the benefits of thistax bill would go to the bottom 60 per-cent of the population—one-fifth of thebenefit to three-fifths of the people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that an executive summary of apolicy paper on this bill prepared bythe Center on Budget and Policy Prior-ities entitled ‘‘Leadership’s Tax PlanReinforces Inequities in Health andPension Coverage’’ be printed in theRECORD at the conclusion of my re-marks. The entire text of this policypaper can be found at http://www.cbpp.org/10–26–00tax.htm


(See exhibit 2.)Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr.

President.And now, let me take a few moments

to address particular sections of thebill. And let me begin with the healthcare provisions of this bill, which, at$88 billion for the tax provisions alone,account for what is actually the larg-est component of this bill. We can allagree that health care should be a pri-ority. But the health tax provisions ofthis bill are structured so that the vastmajority of middle-income Americanswill not be able to benefit from them.

This is so because the health tax pro-visions in this bill operate exclusively

through the mechanism of tax deduc-tions, instead of tax credits. Thus, Mr.President, it would provide no benefitfor families of four making up to$32,000, and actually provide preciouslittle benefit for families making up to$50,000. Those at the top of the incomescale are not those who are having themost difficulty getting health insur-ance or paying for long-term care.

Indeed, the health care insurance de-duction in this bill could actually re-duce health care coverage. That is be-cause the presence of the deductionmight encourage private employers todrop health care coverage at the work-place.

Mr. President, I’d like to ask unani-mous consent that an executive sum-mary of a policy paper on this pointprepared by the Center on Budget andPolicy Priorities entitled ‘‘Health In-surance Deduction of Little Help to theUninsured’’ be printed in the RECORD atthe conclusion of my remarks. The fulltext of this policy paper can be foundat http://www.cbpp.org/8–30–00tax2.htm


(See Exhibit 3.)Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr.

President.Among its health provisions, this bill

also includes spending legislation torestore health care cuts made in theBalanced Budget Act of 1997. I stronglyoppose the provisions in the Medicareprovider payment restoration bill thatdisproportionately allocate scarceMedicare resources towards Medicarehealth maintenance organizations—HMOs—and away from beneficiary andhealth care provider needs.

The Medicare HMO program alreadytreats our Wisconsin seniors unfairly. Icannot support increasing payments toa system that treats Wisconsin’s sen-iors like second class citizens. Not onlyare these increased payments unjustifi-able, they would raise payments with-out any accountability provisions thatwould ensure there is actually plannedparticipation in States like Wisconsin.

Congress should not dedicate overone-third of its Medicare spending toMedicare HMOs, when only 15 percentof Medicare beneficiaries are enrolledin HMOs.

Instead of supporting HMOs, I strong-ly favor provisions that would supportWisconsin’s seniors by preserving carethrough hospitals, home health careagencies, hospices, and other providers.The home health care provisions—Iknow firsthand from many conversa-tions around the state—are especiallyinadequate, and do little to address theneeds of rural beneficiaries and themost medically complex patients.

Let me turn now to the pension pro-visions, which, at $64 billion, make upthe next largest part of the bill. The of-ficial estimates of the costs of theseprovisions are large, but they under-state what will be the true costs of thebill. That is because the bill’s so-calledRoth IRA provisions, which allow tax-payers to pay some taxes now to avoid

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11325October 29, 2000paying more taxes later, bring fundsinto the Treasury in the early years atthe expense of the outyears. The bill’scosts will thus likely expand whenfully phased in, and will likely growparticularly in just those years whenthe baby boom generation is retiringand we most need the resources to ac-tually keep Social Security and Medi-care solvent.

The bill’s pension provisions expandindividual retirement accounts orIRAs. Among other things, it raises theamount that individuals may con-tribute to IRAs, raises the maximumincome for those who may contributeto an IRA, raises the maximum incomefor those who may convert a tradi-tional IRA into a Roth IRA, and allowsindividuals over age 50 to make largercatchup contributions. The bill makessimilar changes in 401(k) plans, raisingthe amount that individuals may con-tribute to 401(k)s, allowing deferral of401(k) tax treatment as with a RothIRA, and allowing individuals over age50 to make larger catchup 401(k) con-tributions.

Taken as a whole, these changes thatI just listed would manifestly benefitthe bestoff among us. A recent Treas-ury study found that just four percentof eligible taxpayers—largely the mostaffluent people eligible—make themaximum $2,000 contribution to IRAsunder the existing law. By definition,these would be the only people withincurrent income limits who would ben-efit from raising the contributionlimit. And by definition, only thoseabove current income limits wouldbenefit from lifting the income limits.According to the Institute on Taxationand Economic Policy analysis, morethan three-fourths of the benefits ofthe bill’s pension and IRA provisionswould go to the fifth of the populationwith the highest incomes.

The bill’s proponents claim that thebill would also increase savings. Butthis claim is almost Orwellian. Liftingthese limits would actually decreasesaving, for three reasons.

First, by making it easier forwealthy business owners to do tax-fa-vored saving as individuals, the billwould decrease their incentives to setup business-wide, business-wide 401(k)or pension plans to get those tax bene-fits. As a former Assistant Secretary ofthe Treasury testified:

Currently, a small business owner whowants to save $5,000 or more for retirementon a tax-favored basis generally wouldchoose to adopt an employer plan. However,if the IRA limit were raised to $5,000, theowner could save that amount—or jointlywith the owner’s spouse, $10,000—on a tax-preferred basis without adopting a plan foremployees. Therefore, higher IRA limitscould reduce interest in employer retirementplans, particularly among owners of smallbusinesses. If this happens, higher IRA limitswould work at cross purposes with other pro-posals that attempt to increase coverageamong employees of small businesses.

That is what the former AssistantSecretary for Tax Policy said. By de-priving lower- and moderate-income

employees of opportunities for tax-fa-vored saving, the higher IRA limitswould thus decrease saving by thoseemployees.

Second, the savings contributed byhigh-income savers would tend to bemoney that they would have savedanyway. Rather than cause new savingamong higher-income savers, the high-er limits would merely substitute tax-favored saving for fully-taxed saving.Rather than increase saving amongthis group, the bill would thus just cuttaxes for these higher-income savers.

And third, because the bill is not paidfor and therefore spends surplusmoney, it reduces the surplus and thusreduces the amount by which the Gov-ernment pays down the debt. When theGovernment pays down debt, it con-tributes to national savings. And thusby reducing the amount by which theGovernment pays down debt, the billwill worsen national savings.

When the Finance Committee consid-ered a pension bill earlier this year, itdid include a provision that might havehelped increase saving, Mr. President.That section, championed by Demo-cratic Members of the Finance Com-mittee, would have actually provided amatching credit, a matching credit, forsaving by low- and moderate-incomesavers making up to $50,000 for a cou-ple. The provision was still deeplyflawed, in my view, because it was notrefundable, and therefore it was of nouse to families of four making up to$32,000. But if Government action is toencourage increased private saving, itneeds to be directed—as that creditwas—to low- and moderate-income peo-ple, who are not saving now.

What has the majority done? The ma-jority has stripped this bill of that pro-posal. The majority has deleted fromthe bill that section most likely to in-crease private saving.

As well, the bill includes many offen-sive individual pension provisions.

Current law imposes additional re-quirements on plans that primarilybenefit an employer’s key employees,what are called ‘‘top-heavy plans.’’These additional requirements providemore rapid vesting and minimum em-ployer contributions for plan partici-pants who are not key employees. Thebill would relax these rules for topheavy plans in a number of ways. Forexample, fewer family members wouldbe counted for the determination ofwhether a plan was top-heavy. Thischange in the bill would allow plans toprovide greater benefits to owners andtheir families without providing min-imum benefits and more-rapid vestingto rank-and-file workers.

The bill raises the limit on theamount of income that may be consid-ered compensation for purposes of con-tributions to 401(k) accounts. Thischange would allow an employer whowanted to save a fixed amount eachyear to reduce the percentage contribu-tion that all employees could make totheir 401(k)s.

As I noted at the outset, the bill’sRoth IRAs shift tax receipts from the

distant future into the near future.They are thus fiscally very risky, asthey drain tax revenues from the Gov-ernment during the retirement years ofthe baby-boom generation, while giv-ing us a false sense of additional reve-nues now. And they also benefit thevery wealthiest among us.

Thus, the pension provisions of thisbill would particularly benefit the verywealthiest. And I would assert that itis not a coincidence—I am afraid it isnot a coincidence—that some of themost powerful wealthy interests in ourcampaign finance system are todaypushing for this so-called pension ‘‘re-form.’’ I would like to take a momentto direct my colleagues’ attention tothese big donors.

It is time again to ‘‘call the bank-roll.’’ As I have said, this legislationdoesn’t benefit average working Ameri-cans who are counting on their pensionwhen they retire, so exactly whom doesit benefit? I think ‘‘calling the bank-roll’’ could answer this.

I would like to do a truly comprehen-sive ‘‘calling of the bankroll’’ here, butthat would be almost impossible. Thereare just too many wealthy interests be-hind this tax bill: financial interests,insurance companies, and labor unions,just to name a few. We could be hereall day, or all week, if I tried to coverall those contributions. So in the inter-est of time, I will just review the un-limited soft money contributions ofsome of the interests pushing for thisbill.

The figures I am about to cite comefrom the Center for Responsive Poli-tics. They include contributionsthrough the first 15 months of the elec-tion cycle, and in some cases includecontributions given more recently inthe cycle.

Some of the biggest investment andfinance firms are supporting passage ofthis bill.

For example, Merrill Lynch, its ex-ecutives and subsidiaries, have givenmore than $915,000 in soft money, ac-cording to the Center for ResponsivePolitics.

That’s just one company.Mr. President, I have other examples

I will cite regarding the ‘‘calling of thebankroll.’’ American Express, its ex-ecutives and subsidiaries have givenmore than $312,000 in soft money so farin this election cycle. And Fidelity In-vestments and its executives havegiven at least $258,000 in soft money todate.

The American Benefits Council,which is strongly supporting this bill,sent around a list of supporters of pro-visions of the legislation. That list in-cludes still more big donors.

The American Council of Life Insur-ers and its executives have given morethan $260,000 to the parties’ soft moneywarchests during the period.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce andaffiliated chambers of commerce havegiven more than $110,000 in soft moneyduring the period.

The list also included many of thenation’s labor unions, which are also

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11326 October 29, 2000pushing for some of the provisions ofthis bill, including: American Federa-tion of Teachers, which has given atleast $820,000 so far during this electioncycle; and the International Brother-hood of Electrical Workers, which hasgiven more than $853,000 in soft moneyduring the period.

Regrettably, many of these institu-tions will see a return on their cam-paign finance investment in the pen-sion provisions of this bill. More re-grettably still, the working family isnot likely to see much of any benefit atall.

Mr. President, I am troubled, as well,that the school construction projectsin this bill—being paid for, in part,with Federal tax credits for the bond-holders—will not be subject to theDavis-Bacon Act. The Davis-Bacon Actensures that construction workers onFederal construction sites get paid afair wage for a days’ work by requiringthat those workers be paid the localprevailing wage.

The worker protections embodied inthe Davis-Bacon Act are essential, andone specific set of Federal constructionprojects—and the workers who buildthem—should not be deprived of theseprotections. I am deeply concernedthat some in this body are attemptingto alter the protections under theDavis-Bacon Act without a substantivedebate.

Yes, Mr. President, this bill does in-clude a long-overdue increase in theminimum wage. I have long supportedthat increase. Congress should havepassed it two years ago, and we shouldhave passed it in a straightforward bill,clean of tax give-aways.

Sadly, it has become the habit of thismajority to extract a series of tax sub-sidies in exchange for a minimum wageincrease. And what is worse is that thecost of these subsidies is increasing. In1996, the Congress had to pass $20 bil-lion in tax cuts to get an increase inthe minimum wage. Sadly, the cost ofthat minimum wage increase in termsof tax subsidies extracted has grownexponentially.

Another section of this bill would re-instate and expand the Foreign SalesCorporation—or FSC—export tax sub-sidy. We ought to be skeptical of sub-sidies, whether provided through thetax code, through appropriated pro-grams, or through entitlements. Ingeneral, the best policy is to let freemarkets work. The FSC export tax sub-sidy does not do that.

While the FSC export tax subsidymay provide a very small benefit tocertain firms that produce exports orthat produce goods abroad, it also trig-gers increases in U.S. imports, so thatits net effect on our balance of trade isprobably negligible. As the Congres-sional Research Service explains, theFSC tax subsidy increases foreign pur-chases of U.S. exports, but to buy theU.S. products, foreigners require moredollars. That, in turn, increases de-mand for U.S. dollars, driving up theprice of the dollar in foreign exchange

markets and making U.S. exports moreexpensive. This partly offsets the effectof the FSC in increasing U.S. exports.This effect also makes imports to theUnited States cheaper, which causesU.S. imports to increase.

The bottom line, Mr. President, isthat while some firms may enjoy in-creased export sales, other firms willlose business and jobs because of in-creased imports.

This special tax subsidy thus hasbenefits and costs. The firms that qual-ify for this export subsidy gain a ben-efit, of course, but so too do foreignconsumers. CRS notes that the FSCtax subsidy produces a transfer of eco-nomic welfare from the United Statesto consumers abroad when part of thetax benefit is passed on to foreign con-sumers as reduced prices for U.S.goods. U.S. taxpayers are paying tokeep these exports cheap for foreignconsumers.

But there are other costs, as well.First, and perhaps most obviously, thebillions of dollars we spend through theFSC export tax subsidy could otherwisebe used to lower the tax burden onbusinesses and individuals, or to lowerthe level of our massive national debt.And as with other special tax breaks,the FSC export tax subsidy distorts themarketplace, and makes our economyless efficient.

There is also an additional and po-tentially huge cost that may be im-posed on American firms and workersbecause of this FSC subsidy: whatamounts to a possible multi-billiondollar tax imposed by the World TradeOrganization on American productsthat are purchased in European Unioncountries that could mean lost busi-ness and jobs.

I am no fan of the World Trade Orga-nization. I opposed the 1994 legislationthat implemented the most recent Gen-eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,or GATT, in large part because it cre-ated this undemocratic, unaccountable,often secretive international organiza-tion known as the World Trade Organi-zation or WTO.

As my colleagues know, the reasonwe are considering changes to the FSCexport tax subsidy is because of a WTOruling that this tax break is an illegalsubsidy. If we fail to change our taxlaws to comply with this ruling, we canexpect billions in punitive tariffs to belevied against American goods ex-ported to the European Union.

While the FSC tax subsidy may bebad tax policy, it is our tax policy—apolicy arrived at through the electedrepresentatives of the people of thisNation. The ability of some inter-national bureaucracy to effectively im-pose punitive taxes or tariffs on Amer-ican goods should offend us all. Unfor-tunately, that is what we face becauseof the action Congress took in 1994 toratify the GATT, and unless we elimi-nate the FSC export tax subsidy,American firms and American workersare at risk.

Regrettably, the proposed expansionof the FSC may not remove this threat.

Mr. President, I have grave concernsthat the WTO will see this expandedtax break as little more than a recon-figuration of the existing tax subsidyfor exports. At a briefing for Senatestaff on this issue, the Treasury De-partment conceded that not a singlebusiness currently able to use this ex-port subsidy will lose its tax break. In-deed, the export tax subsidy has beenexpanded to provide an even larger sub-sidy for foreign military sales.

If the WTO rules that this changedoes not comply with its previous rul-ing, our businesses and workers willface billions in punitive tariffs on thegoods they produce. That is what is atstake here. The proponents of this leg-islation are willing to risk billions intariffs on American goods rather thaneliminate this questionable tax expend-iture.

It would be better economic policyand better fiscal policy simply to re-peal the FSC altogether.

I am particularly troubled, Mr. Presi-dent, by the provision of the FSC ex-port tax subsidy section of this billthat would actually double the currenttax benefit for arms sales.

That is right, Mr. President, this billwould double the tax benefit currentlyenjoyed by U.S. companies that sellweapons abroad.

Had the Senate been able to considerthis bill under the Senate’s regularprocedures, I would have joined in anamendment by the Senator from Min-nesota, Mr. WELLSTONE, that wouldhave sought to correct this problem byreinstating the current tax benefit forarms sales.

United States arms manufacturerscontinue to lead the world in conven-tional arms sales to developing coun-tries, both in terms of arms transferagreements and in terms of arms deliv-ered to the countries of the developingworld. Conventional arms sales includesuch items as aircraft, tanks, completeweapons systems, spare parts, upgradesfor previously purchased items, andmunitions; as well as training and sup-port services for the items purchased.

This August, the Congressional Re-search Service released its annual re-port, Conventional Arms Transfers toDeveloping Nations. This 79-page re-port details the worldwide arms trans-fer business conducted with developingnations from 1992 through 1999. Duringthat eight-year period, the UnitedStates entered into arms-transferagreements with developing nationsworth in excess of $62.7 billion. Ournearest competitor, France, enteredinto agreements with developing na-tions worth just about half of thattotal, $31.6 billion.

During that same eight-year period,the United States delivered arms worthin excess of $84 billion to the countriesof the developing world. The UnitedKingdom ranked a distant second withdeliveries totaling $37.7 billion—lessthan half the value of the arms deliv-ered by the United States.

And those numbers represent onlythe arms agreements and deliveries

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11327October 29, 2000with the countries of the developingworld. When we add in the arms agree-ments and deliveries to our worldwidecustomers, the numbers rise even high-er. During the same period, the UnitedStates also ranked first in worldwidearms transfer agreements with an as-tonishing $104 billion dollars worth ofagreements. Russia comes in a distantsecond with $31.2 billion in worldwidearms transfer agreements.

And during those eight years, theUnited States delivered a total of morethan $124 billion worth of arms world-wide. Russia again came in second with$21.6 billion in deliveries.

In both instances—arms transferagreements and arms actually deliv-ered—the vast majority of UnitedStates arms transactions were con-ducted with the countries of the devel-oping world.

As you can see from these numbers,Mr. President, the United States hasno real competitors in the arms trans-fer business. And the United Stateswill continue to lead the world in armssales into the foreseeable future, be-cause those who would buy arms wantto buy them from American manufac-turers. It is that simple. These compa-nies are already making millions andmillions of dollars from these saleseach year. And they are already receiv-ing substantial tax benefits. There isno need to double that benefit.

In fact, as I noted earlier with regardto the entire FSC export tax subsidy, Iwould argue that we should actually betalking about eliminating this benefitentirely. At the very least, we shouldmaintain the current level—we shouldnot double this subsidy.

This 100 percent increase in the taxbenefit for arms sales is opposed bysuch groups as the Council for aLiveable World Education Fund, theGeneral Board of Church and Society ofthe United Methodist Church, the Jus-tice and Witness Ministries of theUnited Church of Christ, NETWORK,the Church of the Brethren, theFriends Committee on National Legis-lation, the National Council of Church-es of Christ in the USA, the MennoniteCentral Committee, and the MaryknollMission Association of the Faithful.

The world is already a very dan-gerous place. The Congress should notbe increasing the subsidy for U.S. com-panies to sell weapons abroad.

Make no mistake about the impor-tance of this piece of legislation toarms manufacturers and other businessinterests who would benefit from thevarious tax subsidies contained in thisbill. As you know, wealthy interestsdon’t just sit idly by on the sidelineswaiting for us to act on this kind oflegislation. They lobby to insert favor-able provisions into a bill, and oncethey secure a special deal, they lobbyto keep it in the bill. And when I say‘‘lobbying,’’ I mean more than a visitor a phone call to staff—I mean cam-paign contributions, Mr. President,millions upon millions of dollarsworth.

As we discuss the legislation beforeus, we cannot ignore the presence ofpowerful monied interests. I have oftenlikened campaign contributions to an800-pound gorilla that’s in this cham-ber every day—nobody talks abouthim, but he cannot be ignored. On thisissue as well, I refuse to ignore the 800pound gorilla who’s throwing hisweight around in our political process.Instead I choose to Call the Bankroll,to inform my colleagues and the publicof the contributions made by wealthyinterests seeking to influence what wedo here on this floor.

On this provision of the bill, I feel itis once again very important to take amoment to review the campaign con-tributions of the defense industry. As Ihave said, this bill would double thetax benefit currently enjoyed by U.S.companies that sell weapons abroad.This bill means a huge bonanza forarms manufacturers. It is only appro-priate to take a look at the bonanza ofcontributions they have provided tothe political parties.

Many members of the BusinessRoundtable, an organization which hasurged the passage of this legislation,are some of the biggest arms manufac-turers in the U.S., and some of the big-gest political donors. I’d like to reviewthe contributions of some of these com-panies. These figures are for contribu-tions through at least the first 15months of the election cycle, and insome cases include contributions givenmore recently in the cycle.

Lockheed Martin, its executives andsubsidiaries have given more than$861,000 in soft money, and more than$881,000 in PAC money so far duringthis election cycle.

United Technologies and its subsidi-aries have given more than $293,000 insoft money and more than $240,000 inPAC money during the period.

During that period, Raytheon hasgiven more than $251,000 in soft moneyto the parties and more than $397,000 inPAC money to Federal candidates.

Textron has contributed more than$173,000 in soft money and more than$205,000 in PAC money.

And last but not least, Boeing hasgiven more than $583,000 in soft moneysince the election cycle began, andmore than $593,000 in PAC contribu-tions.

Mr. President, these defense compa-nies are getting a one hundred percentincrease in an already unnecessary taxbreak, and frankly I wonder why. Iwonder why we would double a taxbreak for the defense industry, whenwe haven’t passed a Patient’s Bill ofRights, when we haven’t providedMedicare coverage for prescriptiondrugs, and when we haven’t passed somany other important measures thatAmericans really care about.

Sadly, it appears that there is a pret-ty simple way to figure out why wedole out corporate tax breaks while weneglect the priorities of the Americanpeople. All you have to do is follow thedollar.

Mr. President, this bill thus amplyproves the adage that ‘‘a bad tree can-not bear good fruit.’’ We should revisethe procedures that allow such a mon-strosity to be loaded into a conferencereport on an unrelated matter. And weshould reject this bill, whose rottenprovisions outnumber its sound ones.

EXHIBIT 1[From The Washington Post, Oct. 26, 2000]

SAY GOODBYE TO THE SURPLUS

Congressional Republican reached agree-ment yesterday on the contents of the taxcut bill they intend to send the president be-fore adjourning. They suggest it’s a rel-atively minor measure, but it’s not. If it be-comes law atop all the spending increasesalso agreed to in this session, Congress andthe president will have used up, before theelection, well over a third of the projectedbudget surplus—the $2.2 trillion over 10 yearsin other than Social Security funds—thatthe presidential candidates are so busily dis-tending on the campaign trail. It’s an aston-ishing display of lack of discipline and mis-placed priorities.

The president sent a letter implying thathe might sign the tax bill even while object-ing to major parts. He ought instead to vetoit if congressional Democrats won’t block itfirst. As with the other Republican tax cutshe vetoed earlier in the year, this would costtoo much—an estimated quarter-trillion dol-lars over the 10 years—and too much of themoney would go to the part of the popu-lation least in need.

In the name of increasing access to healthcare, the legislation would grant a new taxdeduction to people who buy their own insur-ance. The deduction would mainly benefitthose in the top tax brackets who tend al-ready to be insured. The president observedthat, far from increasing access, it wouldhave the perverse effect of inducing employ-ers to drop insurance they now maintain fortheir employees. Among much else, the billwould also increase the amounts that can becontributed annually to tax-favored retire-ment accounts, a step that by definition ben-efits only those who can afford to save themaximum now.

The health insurance deduction was part ofthe Republicans’ price for the $1-an-hour in-crease in the minimum wage that the billalso contains. The price is too high. Also inthe bill will be so-called Medicare givebacks,increases in payments to providers that thepresident earlier objected were tilted infavor of managed care companies alreadyoverpaid. This is on balance a bad bill dustedwith confectioner’s sugar and offered up atyear’s end on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Theright response would be to vote it down.

EXHIBIT 2

CENTER ON BUDGETAND POLICY PRIORITIES,

Washington, DC, October 26, 2000.LEADERSHIP’S TAX PLAN REINFORCES

INEQUITIES IN HEALTH AND PENSION COVERAGE

TAX CUTS PRIMARILY BENEFIT HIGH-INCOMEHOUSEHOLD AND COULD REDUCE HEALTH ANDPENSION COVERAGE FOR LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME WORKERS

Congress will shortly consider a significanttax package developed by the House and Sen-ate Republican leadership. Despite some ben-eficial provisions in the bill, such as the $1increase in the minimum wage phases-inover the next two years, the bill’s tax provi-sions will primarily benefit those-with highincomes. In developing the package, theleadership dropped bipartisan provisions—such as the retirement savings tax credit andthe small business tax credit adopted by the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11328 October 29, 2000Senate Finance Committee and the Medicaidaccess provisions adopted by the House Com-merce Committee—that could have bene-fitted low- and middle-income workers.Rather, they retained provisions benefitingprimarily those that already have health in-surance and pension coverage. Even moreworrisome is that some of these provisionscould make it more difficult for low- andmoderate-income workers to get health in-surance and pension coverage through theirjobs.

The Joint Committee on Taxation esti-mates the cost of the package to be $240 bil-lion over 10 years. But when combined withanticipated discretionary appropriations, therepeal of the telephone excise tax, newhealth benefits for military retires, andMedicare give-backs as well as the resultinginterest costs, this bill brings the 10-yearcost recent of congressional actions to closeto $1 trillion (see box at the end of thepaper). This Congress will therefore use asubstantial share of the available surpluswithout addressing key priorities, such as re-ducing the ranks of the uninsured or fundingprescription drug benefits. The benefits ofthe leadership’s plan remain focused on thesewho have benefitted the most from the eco-nomic boom, offering little to those who con-tinue to struggle to get ahead.

Nearly two-thirds of the tax cuts in thebill go to the 20 percent of taxpayers withthe highest incomes. The top five percent oftaxpayers receive a greater share of the taxcuts than the bottom 80 percent. Thus thebenefits of the bill are concentrated on thosethat already have high rates of health insur-ance and pension coverage. These estimateswere calculated by the Institute for Taxationand Economic Policy.

The bill’s health insurance deduction is ex-pensive and poorly targeted. This deductionis most valuable to those in the highest taxbrackets, yet those most in need of coveragehave no tax liability or are in the lowest (15percent) bracket. Taxpayers with incomestoo low to pay income taxes would receive noassistance from this deduction. For mosttaxpayers in the 15 percent bracket, the 15-cents-on-the-dollar subsidy that the deduc-tion provides is unlikely to be sufficient tomake costly health insurance affordable.

According to the Joint Tax Committee, ap-proximately 94 percent of the cost of thehealth insurance tax deduction would go tosubsidize taxpayers that already have healthinsurance, with only 6 percent of the taxbenefits going to further the goal of extend-ing health insurance coverage to the unin-sured.

The Council of Economic Advisers, amongother researchers, found that tax deductionsare a very inefficient way of extending cov-erage to the uninsured. A more cost-effectiveapproach is the Administration’sFamilyCare plan, which, at a lower cost,would provide coverage to more than twicethe number of uninsured than the proposedtax deduction.

Because the health care tax deductionwould provide a far deeper percentage sub-sidy for purchasing health insurance to high-er-paid business owners and executives thanto lower-wage earners, it could encouragesome small business owners to drop groupcoverage (or not to institute it in the firstplace) and to rely on the deduction for theirown coverage. As a result, some workerscould be forced to buy more costly and lesscomprehensive insurance on the individualmarket, and the ranks of the uninsured andunder-insured could rise.

The bill also includes tax deductions forlong-term care insurance and long-term careexpenses that would provide the largest ben-efit to higher-income taxpayers. Most low-and middle-income taxpayers would get no

more than a 15 percent subsidy; this is toolittle to enable most of these families to af-ford costs related to long-term care.

Most of the bill’s pension benefits wouldaccrue to higher-income workers who al-ready enjoy high rates of pension coverage.An analysis by the Institute for Taxationand Economic Policy of the bill’s pensionand IRA provisions found that 77 percent ofthe benefits would go to the 20 percent ofAmericans with the highest incomes. Insharp contrast, the bottom 60 percent of thepopulation would receive less than five per-cent of these tax benefits.

Moreover, the bill would likely lead to re-ductions in pension coverage for some low-and middle-income workers and employees ofsmall businesses. For instance, it wouldweaken ‘‘non-discrimination’’ and ‘‘top-heavy’’ rules that ensure company pensionplans treat low-income workers fairly andare not skewed in favor of highly com-pensated workers. It also increases the IRAcontribution limits to $5,000, which couldmake IRAs more attractive than companypension plans for owners of small businesses,possibly leading them to drop plans that ben-efit their workers.

EXHIBIT 3

CENTER ON BUDGET ANDPOLICY PRIORITIES,

Washington, DC, Revised October 18, 2000.

HEALTH INSURANCE DEDUCTION OF LITTLEHELP TO THE UNINSURED

(By Joel Friedman and Iris J. Lav)

House Speaker Dennis Hastert held a pressconference last week in which he called forincluding in the minimum-wage package anew tax deduction for health insurance pre-miums. The deduction would be available totaxpayers that pay at least 50 percent of thecost of their health insurance.

This proposal, which would cost nearly $11billion a year in fiscal year 2010, is a poorlytargeted and expensive way to help the unin-sured obtain coverage. Those most in needwould receive little or no subsidy to helpthem buy insurance. Moreover, the proposalcould have the effect of raising the cost ofinsurance for some workers.

According to an analysis by the JointCommittee on Taxation, approximately 94percent of the cost of the Speaker’s tax de-duction would go to subsidize taxpayers thatalready have health insurance, with only 6percent of the tax benefits going to furtherhis stated goal of extending health insurancecoverage to the uninsured.

The proposed tax deduction is most valu-able to high-income taxpayers, who are inthe higher tax brackets. Nine of every 10 peo-ple without health insurance, however, haveno tax liability or are in the lowest (15 per-cent) tax bracket. Taxpayers with incomestoo low to pay income taxes would receive noassistance in purchasing insurance from thisdeduction. For most taxpayers in the 15 per-cent bracket, the 15-cents-on-the-dollar sub-sidy that the deduction provides is unlikelyto be sufficient to make insurance afford-able.

Because the deduction provides a far-deep-er percentage subsidy for the purchase of in-surance to higher-income business ownersand executives than to lower-income wageearners, it could encourage small businessowners to drop, or fail to institute, groupcoverage and to rely instead on this deduc-tion to help defray the cost of their own cov-erage. As a result, some workers could beforced to buy more costly and less com-prehensive insurance on the individual mar-ket, and the ranks of the uninsured andunderinsured could increase.

New research shows that a far more costeffective way to assist the uninsured, par-

ticularly uninsured children, would be to ex-tend publicly-funded health insurance cov-erage to low-income parents. The Adminis-trator’s FamilyCare plan relies on this ap-proach. At his press conference, however, theSpeaker inappropriately compared his pro-posal to the Administration’s small businesshealth insurance tax credit. The Administra-tion’s tax credit is a very small scale pro-posal compared to the Hastert tax deduction.The Speaker’s proposal costs $10.9 billion ayear by 2010, while the Administration’ssmall business tax credit would cost just $319million over 10 years, according to JCT. Themore-appropriate comparison would havebeen to the Administration’s FamilyCareplan, which the Congressional Budget Officeestimates would cost $8.7 billion in 2010.

Available estimates show that theFamilyCare approach would result in a sub-stantially larger number of currently unin-sured people obtaining insurance coveragethan would the Speaker’s proposed tax de-duction. This is the case despite the some-what lower annual cost of the FamilyCareplan, when both proposals are fully in effect.

A recent report by the Council of Eco-nomic Advisers concludes that tax deduc-tions will do little to improve tax health in-surance coverage and that approaches likeFamilyCare are better at targeting the unin-sured.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Wis-consin yield for a question?

Mr. President, I would want the ques-tion to be on my time, not on his, be-cause he has been given 30 minutes.

May I ask the Senator a question?Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for a ques-

tion.Mr. REID. Prior to asking a question,

I personally appreciate what the Sen-ator from Wisconsin has done on cam-paign finance reform. Would he thinkit is a fair statement to say one of thegross failures of this Congress is thatwe have done nothing to get the moneyout of politics?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it isjust a shame that we have managed toget to the year 2000 election withouthaving any significant action on cam-paign finance reform. We did take thefirst tiny step in the right direction ona strong bipartisan vote by doing some-thing about disclosure by these 527groups that were sort of a scam in themaking, but we did not address theneed to ban soft money which the over-whelming majority of both Houses sup-port and the President is ready to sign.It is a glaring failure of this Congress.

Everybody else in the country knows,including those who supported thecampaign of the Senator from Arizonafor President on the Republican side,that soft money is a real cancer on thesystem. But somehow, again, the Con-gress is behind the people. I can’t helpbut note, in answer to the question,that we are going to make a very im-portant decision in the next few dayson who the next President of theUnited States should be. The candidateof the Democratic Party, AL GORE, haspledged to make the McCain-Feingoldban on soft money the first piece of do-mestic legislation he will introduce,and he has pledged to work for it andsign it when Congress passes it. Thecandidate for the Republicans, Gov-ernor Bush, apparently is prepared toveto it.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11329October 29, 2000So the tragedy, in answer to the

question, of this Congress not acting isthat if somehow Mr. GORE is not elect-ed, we may finally get the 60 votes weneed to break the filibuster but we willhave a President who is not ready to dosomething about the corrosive and cor-rupting influence of money in politics.Of course, the Senator knows from mywork on this, that I consider this to beone of the two or three greatest prob-lems in our society. We just have to dosomething about the corrupting effectof money on our political and legisla-tive system.

Mr. REID. I have a final question. Itis not a complicated issue, is it? Thefact is, one of the things the Senatorwants to do is keep corporate moneyout of politics; that is, have a corpora-tion not be able to write large cor-porate checks or small corporatechecks; keep corporate money out ofpolitics, as was the law early last cen-tury. Isn’t that right?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thatis absolutely right. Let me make itclear, the ban on soft money that Sen-ator MCCAIN, I, and a majority of thisbody support, bans corporate contribu-tions, union contributions, and unlim-ited individual contributions. It is fairand balanced.

The Senator from Nevada is abso-lutely right. People who might be lis-tening to this discussion might say:Well, these kinds of contributions havealways been allowed anyway. That isnot true. These kinds of unlimited con-tributions by corporations, unions, andindividuals really didn’t exist for pur-poses of these television ads until 5, 6years ago. This is a new corrupting in-fluence on our system, the likes ofwhich has not been seen since the turnof the last century. I refer to the turnfrom the 19th to the 20th century. Inanswer to the question of the Senatorfrom Nevada, that is what led to the1907 Tillman Act which prohibited con-tributions by corporations in connec-tion with federal elections, and then,when the unions came into their prom-inence in the middle part of the cen-tury, the Taft-Hartley Act said unionsalso must be prohibited from givingcontributions.

All we are trying to do is put thegenie back in the bottle. Unlimitedcontributions have always been consid-ered inappropriate in our system ofgovernment, and shame on this Con-gress that we can’t see the worst cor-rupting influence in 100 years and thatwe didn’t, before the turn of the cen-tury, shut it down, because it must beshut down.


ator from Utah.Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for

a unanimous consent request?Mr. HATCH. I am happy to.Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent

that following the remarks of the Sen-ator from Utah, the Senator from Illi-nois be recognized for 15 minutes.


GRANTING AMNESTY TO ILLEGALALIENS

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise tomake some points that need to be madeat the end of the session.

Here we are, running right up againstelection time, and we are being heldhostage because the President of theUnited States wants to grant amnestyto up to 4 million illegal aliens, peoplewho haven’t played by the rules,haven’t paid the price, who literallywant to jump over those who haveplayed by the rules and who belonghere—this blanket amnesty all for thepurpose of politics.

In fact, I heard one of the leadingDemocrats say: Boy, Telemundo andall of the Hispanic newspapers are real-ly playing this up.

Well, that might be true in the His-panic media, but I think Hispanic peo-ple in this country want fairness aboveeverything else. I think they knowwhat is going on here. They know darnwell they are being played, and theyare being played in a vicious way.

I once again urge President Clintonnot to veto the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill the Senatepassed on Friday.

President Clinton has threatened aveto because we did not include his so-called Latino Fairness Act. But wehave included something much betterthan his Latino Fairness Act: theLegal Immigration Family Equity Act,the LIFE Act.

This act reunites families and re-stores due process to those who haveplayed by the rules. Our proposal doesnot pit one nationality against an-other, nor does it pit one race againstanother. Our legislation provides reliefto immigrants from all countries, notjust special countries. A veto of CJSwould be a blow against immigrantfairness. But a veto would do far morethan that.

A veto would cut off funding for someof our most important programs. TheCJS appropriation allocates $4.8 billionfor the Immigration and Naturaliza-tion Service and an additional $15.7million for Border Patrol equipmentupgrades. It provides $3.3 billion for theFBI and $221 million for training,equipment, and research and develop-ment programs to combat domesticterrorism. We are not playing aroundhere. This is important stuff. I don’tthink it is right to be playing politicswith the lives of immigrants at the endof the session just to obtain somecheap political advantage.

There is $4.3 billion allocated for theFederal prison system in CJS. That ismoney we need to run the prison sys-tem and to treat people with due proc-ess. Then we have $1.3 billion for theDrug Enforcement Administration.This is critical to our fight against ille-gal drugs in this country. There is $288million for the Violence AgainstWomen Act. That is legislation that Ihave strongly supported and that pro-vides assistance to battered women andchildren through a variety of differentprograms.

Actions have consequences. If Presi-dent Clinton vetoes this bill, he is put-ting the public safety and well-being atrisk both at home and abroad, all in aneffort to play wedge politics. ThePresident’s veto threats ring hollow be-cause this appropriations bill providesmany proposals to help immigrants.The President himself has stated hewants to ‘‘keep families together andto make our immigration policies moreequitable.’’

This is exactly what our LIFE Actthat we have in the appropriations billdoes. Had the White House proposedthis during President Clinton’s first 7years in office, he might have been ableto develop a mandate to grant amnestyto millions of undocumented aliens,aliens who have broken our laws. Butno such mandate exists.

The American people need to knowthat the INS, the FBI, and the BorderPatrol are being brought to the brinkof a shutdown because President Clin-ton wants Congress to grant amnestyfor up to 4 million illegal aliens, peoplewho haven’t played by the rules.

When we fought the H–1B legislationon the floor, many on the other sidepointed out the difficulties of legal im-migrant families. They pointed outthat children needed to be reunitedwith their parents, that spouses neededto be reunited with their husbands andwives. I said I would try to do some-thing about that.

We realized there was a problem withthe late amnesty class of 1982 whoqualified for residency under the 1986Act. We said we would try to do some-thing about that, and the LIFE Actdoes. The American people are a fairpeople. The LIFE Act will take care of1 million people who either don’t havedue process or who need to be reunitedwith their families. It takes care ofthem first rather than granting am-nesty to up to 4 million illegal peoplewho haven’t played by the rules, whichis what the President wants to do.Fairness dictates that we not grantamnesty to millions of illegal alienswhen there are 3.5 million people whohave played by the rules waiting tocome to the United States. The Presi-dent should remember this inequitableproposal and reconsider what he wantsto do here.

Let me say a couple of other things.I have even let the White House knowthat to determine if there are furtherinequities we will hold hearings rightafter we come back at the first of theyear, and we will find out what needsto be done to restructure INS, if nec-essary, to make sure they treat peoplewith more respect. We will considerthese people who President Clintonwould like to help. But most of themare here illegally and without furtherinformation, we think they should notbe jumped above or in front of thesepeople who aren’t here legally or whohave been waiting in line to be re-united with their families.

We brought both sides together inthis LIFE Act and brought a variety of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11330 October 29, 2000different people into this. But there aresome people who don’t want any immi-gration to our country. They may livein States that are overrun with illegalimmigrants; at least some of them do.Others don’t seem to care about anyrules, and I suspect the President is inthat category. But we have broughtthese people together in the LIFE Actto resolve the problems that were men-tioned during the H–1B debate. Bygosh, I think it is time for the Presi-dent to sign this bill and get aboutdoing the Nation’s business. He shouldquit playing wedge politics with theseissues that are highly inflammable andabout which he can blame people in il-legitimate and wrongful ways.

I have worked very hard, along witha number of others, to bring this aboutin a way that is equitable, fair, andtakes care of those who first need to betaken care of, with promises to holdhearings to see if there are any otherswho need the help and fairness that wecan grant. That is the best we can dothis year. That is the best we can do atthe end of this session. It is the best wecan do in bringing people together.

I think we have done a good job get-ting it done, and I hope the Presidentwill go along with our proposal so wecan continue funding the INS, the Bor-der Patrol, the FBI, training and equip-ment research and development pro-grams to combat domestic terrorism,the Federal prison system, and theDrug Enforcement Administration. Wemust enact the CJS Appropriationsinto law because it funds things thatare absolutely critical to this country.Moreover, it makes it possible for 1million people to get permanent resi-dency, people who have been waiting inline, have paid the price, and played bythe rules.

This is a front-page issue in the His-panic media, but most Americans don’tknow what the President is trying todo because the mainstream media isnot reporting this issue. The Americanpeople need to know what is going onhere. I think it is a crass approach toplay wedge politics at the end of thissession, holding us hostage so we can’tget home and campaign and do what weneed to do. Right now, I would muchrather be home in Utah than here inWashington. But as long as we have tobe here, I am going to make thesepoints to try to help all immigrants,including Hispanics to receive fairtreatment by the INS and by our immi-gration policies.

I am a cochairman of the RepublicanSenatorial Hispanic Task Force. Istarted it a number of years ago tomake sure Hispanics are treated fairlyand that Hispanic issues are given theattention they deserve. We have donean awful lot in this area, and I thinkthe LIFE Act is a very good piece oflegislation that will take us far downthe road. Additionally, we have made apromise to hold hearings next year tosee if there are any other inequitiesthat need to be remedied. We will beglad to do that.

We have 535 Members of Congress anda wide variety of viewpoints. I thinkwe have brought them together in away that will work and solve some ofthese problems.


ator from Illinois is recognized.Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wonder

if the Senator from Utah would stay onthe floor for a moment. It is my under-standing that, as chairman of the Sen-ate Committee, the Senator from Utahhas jurisdiction over immigrationissues. I am trying to recall. In the last2 years, the only major immigrationbill that I can recall was the H–1B visabill that we considered. Is my memoryaccurate on that?

Mr. HATCH. I don’t think it is. Wehave held a number of hearings. TheSubcommittee on Immigration holdshearings, which is chaired by SenatorABRAHAM and the ranking member,Senator KENNEDY. We have been tryingto do an agricultural bill, H–1B, H–1A.There are a whole raft of things wehave been trying to do. We have alsoworked consistently on the committeewith the INS, the administration, andthe Justice Department to resolveproblems. I work on them all the time.

Mr. DURBIN. Was there a billbrought to the floor from the Sub-committee on Immigration that dealtwith the larger issues that the Senatoris now addressing other than H–1B dur-ing the last 2 years?

Mr. HATCH. The visa waiver bill wasbrought to the floor. As I understands,we have had 8 years of this administra-tion and they haven’t brought any-thing to the floor either, nor have theyasked us to do anything here.

Mr. DURBIN. Senator HARRY REID ofNevada, Senator KENNEDY, and I haveeach introduced bills relative to thethree elements the administration isurging and they have been pending formonths now.

Frankly, I understand the good faithof the Senator from Utah, but when weliterally have hundreds of thousands ofpeople across America whose fate ishanging in the balance here on a deci-sion to be made by the Senate and wehave not seen on the Senate floor—other than the H–1B visa bill—frankly,some bills of smaller consequence, Ithink perhaps the Senator from Utahcan understand the anxiety and con-cern of these families.

I deal with these families all thetime, and I am sure the Senator does,too. Two out of three of my con-stituent cases coming into the Chicagooffice deal with immigration. I hearthese heartbreaking stories about fam-ilies that are torn apart because ofsome of the laws we have passed, thefailure of this Congress to respond tothis. And I, frankly, have urged thePresident to take the position he hastaken—don’t go home and leave thesepoor families out there, frankly, lan-guishing because we failed to addressthree basic things. We failed to say weare going to give those refugees who

have come to this country and havefaced the same kind of political perse-cution as refugees from Nicaragua andCuba—we believe they should receiveequal and fair treatment. I don’t thinkthat is a radical idea. Secondly, 245(i)says if you are going to get a chance tofinally get your green card and becomea naturalized citizen, go through theprocess, we think it is an unreasonablehardship to force you to go back toyour country of origin and apply for avisa, which is an economic hardshipand, in many cases, a danger that fami-lies should not go through.

I can’t imagine why that is a radicalidea. The idea of updating the registryin this country that we have used to af-fect immigrants has been updated regu-larly since 1929. We are not bringing aradical notion to the Senate. In fact,we are following the tradition of Demo-cratic and Republican administrations,and we have not had a bill come to thefloor.

We have hundreds of thousands ofpeople whose lives hang in the balance.Frankly, I can understand the positionof the President, and I agree with him.I am sorry we have not had hearings onthis issue nor brought it to the floor;but to say that it is something wemight look at next year is cold comfortto these people who, frankly, face thefear of being extradited or somehow re-moved from this country in a situationthat could be a great hardship to theirfamilies.

I say to the Senator from Utah, thereis another side to the story. I deal withit every day in my Chicago office andall across Illinois.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will allowme to respond, yes, there is anotherside of the story. I work on it all thetime. A high percentage of people whocome to my office have immigrationproblems. I work very hard to try to re-solve them. But for 71⁄2 years the ad-ministration has not raised this. Wehave had hearings on restructuring INSand straightening out some of theproblems. But for 71⁄2 years, the INShas fought against the 1982 people whowe resolved in this bill called the LIFEAct that is in this bill.

The Clinton administration INS hasfought the 1982 class’ efforts to get dueprocess every year since I have beenhere. It is one of the things that Iwanted resolved, we have resolved itwith the LIFE Act.

With regard to 245(i), I would like todo more, to be honest with you. Butthat is a minor problem compared tobringing in before them people who ba-sically are illegal and who haven’tplayed by the rules.

Mr. DURBIN. May I ask the Sen-ator——

Mr. HATCH. If you would let me fin-ish my thought.

Mr. DURBIN. I want to ask you aquestion specifically on that point.

Mr. HATCH. Here is the problem.This was never faced by the adminis-tration until the spring of last year.

Mr. DURBIN. I have to say to theSenator that I sent a letter along with

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11331October 29, 2000Senator KENNEDY and Senator REIDasking, I think almost a year ago, forthis matter to be considered.

Mr. HATCH. You may have donethat. The administration has fought uson these issues, and frankly——

Mr. DURBIN. The administrationsupports our position.

Mr. HATCH. They do now and theydidn’t then. They support it now forcrass political purposes.

Let me say one other thing. The Sen-ator has been on the Judiciary Com-mittee. He knows these are hot-buttonissues, and hot-button issues are verydifficult issues to handle. He knows Iwant to solve these problems. But healso knows that there is a wide dis-parity of belief in both bodies, and it isalmost impossible to bring everybodytogether and solve every problem, justlike that. We have done our best.

Mr. DURBIN. We have not had a voteon this floor on this, have we?

Mr. HATCH. We have on the LIFEAct. It is part of the bill.

Mr. DURBIN. In terms of what wehave proposed—the three bills we haveproposed—I don’t believe we have had avote on the floor on them.

Mr. HATCH. I don’t think we have.Mr. DURBIN. There are a number of

people who have criticized Congress be-cause we can’t act in a bipartisan fash-ion. Frankly, we don’t get a chance toact, if we can’t bring a bill to thefloor—and if we can’t have amend-ments and if we can’t have debates andvotes.

Mr. HATCH. One reason why it is dif-ficult to do so is because of the widedisparity of different beliefs, and if oneHouse or the other won’t let it come tothe floor.

Mr. DURBIN. If the only mattersthat we can consider are matter of con-sensus, what in the world has thisChamber turned into? Why are weafraid of debate and amendments?

Mr. HATCH. That is not my point. Inthis climate, any single Senator canstop anything. In the House of Rep-resentatives, any block of Members canstop anything. These are hot-buttonissues, and I think it is pretty amazingwhat we have been able to get done.

Mr. DURBIN. Let me reclaim mytime.

Mr. HATCH. Can I make one lastcomment with the indulgence of myfriend?

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.Mr. HATCH. President Clinton prop-

erly signed the 1996 immigration bill.But now weeks before election day heseeks to turn the 1996 act on its head.

I, too, want to help constituents. Butputting several million people who vio-lated the immigration laws ahead ofthe line of the 3.5 million people whoare legitimately waiting and havewaited for years to come here legally,it seems to me, is wrong.

Mr. DURBIN. I was happy to yield tothe Senator from Utah.

Mr. HATCH. Especially under thesecircumstances.

Mr. DURBIN. But I certainly want toadd a few things.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor.Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this

image is being created under this im-migration act that we are talkingabout people who managed to sneakinto the United States illegally andwho have lived their lives in violationof the law and are now trying to sneakinto citizenship. There are people likethat, I am sure, but they are an ex-tremely small minority.

The vast majority of people we areconcerned about are people such asSarah. Sarah is a 19-year-old girl insouthern California. She was born inMexico and adopted at the age of 4.English is her primary language. Shelives at home with her family. She isadored by her parents and her fiveolder siblings. She is also an illegal im-migrant. Why is she an illegal immi-grant? It turns out that Sarah’s par-ents made a crucial mistake at thetime of adoption. They didn’t apply forcitizenship. The family wrongly as-sumed that she automatically becamea citizen when they completed the for-mal adoption procedures in the Cali-fornia courtroom. No one told themthey had to file separately for citizen-ship. It was only last year when theydecided to take a trip to Mexico andasked for a passport that they realizedSarah is here illegally.

Is this someone who managed tosneak across the border and is living inviolation of the law?

There are thousands of Sarahs whoare, frankly, looking for relief in Con-gress and who can make a contributionto the United States.

But the fact that we have notbrought a serious immigration bill—but for one H–1B visa bill—before Con-gress is the reason this President hasput his foot down and said: Congress,don’t go home until you address thisproblem.

There are people such as Sarahacross America who deserve fair treat-ment. Frankly, they have been ignored.

I count the Senator from Utah as myfriend. But I have to say that the Sen-ate Judiciary Committee has not takenup this issue. They have ignored it. Heidentified the reason: It is controver-sial.

When you talk about immigrants,there are a lot of people who say Iknow how to exploit that issue. Let metell you something. I know that is thecase in my home State of Illinois. ButI happen to be the son of an immigrant.I am very proud of the fact that I servein this Senate as the son of immi-grants. And many of us in this countrylook to our parents and grandparentsas immigrants with great pride.

We should look at immigration fairlyand honestly and in a legal way. Youcan’t do it if you run away from a de-bate on immigration law the way wehave in the Senate for the last twoyears.

President Clinton, hold your ground.For those across America who arewaiting for us to do the fair and rightand equitable thing for immigrants,

hold your ground. Insist that this Sen-ate, before it goes home, and this Con-gress, before it leaves to go back tocampaign, are fair to those acrossAmerica who are looking to be treatedequitably and justly under our immi-gration system.

I am responding, of course, to whatthe Senator from Utah raised as anissue. It wasn’t the reason I came tothe floor, but I feel passionately aboutit.

Senator KENNEDY, Senator REID, andmyself are the three major sponsors ofthe measure on which President Clin-ton is insisting. They can add, I amsure, during the course of this debatetheir strong feelings as well.f

CHOOSING A PRESIDENT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in just afew days the American people get tomake one of the most important deci-sions that we are ever called on tomake, and that is to choose a leader forour country. It appears from all of thepolls that the American people justcan’t decide. The polls go up and downevery single week. You see one can-didate ahead one week and anothercandidate ahead the next. Frankly, theverdict of public opinion will be ren-dered on November 7, and we will de-cide the leader for the next 4 years.

Many of us believe this is a decisionof importance way beyond 4 years. Wethink the next President is going tochart a course for many years to come.

We have to make a very basic deci-sion.

Frankly, if you believe that the Pres-idency is an easy responsibility, and ifyou believe that America will run for-ward in a positive way on automaticpilot, then I think, frankly, you mightbe inclined to vote for Governor Bushbecause he has spoken in very generalterms about what he thinks aboutAmerica. He has made specific pro-posals, which are fairly radical depar-tures from what we have been, and hesays everything is going to be fine; infact, it will be better.

Many of us, though, can remembersomething that perhaps Governor Bushnever experienced. He was not a Gov-ernor in Texas during the period oftime when we dealt with the worstdeficits in the history of the UnitedStates in Washington. Under Presi-dents Reagan and Bush, we dealt withdeficits that were crippling to thisAmerican economy. I saw it in myhome State of Illinois with high unem-ployment and high inflation. Peopleweren’t building homes and weren’tstarting businesses. It was a very badtime. We were in a recession. We paid abitter price for it—families and busi-nesses across America. Thank good-ness, in 1993, we turned a corner andstarted moving forward. Some of thethings that have happened since are ab-solutely historic.

If you take a look, since March 1991—which goes back to the Bush Presi-dency for a few months—we have had

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11332 October 29, 2000115 months of straight economic expan-sion, the longest in the history of theUnited States.

Governor Bush may not rememberwhat it was like back in the old dayswhen we would get 12 months or so ofeconomic expansion. But that is whatAmerica truly was like.

Look at what happened to the infla-tion rate during that same period oftime.

In 1980, the inflation rate was over 12percent. Then it went down at the endof the administration of Jimmy Carter.Of course, it went down and it stayeddown. But we have kept the inflationrate at the lowest sustained level since1965.

These things don’t happen easily orautomatically. Those who think Gov-ernor Bush can come to it with little orno experience and keep it going have toanswer some questions. Will he be ableto do as we have done in the last 8years—create 22 million new jobs? Hisfather created 21⁄2 million jobs duringhis 4 years; President Reagan, 16 mil-lion during his 8 years. Twenty-twomillion is a record, and it is a record ofwhich we are proud. It means peoplehave a chance.

But we can see Presidents who cameon board such as former PresidentBush who really didn’t have good luckwhen it came to job creation and get-ting people back to work.

Take a look at Federal spending.The Republicans criticize Democrats

as big spenders. Look what has hap-pened to Federal spending as a percent-age of our gross domestic product. Ithas gone to one of the lowest levelssince 1966. We have seen Federal spend-ing heading down and we are beingcriticized for being big spenders. Thefact is, we have not been. Just the op-posite is true: For the people often leftbehind, the lowest poverty rate in 20years; African Americans and HispanicAmericans with the highest employ-ment rates in modern memory; im-provement in education scores, an indi-cation that everybody gets a chance toimprove in this country.

The overall surplus we have seen gen-erated is the largest in our history: $237billion under the Clinton-Gore admin-istration. Look at the red ink underPresidents Reagan and Bush in theearly years of Clinton-Gore and how weturned the corner. There are those whothink that will continue, but it isn’ttrue. If we go the wrong way on criticaldecisions, we will pay the price.

The American Academy of Actuariescame out with their report last week.They took a look at Governor Bush’sproposal for Social Security and theysaid we would return to Federal budgetdeficits around 2015 under George W.Bush’s proposal. This group, which isnonpartisan, and is supposed to knowbasically more than most of us when itcomes to accounting and actuary prac-tice, concluded that Governor Bush’splan to cut taxes and divert Social Se-curity payroll tax for individual ac-counts would make it all but impos-

sible to eliminate the publicly held na-tional debt.

There is the choice, America. Achoice for the next 4 years is whetherwe will continue to make sure that weinvest in America, keep the economymoving forward, use fiscal disciplineand fiscal conservatism, if you will, tomake sure we pay down the nationaldebt. I don’t believe, nor does VicePresident GORE, for that matter, thatwe should risk the Social Security sys-tem by taking $1 trillion out of it,something that Governor Bushcouldn’t even explain in the last de-bate. How do you take $1 trillion out ofSocial Security and then go ahead andspend the $1 trillion, except at the ex-pense of Social Security recipients?Are you going to cut the benefits? Areyou going to increase their payrolltaxes? Are you going to change the re-tirement age?

All of these things are options thatnone of us want to face. If you take anapproach, and he suggested you mayhave no other alternative, you mayfind yourselves battling away at astock market which looks a lot likethe roller coaster at Coney Island inSenator MOYNIHAN’s home State.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. COL-LINS). The time of the Senator is ex-pired.

The Senator from Nevada.Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent

that the Senator from Massachusetts,Mr. KENNEDY, be recognized for 30 min-utes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Massachusetts.f

WORK OF THE SENATE

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Ithank the Senator from Nevada. I com-mend my friend and colleague, the Sen-ator from Illinois, in raising theseissues. I commend him because he haspresented the facts to the Senate.

We never had an opportunity to voteon the 1996 Immigration Act. To rep-resent that we did is not stating clear-ly the facts. That was wrapped into aconference report on an entirely dif-ferent appropriation, which was a take-it-or-leave-it, after the legislationpassed, I believe, 97–3, with strong bi-partisan support, and it was after daysof hearing in the Senate that the Re-publicans took that and added theseprovisions, some provisions which theSenator has mentioned.

This figure of 4 million is a tradi-tional way of distorting and misrepre-senting a position, and then dis-agreeing with it. That is poppycock. Itis red herring. The Senator from Utahought to know better than that be-cause that is completely inaccurate.

I can understand the frustration thatmany feel about this issue, and I com-mend the President for attempting totry and deal with it.

When we had this Latino FairnessAct, two prominent Republicans, theSenator from Florida and the chairmanof the immigration committee, made

statements in favor of the position out-lined by the Senator from Illinois.They were prepared. They understoodthat there may have been differenceshere, but they spoke to it.

The President is in a commendableposition. I thank him for his leadershipin this. I again thank the Senator fromIllinois for bringing this matter to theattention of the Senate. I am veryhopeful that we will stay the course onthis until we get some action on this,another proposal that has a morato-rium on the deportation of individuals,which has been passed through theHouse on the suspension calendarwhich addresses one of the regrettableaspects of the 1996 act. That has the bi-partisan support of Chairman HYDE ofthe Judiciary Committee, and LAMARSMITH from the immigration com-mittee, which virtually passed unani-mously in the House. I am hopeful wewill pass that, as well.

Halloween is here. I am watching theclock that is over the Senate rightnow. It has not been corrected. I don’tknow whether the goblins are out here,as well, but Halloween is here. Whilethe Nation observes this occasion onlyonce a year, for this Republican Con-gress, every day is Halloween. This isthe Halloween Congress: lavishingtreats on the wealthy and cruel trickson average families.

If he is elected, Governor Bush willborrow the idea and have a year-roundHalloween White House in which pow-erful special interests hold sway andworking families are left out and leftbehind. He said no to working familiesin Texas and he wants to say no to av-erage Americans for 4 more years thistime from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.He wants to say no to Social Security,no to Medicare, no to a fair prescrip-tion drug benefit for senior citizens, noto the Patients’ Bill of Rights, no toimproving the public schools, no tohealth care for uninsured children, noto fair tax cuts for average families, noto fighting hate crimes, no to fairnessfor lawful immigrants, no to gun safetylaws.

There is no clearer example of howour Republican friends have kowtowedto powerful special interests than thetax bill before the Senate. Rather thanmeet the urgent priorities of the Amer-ican people, Republicans have spentthe past 2 weeks huddled behind closeddoors to produce a quarter-trillion-dol-lar tax package tilted overwhelminglytoward the powerful and not towardthe average families.

In fact, the top 5 percent of taxpayerswill receive a greater share of the taxbreaks under this Republican taxscheme than the bottom 80 percent ofall taxpayers combined. There is littleto distinguish this plan from the pre-vious discredited proposals by the Re-publican leadership in Congress and byGeorge W. Bush. In many ways theitems in this package are even morecynical.

The Republicans know that millionsof Americans are deeply concerned

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11333October 29, 2000about the lack of health insurance forlow- and middle-income families. Sothis bill lowers the cost of health in-surance for wealthier people who arealready insured. Madam President, 95percent of the people who will benefitunder this bill in terms of the healthinsurance benefits are individuals whoare already insured, not any expansionfor those who have no health insurancetoday.

Republicans know that millions ofAmericans are concerned about savingenough for retirement, so this bill fat-tens the pension opportunities avail-able to the highest level corporate ex-ecutives. Republicans know that mil-lions of children and working familiesare having trouble feeding their fami-lies even in this time of prosperity. Sothis bill increases the tax breaks thatcorporations can claim for three-mar-tini lunches, dinners, and other enter-tainment.

Republicans know that millions offamilies struggle to care for elderly ordisabled family members at home, sotheir tax bill lowers the cost of luxurynursing facilities for wealthy families.

Millions of low-wage workers are de-pending on Congress to raise the min-imum wage this year before we ad-journ. But Republicans seem to care solittle about the minimum wage thatthey have repealed it for 6 months ofnext year in their tax bill. It was, ap-parently, an inadvertent mistake, orperhaps a Freudian slip. But if theyhad worked with Democrats and shownus the provision, we could have pre-vented such an embarrassing mistake.An increase in the minimum wage maybe an afterthought for the Republicanleadership, but it means food on thetable and clothes for the children forthe 12 million workers who benefit. Toeliminate the minimum wage, even for6 months, would be a disaster for thesefamilies.

Here we are in the final hours of thisCongress and still we have been deniedthe opportunity to even vote whetherthis body thinks we should vote for a50-cent increase in the minimum wagetoday—which is now $5.15 an hour—and50 cents next year, at the time we havethe greatest economic expansion in thehistory of this country.

On the other hand, under Republicanleadership the Congress raised its sal-ary by $4,800 last year and again by$3,600 this year. Congress made surenothing got in the way. Congressionalpay was not eliminated for 6 months.Congress did not say Congressional sal-aries would be increased only if accom-panied by $100 billion in tax breaks.Isn’t that interesting? Our Republicanleaders have told us yes, you can haveraises, rather than the people who aregoing to be affected by an increase inthe minimum wage if we have $73 bil-lion in tax breaks. We did not havethat kind of requirement when we in-creased our own benefits, but evidentlyfor the hardest working families, manyof those who have two or three jobs totry to make ends meet, that is theblock that is put in front of them.

Madam President, 535 Senators andRepresentatives received a raise with-out a hitch. The 12 million Americanswho would receive a raise in the min-imum wage deserve the same. It is achildren’s issue, a families issue, a civilrights issue.

I hope this Republican Congress willact to pass the minimum wage beforeadjourning this year.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield fora question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I will be happyto.

Mr. REID. Isn’t it true, all over thiscountry there are State and minimumwage laws that are much higher than$5.15 an hour? It is not as if Congress isbreaking some new ground. The fact is,in several States they have a higherminimum wage than we are trying toadvocate; is that not true?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is cor-rect. In a number of communities wehave living wage regions, in many ofthe major cities of this country, whichhave been successful. But there arethose, including Governor Bush, whoseposition is to say the States ought tobe able to opt out on the minimumwage. When you realize the minimumwage in the State of Texas is $3.35 anhour, when we have seen the prosperitywhich is across this country, thatraises serious questions about the realinterest in any working families.

I want to take the time remaining totalk about two public policy areas,first on education and then on healthcare. If Governor Bush’s record inTexas is any indication, average Amer-icans, who work day after day to makeends meet, will be an afterthought in aBush administration.

The Republican Congress says he hasthe answers to education. He calls hisrecord in Texas an education miracle.But if you look at the record, it ismore of an education mirage than aneducation miracle. Under GovernorBush, in 1998, according to the NationalCenter for Education Statistics, Texasranks 45th in the Nation in high schoolcompletion rates; 71 percent of highschool dropouts in Texas are minori-ties; Hispanic students in Texas dropout at more than twice the rate ofwhite students in the State. So if edu-cation is the biggest civil rights issuein America, as Governor Bush pro-claimed at the Presidential debates, heflunked the test in Texas.

Last August, the College Boards re-ported that nationally, from 1997 to theyear 2000, SAT scores have increased.But in Texas, they have decreased. In1997, Texas was 21 points below theSAT national average. By 2000, the gaphad grown by 26 points.

Then, last Thursday, Governor Bushheard more bad news. The Rand Cor-poration released an education bomb-shell that raises serious questionsabout the validity of gains in studentachievements in Texas claimed by theGovernor. The Rand bombshell was allthe more embarrassing because in Au-gust Governor Bush said:

Our State has done the best, not measuredby us, but measured by the Rand Corporationwho take an objective look at how States aredoing when it comes to education.

Those are the Governor’s words.Clearly, at that time Governor Bushtrusted the conclusions made by theRand Corporation because he was refer-ring to a Rand report that looks atscores in Texas from 1990 to 1996. Infact, Senator HUTCHISON cited thosefindings on the floor of the Senate onThursday.

But most of the years covered by theearlier Rand report were before Bushbecame Governor. The new Rand reportreleased earlier this week analyzes thescores from 1994 to 1998, when GeorgeW. Bush was the Governor. Theachievement gap in Texas is not clos-ing, it is widening. What is the Gov-ernor’s solution? Test, test, tests andmore tests.

In August, Governor Bush said:Without comprehensive regular testing,

without knowing if children are really learn-ing, accountability is a myth and standardsare just slogans.

We all know tests are an importantindication of student achievement, butthe Rand study questions the validityof the Texas State test because Gov-ernor Bush’s education program wasteaching to the test instead of genu-inely helping children to learn.

These are the results. We find out theobjective standards, whether we take itfrom the Rand Corporation or the Na-tional Center for Education Statistics.When it was favorable to Texas, it wasquoted ad infinitum by strong sup-porters of the Governor. But, thosesuccesses applied to the education poli-cies that were developed prior to thetime the Governor became Governor.

If we want a true solution to improv-ing education, we should look at thesuccess of States such as North Caro-lina, which is improving education theright way: Investing in schools, im-proving teacher quality, expandingafterschool programs—all in order toproduce better results for students.The Bush plan mandates more tests forchildren, but it does nothing to ensurethat schools actually improve and chil-dren actually learn.

We know immediate help for low-per-forming schools is essential. We knowwe can turn around failing schoolswhen the Federal Government, States,parents, and local schools work to-gether as partners to provide the need-ed investments.

In North Carolina, low-performingschools are given technical assistancefrom special State teams who providetargeted support to turn around low-performing schools. In the 1997–1998school year, 15 North Carolina schoolsreceived intensive help from theseState-assisted teams. In August 1998,the State reported most of theseschools achieved exemplary growth andnot one school remained in the low-per-forming category. Last year, 11 NorthCarolina schools received similar help;9 met or exceeded their targets.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11334 October 29, 2000That is the kind of aid to education

that works—not just tests, but real-istic action to bring about realisticchange for students’ education. And,correspondingly, the test scores for thestudents in North Carolina have risen10 points above the national averageduring this period.

The Democratic proposal to reau-thorize the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act incorporate the provenapproaches that have demonstratedbetter results for children. But the Re-publican leadership has blocked anyopportunity to debate education. TheElementary and Secondary EducationAct, for the first time in 35 years, willnot be acted on by Congress.

The Vice President, AL GORE, sup-ports programs to improve publicschools which have been proven effec-tive. The best example we have isNorth Carolina. Those programs aretried and tested and demonstrated tobe successful. That is what we believeought to be done in the future for pub-lic education in this country. Yet thoseprograms that have been tried andtested in the State of Texas are not im-proving education for children. Edu-cation is a prime issue for families, andwe ought to look at the results. Whenyou look at them carefully, you haveto realize that what has been outlinedas an educational miracle by the Gov-ernor just does not measure up—it’sjust an education mirage.

Instead of taking steps that willwork, Governor Bush abandons thelow-performing schools. He proposes aprivate school voucher plan that drainsneeded resources from troubled schoolsand traps low-income children in them.In the Vietnam war, it was said we hadto destroy some villages in order tosave them. That is what Governor Bushhas in store for failing schools: a Viet-nam war strategy that will destroythem instead of save them.

Parents want smaller class sizeswhere teachers can maintain order andgive one-to-one attention studentsneed to learn. Parents want a qualifiedteacher in every classroom in America.Parents want modern schools that aresafe learning environments for theirchildren. GAO found that $112 billionwas necessary for our schools to meethealth and safety standards and envi-ronmental standards, to make criticalrepairs, and to ensure they are wiredfor modern technologies. That is whywe want strong support for our schoolmodernization and construction pro-gram that the Republican leadershiphas consistently opposed.

Here we are 4 weeks into the next fis-cal year. Republicans have said thateducation is their top priority, but in-stead, they have made education theirlast priority.

Parents and students alike want anincrease in Pell grants to help youngpeople afford the college educationthey need to compete in the new econ-omy.

The vast majority of Americans wantus to address these challenges, and AL

GORE and the Democrats in Congresswill do just that. We will continue tofight hard for education priorities thatparents and local schools are demand-ing.

There is much good news about edu-cation across the nation. More stu-dents are taking the SATs so they cangain entrance into college. We seethese numbers going up every year.

More and more students are takingadvanced math and science classes inprecalculus, calculus, and physics. Weknow there are schools in some parts ofthe country where the children cannoteven read and write an essay. We oughtto be doing something about it. TheRepublicans condemn those schools,but they have no plan to improvethem.

Finally, the SAT math scores are thehighest in 30 years. The SATs aretaken by young people who want to goon to college. Those who are takingmath now—many of the children whoare taking the advanced courses aregoing to do better. That is what wewant, isn’t it? We want all these indi-cators to go in the right direction—bet-ter results for children.

As we come into these final weeks,parents ought to look at the Membersof Congress, the Members of the Sen-ate, and the Presidential candidatesand where they stand on education.Democrats and AL GORE stand for aninvestment in children that willproduce better results: smaller classsizes, a qualified teacher in every class-room in America in 4 years, a strongdownpayment on meeting the nation’sschool modernization and constructionneeds, more afterschool programs tokeep children safe and out of troubleand give them extra time for learning,too.

We should support these policies toimprove public schools, and we shouldoppose policies by the Republican lead-ership and Governor Bush to abandondpublic schools. The nation’s childrendeserve no less.f

HEALTH CARE

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President,few issues are of greater concern toAmerican families than quality, afford-able health care. Americans want anend to HMO abuses. They want goodhealth insurance coverage. They wanta prescription drug benefit for seniorcitizens under Medicare. They want topreserve and strengthen Medicare, sothat Medicare will be there for both to-day’s senior citizens and tomorrow’ssenior citizens. And they want thesepriorities not only for themselves andtheir loved ones but for every Amer-ican, because they know that goodhealth care should be a basic right forall.

The choice in this election is clear onhealth care—and it is not just a choicebetween different programs. It is also achoice based on who can be trusted todo the right thing for the Americanpeople. AL GORE’s record and his pro-

posals are clear. He has been deeply in-volved in health care throughout hiscareer. The current administration hasmade significant progress in improvinghealth care in a variety of ways—fromexpanding health insurance for chil-dren to protecting Medicare for sen-iors. He has consistently stood for pa-tients and against powerful special in-terests.

AL GORE has laid out a constructiveprogram that is consistent with hissolid record. He is for expanding insur-ance coverage to all Americans, start-ing with children and their parents. Heis for a strong Patients’ Bill of Rightsto end abuses by HMOs. He has a sen-sible plan for adding prescription drugcoverage to Medicare. He will fight topreserve Medicare, without unaccept-able changes designed to undermineMedicare and force senior citizens intoHMOs and private insurance plans.

George W. Bush’s approach is verydifferent. His proposals are deeplyflawed. But even worse than the spe-cifics of his proposals is his failure tocome clean with the American peopleabout his record in Texas or about hisown proposals.

On health care, George Bush doesn’tjust have a credibility gap. He has acredibility chasm.

He has consistently stood with thepowerful against the people. He refusesto take on the drug companies—or theinsurance companies—or the HMOs.His budget plan puts tax cuts for thewealthy ahead of every other priority,and leaves no room for needed invest-ments in American families. On healthcare, his values are not the values ofthe American people.

On the issue of the Patients’ Bill ofRights, George Bush said in the thirddebate that he supports a national Pa-tients’ Bill of Rights. He said he want-ed all people covered. He said that hewas in favor of a patient’s right to sue,as provided under Texas law. He said hebrought Republicans and Democratstogether in the State of Texas to passa Patients’ Bill of Rights.

That’s what he said, but it is nottrue. Governor Bush knows his recordon health care can’t stand the light ofday. So on national TV, he patently de-ceived the American people about hisrecord, hoping no one would notice, orelse hoping people would give him apass because he didn’t know any betterand simply spouted what his spin doc-tors had given him.

But the truth has a way of coming tothe surface. Here is what he did on thePatients’ Bill of Rights.

He vetoed the first Patients’ Bill ofRights passed in Texas. He fought tomake the second bill as narrow andlimited as possible. He was so opposedto the provision allowing patients tosue their HMOs that he refused to signthe final bill, allowing it to become lawwithout his signature. That is not arecord that recommends him for na-tional office to any citizen concernedabout a strong, effective Patients’ Bill

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11335October 29, 2000of Rights. It is the record of a can-didate who stands with powerful insur-ance companies and HMOs, not withAmerican families, and he isn’t honestabout his record.

On Thursday, Senator HUTCHISONstated that the only reason GovernorBush vetoed the first bill and let theright to sue under the second bill be-come law without his signature was be-cause there was disagreement on howhigh the caps on pain and sufferingwould be. I regret that my colleaguehas been misled. The fact is that therewas no provision for lawsuits in thefirst Patients’ Bill of Rights bill vetoedby the Governor. Let me reiterate—there was no provision for lawsuits atall in the first bill. Yet the Governorvetoed it.

In the second bill, there was also noissue about the caps on pain and suf-fering. Texas already had caps on painand suffering under its general tortlaw, and everyone assumed that thosecaps would apply to lawsuits againstHMOs. There was never any discussionof this issue. The fact is that GovernorBush, despite what he says today, sim-ply does not believe that health plansshould be held accountable. That iswhy he refused to sign the law allowingsuits against HMOs. Once again, he hasdistorted his record in Texas—and boththe record and the distortions call intoserious question where he would standas President.

Governor Bush is quick to challengethe integrity of others. But on thisissue, his integrity is on the line aswell. ‘‘Distort, dissemble, and deny’’ onan issue as important as this is not aqualification for the next President ofthe United States.

On health insurance, the record isequally clear—and equally bleak. Gov-ernor Bush claims he wants insurancefor all Americans. He blames VicePresident GORE for the growth in thenumber of the uninsured. But GovernorBush’s record in Texas is one of theworst in the country. Texas has thesecond highest proportion of uninsuredAmericans in the country. It has thesecond highest proportion of uninsuredchildren in the country. Yet, GovernorBush has not only done nothing to ad-dress this problem, he has actuallyfought against solutions. In Texas, heplaced a higher priority on large newtax breaks for the oil industry, insteadof good health care for children andtheir families.

When Congress passed the ChildHealth Insurance Program in 1997, weput affordable health insurance forchildren within reach of everymoderate- and low-income workingfamily in America. Yet George Bush’sTexas was one of the last States in thecountry to fully implement the law.Despite the serious health problemsfaced by children in Texas, GovernorBush actually fought to keep eligi-bility as narrow as possible.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator’s 30 minutes have expired.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Iyield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Alabama.Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I

ask unanimous consent to be able tospeak for 15 minutes in morning busi-ness.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered. The Senatorhas that right.f

ORDER OF BUSINESSMr. SESSIONS. I also note, on behalf

of the majority leader, that it appearsthat the House of Representatives willnot send the continuing resolution overuntil 7:30 p.m. or later, so we will con-tinue, I suppose, in morning business.f

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHTMr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I

would like to say a number of things.First of all, there is no reason for us tobe here today on Sunday. It is not nec-essary. No good purpose is occurring.We had weeks of debate on the Pa-tients’ Bill of Rights. The Senator fromMassachusetts is repeating those argu-ments. We had weeks of debate on edu-cation, of which I was a part.

Now we come back, at the very end,and we are going to have a rehash of allof that. The President is going to holdup this legislation needed to operatethis Government. He asks that theCongress come back on a daily basis—even on Sunday—to debate it. Some-how he thinks maybe through this po-litical mechanism he can change a dy-namic that is taking place in theAmerican public. They are beginningto make a decision that, in my view,the White House is not happy about,and they are desperate to try to changethat dynamic, to change that trend,and to try to create a disturbance onthe floor of this Congress about mat-ters we have been talking about allyear, that should not be coming upnow.

There is no need for us to be heretoday. But we are here. I will be hereevery day that we need to be here. Iwill be here until Christmas. I will behere, Lord willing, after this Presidentleaves office. And we will be talkingabout these issues.

It is important that we do the rightthing, that we not just be stampededand pushed around and be worriedabout elections so we are afraid to votebecause the President is out here say-ing ugly things about us if we don’t dowhat he says. It is our duty to do theright thing. We have been consideringthese issues for months. We have beendebating them for months. That is allwe are about here today, to do theright thing.

I hope the leaders on this side of theaisle do not do things just to get out ofhere. I am willing to stay, and otherpeople I know are willing to stay, ifneed be, to debate and work toward areasonable compromise, or to standfirm, if need be, on the issues that areimportant to America.

I know the Senator from Massachu-setts discussed the patients’ bill ofrights that Governor Bush allowed tobecome law in Texas. That bill did havethe right to sue in it. It was a big partof our debate in the HELP Com-mittee—the Health, Education, Labor,and Pensions Committee—of which Iam a member and of which the Senatorfrom Massachusetts is a member.

As I recall, several months ago, theDemocrats were all touting this Texasbill because it has the right to sue init, beyond what I think ought to bemade a part of a health care reformbill.

The Patients’ Bill of Rights thatcame out of this Senate was debated.Amendments were offered on this floor.And they lost. The bill that came outof this Senate—and that is in debate inconference today—what does it do?

When we talk about the right to sue,we are not talking about a doctor whomight cut off the wrong leg and thatyou can’t sue that doctor. It simply is,if an insurance company says this pro-cedure—for example, maybe it is a cos-metic procedure and is not covered inyour insurance policy, so they cannotpay for it; and the patient says: Yes. Ithink you should pay for it. So theywant to have suits for punitive dam-ages that go for years.

So what was created in this legisla-tion was a mechanism for every patientto have certain rights to get a promptand full determination of what is just,and get their coverage if they are enti-tled to it.

The way it would work would be thata physician could call and talk to aninsurance company physician, an ex-pert. If they do not agree that this wascovered, they then could appeal to anout-of-the-insurance company expertor arbitrator approved by HCFA, theHealth Care Financing Administra-tion—the Federal Government—Presi-dent Clinton’s HCFA. They could thenappeal and get an objective ruling onwhether or not this was covered. Thenthere are certain litigation rights thatcontinue to exist, in any case.

But what I am hearing is, businesscompanies that are providing insuranceto their employees are saying: Thiscosts us a lot of money. We are doing itfor our employees. But if you are goingto have us sued, Congress, we will justget out of the business of insuring ouremployees. We will just give our em-ployees a certain amount of money andthey can buy insurance or not buy in-surance. It will not be our problem ifthey do not buy it. Tough luck. Wehave been doing this, but we are notgoing to be in the position that we aregoing to be sued.

That was a big deal in this very Con-gress. And the law in Texas is moregenerous on lawsuits than the one weapproved in this Senate.

Senator KENNEDY wanted wide-openlawsuits. He supported that aggres-sively, but he lost. He did not win thatissue. It is not the will of this Senate.We ought not to be worrying about this

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11336 October 29, 2000at this point in time, this late in theday, when we need to approve legisla-tion to fund this Government.

The Senator from Massachusetts alsocame to the floor to talk about edu-cation. Yes, it is a top priority. We areincreasing funding for education. I amon the education committee. We dis-cussed that. In the last 2 years thisCongress has spent more money oneducation than President Clintonasked for. We increased his request foreducation money. We spent more thanhe asked for.

But what was the debate? It went onan extended period of time right here.The debate was: Who is going to directhow it all gets spent? Were we going totrust the men and women who run ourschools, the men and women who havebeen elected in each one of our commu-nities to be on the school board? Arewe going to trust them to spend moreof this Federal money or are we goingto continue to micromanage educationdollars from Washington?

I have been in 20 schools this year. Ihave met with principals, teachers, andstudents in each of these schools. I al-ways set a time to meet with the prin-cipals and teachers, and usually schoolboard members drop in, and I ask themwhat their problems are.

I say: The Federal Government givesabout 7 percent of the cost of educationin America; 93 percent comes fromState and local governments. I ask:Based on the regulations and paper-work, the interruption in your abilityto discipline in the schools caused byFederal regulation, which would youprefer—the Federal Government takeits 7 percent and leave, take away thepaperwork and the rules and regula-tions, or get the 7 percent?

The answer: Take your money andgo.

These are teachers who have giventheir lives to education. They are pas-sionate about this. They don’t want aFederal bureaucracy in Washingtonrunning their schools. What they wouldlike is as much money as we can get tothem. And we are increasing fundingfor State education well above the in-flation rate, two or three times the in-flation rate above what President Clin-ton has asked for. We tried to pass anew Elementary and Secondary Edu-cation Act, which is up for reauthoriza-tion this year. We had to stop consid-ering it basically because of a fili-buster from the other side. We voted.We had amendments. We went on forover 2 weeks debating the issue.

The other side was losing that de-bate. They were losing the votes. But ifyou don’t have over 60 votes here, youcan’t shut off debate. The majorityleader urged them to agree to a timelimit. He said we can have many moreamendments, and let’s vote on themand bring this bill to conclusion. Butthey would not because, in fact, theyhad a filibuster going on. They did notwant to change this old educationalsystem that is run by bureaucracies 10feet deep, people who have lost sight of

what education is all about. All theywant to do is make sure their account-ing is right in every school system inAmerica.

There are over 700 Federal educationprograms in this country. The otherside keeps arguing that we can’t get ridof them. No, we can’t consolidatethem. No, we can’t trust the people inour communities we elect to run ourschools. No, they are not to be trusted.We have to tell them what to do. OneSenator on this floor said: They mayspend the money on swimming pools.Who knows best how to educate chil-dren—professional educators, teacherswho have given their lives to it, prin-cipals who are dedicated to it, or someSenator here who has thousands ofissues that come before them, every-thing from Medicare, Social Security,the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, all thoseissues? We don’t know education. Nei-ther does AL GORE know education.

I will tell you who has been wrestlingwith education for six years, and thatis the Governor of Texas. Governorsare involved in education. When hetalks about education, he talks aboutit with a deep and abiding passion be-cause he understands it. He has been inschools all over Texas. He is hearingthe same things I have heard in the 20schools I have been in around Alabamathis year: that the Federal Governmentis not an aid, is not helping us, it ishurting us.

We have Federal regulations thatkeep children in classrooms who are athreat to the teacher and the students,and they cannot be removed because ofFederal rules. We have paperwork thatis driving them crazy. They can’t spendthe money on what they need to spendit on. They have to spend it only onwhat this Government and its 700 edu-cation programs say to spend it on.

So we tried to fix that. We couldn’tdo it because of the President and thefilibuster that went on here. If we electthe Governor of Texas, who has man-aged education, as Governors do, whoran on education, got elected on edu-cation, and was elected with a 69-per-cent vote for reelection on education,we are going to get some changes.

The bureaucrats in Washington, thespecial interest crowd in Washington,the group that tries to turn out votesin elections, those people are not goingto be happy. But teachers, principals,parents, and school board members aregoing to be happy because it is time fora change. It is time to break this Wash-ington stranglehold on education. Wegive less than 10 percent of the moneyfor education, but we micromanagehow it is all spent. It is not acceptable,and we must stop it.f

EXTENSION OF MORNINGBUSINESS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, Iask unanimous consent that morningbusiness be extended with Senatorspermitted to speak for up to 10 minuteseach until 7:30 p.m.

Mr. REID. Reserving the right to ob-ject, will the time from now until 7:30be equally divided? I think the Repub-licans may have extra minutes remain-ing from the earlier hour. Could theChair tell us how much time the Re-publicans have used?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On theRepublican side, there is approxi-mately 10 minutes remaining; on theDemocratic side, there is 1 minute re-maining.

Mr. REID. I ask that the Chair takethat into consideration in dividing upthe next approximately 55 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection to the time being equally di-vided between the parties?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec-

tion is heard.Mrs. HUTCHISON. The time that has

been allocated, the 10 minutes to themajority and 1 minute to the minority,should go forward, after which it wouldbe equally divided.

Mr. REID. That is what I said.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection?Without objection, it is so ordered.Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, to

conclude on this education matter, thisCongress has been responsible. It hasincreased funding for education wellabove the inflation rate. It has in-creased funding for education the last 2years that I have been on the educationcommittee, I know for a fact, abovewhat the President asked for.

We believe that money ought to besent down to the States. It ought to besent to them, and they ought to bechallenged to develop, as Texas did, aplan of excellence. That ought to be ul-timately determined by good, soundtesting that that State adopts so it cantell whether learning is occurring.

There are schools in this country, un-fortunately, where learning is not oc-curring. They are dysfunctionalschools. We do not need to keep put-ting money in those kinds of cir-cumstances. Good quality testing cantell whether learning is occurring. Weought to allow the men and womenwhom you and I elect in our home-towns all over America to decide howto run that fundamentally.

Yes, we will want to have controls onit, certain rules and regulations, butfundamentally we need to have a dif-ferent mindset. We need to have amindset that says to the educators, thepeople who are in our classroom, thatwe trust you, we are trying to helpyou, not make your life more trouble-some, not giving you more headachesand paperwork; we want to help youteach our children, to help create moremagic moments in that classroomwhere learning occurs.

There are good schools in Alabamaand all over America. I have been inthose schools. I had the honor to ac-knowledge a few days ago Mr. TerryBeasley, the principal of the year forthe State of Alabama. He taught mychildren in public schools in Alabama.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11337October 29, 2000He is a magnificent person with an un-believable degree of dedication tolearning. He has gone from one of thegreatest teachers I have known to oneof the best principals one would know.

There are people like that all overthe system. We are not helping them.This governmental regulation and bu-reaucracy is making it worse and mak-ing their lives more difficult. We canimprove that, but not the way we aregoing. We are going to need somechanges.


ator from Texas.f

STANDING UP FOR TEXAS

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President,I see the distinguished senior Senatorfrom Massachusetts has been at itagain, trying to bring the Presidentialcampaign to the Senate floor and mis-representing the record in Texas. Onceagain, as promised, I am here to standup for the record of the Governor ofTexas and to stand up for the State ofTexas.

I ask my distinguished colleague, theSenator from Massachusetts, if hewould consider in the future not mis-representing Texas for two reasons:

One is, I don’t think it is persuasiveto anyone in America to continue tohear the downgrading of a State in ourcountry, and I certainly don’t think itaffects the Presidential race. Secondly,I just don’t think that it is necessaryor proper to downgrade a great Statesuch as Texas or any other State inAmerica.

Of course, I am from Texas; of course,I love my State. But I think, objec-tively speaking, a lot of other peopledo because we have just surpassed NewYork to become the second largestState in America. People are not mov-ing there because they think we have aterrible education system. They arenot moving there because they thinkwe don’t treat our children well. Theyare not moving there because we don’thave health insurance for our children.They are not moving there because wehave a bad environment. They are mov-ing there because it is a wonderfulplace in which to live, and it has got-ten better since George W. Bush be-came Governor.

So let me just set the recordstraight. We have a patients’ bill ofrights in Texas. It is the model uponwhich other States are now basing thelaws that they are beginning to pass orlook at passing. We have a very goodpatients’ bill of rights because it hasan independent review mechanism. Youhave an internal review and you havean external review. It is an inde-pendent review so that the bottom linethat we all want will occur, and that isthat a patient will get the care the pa-tient and the doctor believe is in thebest interest of the patient. That iswhat a patients’ bill of rights is. Wealso have caps on limits for lawsuitswhich are allowed after the exhaustion

of the internal and external reviews.There are caps on pain and sufferingand noneconomic damages. That makessure that we don’t have a plethora oflawsuits, and it would keep the patientand the doctor making the decisionsfor health care in the forefront of ourinterest. So it is a model law. It is agood law. Whatever misrepresentationshave been made about it, the Governorallowed it to become law. It happenedon his watch.

Secondly, we are very proud of theimprovements we are making in ourpublic education system. Most Statesare not satisfied with where they are inpublic education. Texas is workingvery hard to improve our public edu-cation system, and under the leader-ship of Governor George W. Bush weare winning. Test scores are going upand, most especially, the test scoresare going up in the minority commu-nities. That is one of the focuses thatGovernor Bush has made in my homeState of Texas because we all looked atthe high school dropout rate. We wereall unsatisfied with that number. Wesaid, what can we do, especially in ourHispanic community, where the highschool dropout rate is the highest percapita? We said, we have to go back tothe basics.

That is what Governor Bush did. Hewent back to the basics and he put theresources into it. That is about $8 mil-lion more than had been spent before.He said, we are going to go to the thirdgrade level and that is going to be thefirewall. We are going to test childrenin preschool; we are going to test themin the first grade and in the secondgrade. But if they can’t read at gradelevel in the third grade, they will notbe promoted to the fourth grade be-cause we know that if children can’tread at the early stages, they willnever be able to reach their full poten-tial in the public education system.That was the initiative of GovernorBush and, I might add, along with agreat house speaker, Pete Leahy, aDemocrat, and a Lieutenant Gov-ernor—at the time it was Bob Bullock,a Democrat; today, it is Rick Perry, aRepublican. But we do work in a bipar-tisan way in the legislature. We alwayshave in Texas. That is something thatwe have done since the days I served inthe Texas legislature. We worked to-gether, Democrats and Republicans. Itis why I was so surprised when I cameto the Senate and it didn’t work thatway here. We are not used to doingbusiness that way.

With all due respect, I think Texashas it right because after the electionsin Texas, we come together—the Gov-ernor and the legislature—to do whatis best for the children and the peopleof Texas. Wouldn’t it be refreshing ifthat were the case in Washington, DC?Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the leader-ship that Governor Bush has shown,along with Pete Leahy and Bob Bul-lock, could be transferred to Wash-ington, DC, with President Bush andTOM DASCHLE and RICHARD GEPHARDT?

Wouldn’t that be refreshing? That iswhat Governor Bush would like to dobecause we think it works. We know itworks because the test scores showthat it works.

Madam President, we are making ahuge leap in the right direction for im-proving public education, and we aregoing to the heart of the matter. Weare making sure our children in thethird grade can read, and we are focus-ing on the basics. We are focusing onreading, writing, arithmetic, history.

All of us have seen these polls ofyoung people in our country where thetelevision person walks up to theyoung person and says: What is theonly State in America that is totallysurrounded by water?

The young person can’t answer thequestion. We know Hawaii is the an-swer, but I think we should focus onthe basics—geography and history.That is what we are trying to do inTexas, and that is the kind of leader-ship we need for this country.

So I hope that we will examine therecord in Texas in a positive way—oreven in a neutral way, for Heaven’ssake—because if you are neutral, youwould see that Texas is a great place inwhich to live; that we have a greatquality of life. Do we have problems?Sure. Are we working on those prob-lems? Yes. We are doing it under theleadership of our Governor, George W.Bush.

Let me say, too, that we are alsomaking great strides on the environ-ment. We have a particular problem,particularly in Houston, TX, where 50percent of the chemical refining plantsin the world are located—the petro-chemical refining plants. Fifty percentof the petrochemicals in the world arelocated on the gulf coast betweenHouston and Victoria.

I see that my time is up. I will stepback and allow others to speak, but Iwill not step back if the record ofTexas is misrepresented. I am here tostand for the facts and the good recordof our Governor and our great State.


ator from Oregon.Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary in-

quiry. Will the Senator yield?Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Of course.Mr. KENNEDY. I understand we will

have some time. The House has notconcluded with the continuing resolu-tion. I understand it is agreeable withthe leaders that the time remainingwill be divided equally. Is the time re-maining equally divided between thetwo sides?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pre-vious order provided that the remain-ing time until 7:30 would be equally di-vided.

The Senator from Oregon.f

GORE-CHERNOMYRDINAGREEMENT

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam Presi-dent, I rise as one Senator in this body

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11338 October 29, 2000and as a member of the Foreign Rela-tions Committee to express the hopethat by noon tomorrow the State De-partment will provide for the SenateForeign Relations Committee the doc-ument that it has rightfully requestedso that it might know the truth withrespect to the Gore-Chernomyrdinagreement.

Since I have been a Senator theselast 4 years, I have had occasion tomeet with the Vice President and Mr.Chernomyrdin when they came to Cap-itol Hill to trumpet what was rep-resented to us as the great successes oftheir relationship and our outreach toRussia and to help Russia in its transi-tion to democracy. In every way pos-sible, we have hoped to conduct ourbusiness with Russia on better termsthan we have in the past.

I think it is appropriate for this Re-publican to say that, without question,no one should question the motives ofVice President GORE with respect towhat he has tried to accomplish in thisrelationship. However, there is reasonto believe that some of what has goneon with the best of motives may, infact—I emphasize ‘‘may’’—have vio-lated a law and a statute of this coun-try, if not a constitutional requirementin article II of the Constitution thatagreements be reviewed by appropriatecongressional committees.

I am told that with respect to theGore-Chernomyrdin relationship aHouse committee was informed. Con-gressman Hamilton said he receivedsome information to that effect. DICKLUGAR, the Senator from Indiana, hassaid he knew in general terms whatthey were trying to achieve.

But then all of us were taken abacka couple of weeks ago by an article inthe New York Times in which thisagreement was specifically quoted. I donot know of any Congressman or Sen-ator who has yet to say they have seenthe particulars of this arrangement.That is the point of the Foreign Rela-tions Committee’s inquiry of the StateDepartment.

Let me read briefly a sentence fromthat New York Times story that quoteswhat the Vice President pledges to do.He pledges to ‘‘avoid any penalties toRussia that might otherwise ariseunder domestic law.’’

There is nothing in the Gore-McCainlaw of 1992 that allows the executivebranch to unilaterally waive the law.Their duty under that law is to imposesanctions, and then to waive them ifthat is the judgment of the executivebut not to do it in a way that keepsCongress in the dark and violates spe-cific terms of American law.

Why should we care? Many of ourfriends on the Democratic side saidthis is all just about politics. Youshouldn’t be raising that now.

I point out to them that the VicePresident, the executive, and the StateDepartment have had 5 years to takethis out of politics and to simply dis-close, as is rightfully our right toknow, those documents and those par-ticulars as to agreements.

Some of my colleagues have saidthese aren’t agreements; that these areunderstandings. If it quacks like aduck and waddles like a duck, to me itis a duck.

In my opinion, when you see specificresponsibilities and considerations onboth sides and end dates, folks, that isan agreement, and the Congress has aright—and particularly the Senate—tosee this document, and in confidence ifnecessary. But we have a right to docu-ments that have been requested of theState Department.

I hope that it exonerates the VicePresident. But let me tell you why Iam concerned that it may not.

The Washington Times, a week ago,ran a story in which a letter wasleaked from the State Department—not by the Republican Party but by theState Department somehow to a re-porter of the Washington Times—a let-ter from the Secretary of State, Mad-eleine Albright, to the Russian ForeignMinister, Igor Ivanov. You have to readthese words to, frankly, understand itand really believe it. I don’t know howwords can be any clearer that the ad-ministration is admitting to a viola-tion of law.

This is what the Secretary wrote tothe Russian Foreign Minister:

We have also upheld our commitment notto impose sanctions for these transfers dis-closed in the Annex to the Aide Memoire.The Annex is very specific in its terms, andwe have followed it strictly. . . . Without theAide Memoire, Russia’s conventional armssales to Iran would have been subject tosanctions based on various provisions of ourlaws. This possibility still exists in the eventthe continued Russian transfers after the De-cember 31 termination date.

Madam President, the Secretary ofState has said here that they have vio-lated the law.

What the Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee and the majority in thisparty are asking for is to have theproof of the State Department’s assur-ances to us that they haven’t violatedthe law. That is all we are asking for.If they haven’t, we will be glad to saythat to the whole world. But what wehave received so far is their assurancesthat they haven’t violated the law.

Guess what. I want to believe them.But I am entitled as a Senator to seethe document so I might know thatthey have not violated the law as theSecretary of State has said.

Should we know that? I think weshould.

Does that mean the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement isn’t a gooddeal? I don’t know that. It may be agreat deal.

But it is not a deal where the meansjustify the ends to violate Americanlaw and treat the Senate with dis-respect. It does not warrant that. Weare a country of laws, and we need toobey them.

We are simply asking, as a signatoryto this letter, that the administrationcomply with the law authored by theVice President himself.

In addition to SAM BROWNBACK andmyself, the signatories to this letter

are the majority leader, TRENT LOTT,the majority leader whip, DON NICKLES,the chairman of the Foreign RelationsCommittee, JESSE HELMS, JOHNMCCAIN, FRED THOMPSON, the chairmanof Governmental Affairs, RICHARDSHELBY, chairman of the IntelligenceCommittee, JOHN WARNER, chairman ofthe Armed Services Committee, andRICHARD LUGAR, who, by the way,wouldn’t mind knowing the truth ofwhat has been represented to him, too.He is curious about indeed what thefacts are.

I regret that this is close to an elec-tion. I don’t believe politics should beinternational. I think they should stopat the water’s edge. But I think the re-sponsibility lies with the administra-tion to foster a bipartisan foreign pol-icy. That is clearly not happening here.

We are entitled to know the truth. Ifthe law has been complied with, this isover with. If it has not, then, frankly,that ought to be known by the Amer-ican people as well.

Whether or not a Kilo-class sub-marine is a dangerous weapon, frankly,is a judgment the administration is en-titled to make. But there may be otherweapons on that, as the Secretary sug-gests, that were subject to sanctions.

We have a right to know whether ornot we have been treated as mushroomfarmers—keep them in the dark andshovel the manure on them.

That is not how it is supposed towork—not according to our Constitu-tion, not according to our statutorylaw and various provisions.

We are entitled to know the truth. Asone Senator, I plead with the State De-partment to show us the documentsand this goes away. But you have toshow us the documents. We are owed it.We deserve it. We are entitled to it. Itought to happen.


ator from Delaware.Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask

to be able to proceed for 8 minutes inmorning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator has that right. We are operatingunder a time agreement until 7:30.f

AIDE MEMOIREMr. BIDEN. Madam President, I have

great respect for my friend from Or-egon. I know he knows I think he isdead wrong on this issue. For two rea-sons I think he is dead wrong: On thefacts and I think he is dead wrong onthe approach he has taken.

The fact of the matter is, the admin-istration at the time this aide me-moire—a fancy phrase for saying thisagreement—was signed by GORE andChernomyrdin, a follow-on to a verbalagreement made by Clinton and byYeltsin in 1994—that agreement wasmade known to the public; it was pub-licly stated, and that was actually of-fered. The House of Representativeswas briefed at the time.

Here we are less than 10 days beforean election and it has become a cause

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11339October 29, 2000celebre. I don’t have the time, and I amsure my friend from Oregon doesn’thave the inclination, to listen to whythis is a violation of the separation ofpowers doctrine. And this is not a bind-ing obligation. There are distinctionsbetween binding obligations and agree-ments. One requires disclosure; theother does not. The fact is, this was agood deal and it was disclosed andmade available to be disclosed.

Let me cut to the chase. The fact ofthe matter is we did have a closedmeeting with members of the State De-partment. I was present, my friendfrom Oregon was present, our colleaguefrom Kansas was present, SenatorBROWNBACK, and maybe someone else; Ican’t recall. I indicated at the timethat although the White House and theState Department were not required toshare these documents, in my viewthey were making a tactical politicalmistake not doing it.

I am here to tell my friend from Or-egon what I told Senator LUGAR andwhat I told Senator HAGEL, and I un-derstand it is being communicated tothe majority leader. The State Depart-ment is going to make available to theleadership of the House and the Sen-ate—which is the way we do thesethings—the so-called annexes. If thereis any violation of law—which there isnot, but if there is any—the only viola-tion could flow from there being aweapons system that was transferredon the annex, that falls within the pur-view of the law, that covered certainweapons systems and destabilizing sys-tems under the McCain-Gore legisla-tion. So if there is nothing in thatannex that was transferred, there canbe no question there was no law brokenhere.

This will be the test to know whetherthis is politics or not. This will be thetest. If the administration makes thatavailable to the majority leader, mi-nority leader, Speaker of the House,and the minority leader of the House,the leadership of the House, then, infact, we will find out. They will bringthe document up, and they can see it.

If they really want to know the an-swer, if they really believe a law wasbroken, then it is really clear; they cansit down and look at it and find out.But if the offer is made and it is re-fused—I will say and challenge anyoneto give me a good reason why I amwrong—that is pure politics.

I really mean this; I have an inordi-nately high regard for my friend fromOregon. That probably hurts him backhome, but I like him a lot. The fact ofthe matter is, we have worked closelytogether on a whole number of items. Ihave never misled him and he hasnever misled me. I got off the phonewith Strobe Talbott. The Secretary ofState is intending to call the majorityleader, going to make the offer tomor-row to come up and show the docu-ments.

It is interesting that the letter re-questing documents says they basicallywant these annexes. I know we need

more time to explain this to someonelistening because this is kind of con-fusing. My friend from Oregon knowswhat I am talking about because heknows the area well. The annex listsall those weapons systems that wouldbe sanctionable if transferred by theRussians to the Iranians, if that wereto occur.

We will find out whether anythingwas transferred. By the way, unlike inany other administration, it has beenpointed out that 10 times as manyweapons were transferred to the Ira-nians when Bush was President thansince Clinton has been President. Butwe will find out whether anything wasviolated.

I want to make it clear, the offer willbe made. If the offer is rejected, I wanteveryone to know—and the press whomay be listening—that a big neon lightshould go on, ‘‘Politics, politics, poli-tics.’’ If the offer is accepted, then, infact—and my colleagues look at it, themajority leader of the Senate, theSpeaker of the House of Representa-tives, if they look at it and they saythis looks like a duck, to use myfriend’s phrase, that is a differentstory. That is debatable; that is some-thing that warrants concern.

To reiterate:The Senators’ letter says that ‘‘the

Vice President pledges to ‘avoid anypenalties to Russia that might other-wise arise under domestic law.’ ’’

The letter omits the words imme-diately preceding that quote from theleaked understanding: ‘‘take appro-priate steps’’ to avoid penalties. Thatmeant that the United States wouldnot circumvent U.S. law. Rather, ifnecessary, we would sanction Russia,but waive the penalties, pursuant tothe law.

But in fact, there was no need towaive penalties at all, because Russiawas not proposing any conventionalarms transfers that would trigger sanc-tions under U.S. law—and the VicePresident was assured of this by theDepartment of Defense before he signedthe understanding.

One relevant law was the Iran-IraqArms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992, theso-called ‘‘McCain-Gore Act.’’ That lawrequires sanctions against govern-ments that transfer ‘‘destabilizingnumbers and types’’ of ‘‘advanced con-ventional weapons’’ to Iran or Iraq.Thus, you must find both the sale ofadvanced conventional weapons toIran, and that these are a number andtype so as to tip the balance of powerin the region.

We have been assured—by experi-enced, career officials—that the Annexlisting planned Russian arms transfersto Iran contains nothing that wouldmeet all those tests.

But we don’t have to trust the Gov-ernment on this. Anthony Cordesman,who was JOHN MCCAIN’s national secu-rity assistant in 1992, working on theMcCain-Gore bill, wrote recently: ‘‘Iran. . . has not . . . received destabilizingtransfers of advanced conventionalweapons.’’

The third Kilo-class submarine to besent to Iran was specifically consideredby the Pentagon, which decided that itwould not be destabilizing.

In any case, submarines are not list-ed in the 1992 law’s definition of ad-vanced conventional weapons; and evenPresident Bush made no move to addthem to the list, even though the lawpermits such additions.

The Senators’ letter quotes Sec-retary Albright’s letter to Russian For-eign Minister Ivanov, in which she sayswe ‘‘upheld our commitment not to im-pose sanctions’’ and that ‘‘without theAide Memoire, Russia’s conventionalarms sales to Iran would have beensubject to sanctions based on variousprovisions of our laws.’’ As you saidyesterday:

One reasonable interpretation is thatSecretary Albright is saying, ‘‘if youhadn’t obeyed the Aide Memoire, youwould have gotten in trouble.’’ Andthat’s true. If Russia had signed newdeals to sell ‘‘lethal military equip-ment’’ to Iran, or if it had sold lots of‘‘advanced conventional weapons’’ toIran, it would have forced us to invokesanctions under our law. But they basi-cally did obey the Aide Memoire, andstayed out of trouble in this regard.

Another reasonable interpretation isthat the Secretary was overstating hercase, using U.S. law as a club withwhich to beat the Russians. If so, morepower to her.

A third reasonable interpretation isthat Secretary Albright was thinkingof those sanctions, based on other U.S.laws, that do not require any triggerother than a Presidential determina-tion that the national security war-rants them.

The Albright letter does not showany violation or circumvention of the1992 Iran-Iraq law, and there is no evi-dence of any such action.

The Senators’ letter rejects VicePresident GORE’s point that Russia’sarms transfers were pursuant to pre-viously-signed contracts, because theMcCain-Gore law does not exempt suchtransfers.

That misses the point. There areother laws that would require sanc-tions for any transfer of ‘‘lethal mili-tary equipment’’ to Iran. Those lawsexempt transfers under pre-1996 con-tracts.

The administration never claimedthat it was cutting off all Russian armstransfers to Iran. But it did put a capon those transfers, limiting them es-sentially to ones contracted for duringthe Bush administration.

The Senators’ letter says that theCongress must review all the relevantdocuments, renews a demand for all thepreviously requested documents, andthreatens a subpoena if these are notproduced by noon Monday.

The fact is, however, that only theAnnex to the Aide Memoire is cited asa really necessary document.

I think the executive branch ought tofind a way to let appropriate senatorsreview the Annex and the Secretary’s

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11340 October 29, 2000letter to the Russian Foreign Minister,while maintaining the confidentialityof those documents.

Once that is done, I believe thatthere will be no good reason to seekfurther documents.

Tony Cordesman, the expert in Mid-dle Eastern military affairs who wasSenator MCCAIN’s national security as-sistant, summed up this case admi-rably a couple of weeks ago:

Political campaigns are a poor time to de-bate complex military issues, particularlywhen the debate is based on press reportsthat are skewed to stress the importance ofthe story at the expense of objective perspec-tive and the facts.

I ask unanimous consent the perti-nent letters be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letterwas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,Washington, DC, October 26, 2000.

Hon. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT,Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC.DEAR SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: We were ex-

tremely disappointed that the Department ofState continues to refuse to give the Com-mittee access to critical documents relatingto the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement.

Madame Secretary, this is simply unac-ceptable. All of the evidence in the public do-main leads us to the conclusion that VicePresident Gore signed a secret deal withRussian Premier Viktor Chernomyrdin, inwhich he agreed to ignore U.S. non-prolifera-tion laws governing weapons transfers toIran.

The text of the agreement signed by Mr.Gore and Mr. Chernomyrdin (as published inthe New York Times), the Vice Presidentpledges to ‘‘avoid any penalties to Russiathat might otherwise arise under domesticlaw.’’

And, in your letter to Russian ForeignMinister Igor Ivanov earlier this year (pub-lished in the Washington Times), you state:‘‘We have also upheld our commitment notto impose sanctions for these transfers dis-closed in the Annex to the Aide Memoire,Russia’s conventional arms sales to Iranwould have been subject to sanctions basedon various provisions of our laws. This possi-bility still exists in the event of continuedRussian transfers after the December 31 ter-mination date.’’

The administration’s defense—repeated bythe Vice President this morning on ‘‘GoodMorning America’’—that the Russian trans-fers to Iran he agreed to were under ‘‘pre-ex-isting contracts’’ simply does not wash. Thedate the contracts were signed is irrelevant.The Gore-McCain law covers the transfer ofweapons after 1992. There is no ‘‘contractsanctity’’ exception in the law—it does notmatter whether the transfers took placeunder new or pre-existing contracts. Whatmatters, under law, is when the transfertook place.

The Administration’s other defense—thatthe weapons transferred are not covered bythe Gore-McCain law—is belied by the Ad-ministration stubborn refusal to share withthe Committee the Annex that lists theweapons.

In essence, you are saying to Congress andthe American people: ‘‘Trust us.’’ Consid-ering the fact that almost everything wehave learned about this secret deal has comefrom the news media and not the Adminis-tration, we respectfully decline.

Congress has a right and responsibility toreview all the relevant documents, and to

judge for itself whether the transfers theVice President signed off on were covered byU.S. non-proliferation laws.

We expect the Administration to share allof the requested documents with the Com-mittee no later than noon on Monday, Octo-ber 20.

If the Administration continues to stone-wall, and withhold these documents fromCongress, then the Foreign relations Com-mittee will have no choice but to issue a sub-poena to obtain them.

Sincerely,Gordon Smith, John McCain, Jesse

Helms, Trent Lott, John Warner, SamBrownback, Don Nickles, Fred Thomp-son, Richard Shelby, Richard G. Lugar.

U.S. SENATE,Washington, DC, October 25, 2000

Hon. GEORGE P. SCHULTZ,Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished

Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford Uni-versity, Stanford, CA.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I read with interestyour election-eve condemnation of an under-standing that Vice President Gore and Rus-sian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin reachedsome five years ago. I was surprised—andsaddened—to see that you and other menwho have served our nation with dignity anddistinction would sign a letter that waspromptly used in an effort to exploit a na-tional security issue for partisan gain.

It is time to set the record straight. First,the June 1995 U.S.-Russia understanding pre-vented new Russian arms sales to Iran andthus enhanced the security of the UnitedStates and its allies. Second, the under-standing did not circumvent, violate or un-dermine any U.S. law. Indeed, it appears tohave led Russia to stay within the bounds ofU.S. law regarding conventional arms trans-fers to Iran. Third, although the executivebranch was under no legal obligation to sub-mit the June 1995 understanding to the Con-gress as an international agreement, it didmake public the broad outlines of the under-standing and provide classified oral briefingsat least to one committee.

One highly respected expert in this field isMr. Anthony H. Cordesman, who was na-tional security assistant to Senator JohnMcCain when his employer and then-SenatorAl Gore wrote the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Pro-liferation Act of 1992. Mr. Cordesman nowholds the Arleigh Burke Chair at the Centerfor Strategic and International Studies. Ear-lier this month, he wrote an analysis of Rus-sia’s conventional arms transfer to Iran. Theopening of that study strikes me as espe-cially worthy of your consideration: ‘‘Polit-ical campaigns are a poor time to debatecomplex military issues, particularly whenthe debate is based on press reports that areskewed to stress the importance of the storyat the expense of objective perspective andthe facts. Iran does represent a potentialthreat to US interests, but it has not had amajor conventional arms build-up or re-ceived destabilizing transfers of advancedconventional weapons.’’

If you remain uncertain regarding any ofthe points I have made, I invite you to con-sult such sources as Mr. Cordesman’s CSISstudy, Iranian Arms Transfers: The Facts,the public testimony this morning of DeputyAssistant Secretaries of State John P. Bark-er and Joseph M. DeThomas before the Sen-ate Committee on Foreign Relations, andeven my own opening statement at thismorning’s hearing.

Sincerely,JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.,

U.S. Senator.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I don’tknow a lot about matters over which I

don’t have jurisdiction as a Senator. SoI don’t expect all Senators to know asmuch about sanctions as the Senatorfrom Oregon and I because we spendprobably 20 percent of our time work-ing on that in the Foreign RelationsCommittee. My friend from Massachu-setts forgot more about HCFA than Iwill ever know. It took me a while toknow what HCFA was. They set therates for everything, and it affects theAmerican people a heck of a lot morethan sanctions policy.

There are discretionary sanctionsavailable to the President of theUnited States. I emphasize ‘‘discre-tionary.’’ The comment made by theSecretary of State refers to those dis-cretionary policies.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The dis-tinguished Senator has utilized the 8minutes he requested.

The Senator from Massachusetts isrecognized.f

THE TEXAS RECORD

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Iwant to address the concerns of myfriend, the Senator from Texas, in hercomments earlier. I want to make veryclear I have no complaint against theState of Texas. It has an outstandinghistory and has produced some greatleaders, including Sam Houston, SamRayburn, President Johnson. My com-plaint is not against Texas at all, it isagainst the clear misstatements ofGovernor Bush about his Texas record.The facts are there. I am not attackingthe State of Texas. I am sure manycitizens of Texas share my concernsabout the United States.

It is proper and necessary to talkabout these issues. They are impor-tant. They are important in the na-tional Presidential debate because theyaren’t being addressed by this Con-gress. The Republican leadership hasblocked responsible action on edu-cation. For the first time in 35 years,Congress has failed to reauthorizeESEA. We are now 4 weeks late in pass-ing an education funding bill. Since themajority has stifled any debate on edu-cation in this Congress, it is appro-priate and necessary to speak on theSenate floor about how education willbe treated in the next Congress underthe next administration. The Americanpeople deserve a Congress that will acton education, not ignore it.

When we think about what will hap-pen to education next year, we mustlook at the Presidential candidates andhow they will address education. It isessential to look at the record of Gov-ernor Bush, the Republican candidatefor President. That is what I havedone.

On the children’s health issue, whenthe Congress passed the CHIP programin 1997, we put affordable health insur-ance for children within reach of everymoderate- and low-income workingfamily in America. Yet George W.Bush’s Texas was one of the last Statesin the country to fully implement the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11341October 29, 2000law. Despite the serious health prob-lems faced by children in Texas, Gov-ernor Bush fought to keep eligibility asnarrow as possible.

In fact, the Bush campaign’s defenseof this unacceptable record is almost astelling as the record itself. Accordingto the New York Times, the Bush cam-paign acknowledged that GovernorBush fought to keep eligibility narrow,but that he did so because he was con-cerned about costs and the spillover ef-fect on Medicaid. This so-called spill-over effect is the increase in enroll-ment of children in Medicaid that oc-curs when the Children’s Health Insur-ance Program is put into effect. Vig-orous outreach efforts are made bystate governments to identify childrenwho qualify for the new program—butthe same outreach identifies manyother children who should have alreadybeen enrolled in Medicaid.

In other words, Governor Bush notonly opposed expanding eligibility forthe new CHIP program—he was alsoworried that the very poorest chil-dren—those already eligible for Med-icaid—might actually receive the cov-erage to which the were clearly enti-tled. That is not just what I am saying.That is also the conclusion of the NewYork Times when it reviewed the facts.It’s no wonder that Governor Bush’sTexas Administration was cited by afederal judge for its failure to live upto a consent order to let families ofpoor children know about their eligi-bility for Medicaid and about thehealth services to which they were en-titled.

An article in Time magazine says itall. It is titled, ‘‘Tax Cuts Before Tots.Candidate Bush is pushing his compas-sion, but poor kids in Texas have notseen much of it.’’ And under a box enti-tled ‘‘Lost Opportunity? Bush and PoorKids,’’ the article makes four keypoints:

[Bush] helped to secure tax cuts by under-funding Medicaid, causing a $400 millionshortfall in the program. He delayed thestate law to expand Medicaid coverage for303,000 new kids. They went five years with-out health insurance. He fought efforts to re-quire automatic coverage for families forcedoff welfare rolls.

Now, my Senate colleagues fromTexas offered all sorts of explanationsfor Governor Bush’s miserable recordon health care for children. They saidthat the court case I referred to wasbegun before Governor Bush took of-fice. That is true. But the consent de-cree settling the case was agreed to byGovernor Bush’s administration inFebruary of 1996. And the latest actionby the federal judge was based on theBush’s administration failure to live upto the consent decree that it hadagreed to. The Bush administration didnot keep its word. Children were notits priority.

Defenders of the Governor say thatTexas could not implement the CHIPprogram promptly because its legisla-ture only meets every two years. Butother states have legislatures that

meet only two years, and they wereable to get their programs going morepromptly. In fact, Texas was the nextto last state in the entire country toapprove a Chip plan—the next to laststate.

Governor Bush’s misstatements onhis Texas record do not end with unin-sured children. In the debates, VicePresident GORE pressed Governor Bushon the Texas record on the uninsured.Governor Bush said that Texas wasspending $4.7 billion a year for unin-sured people. But it turns out that ac-tually only one-quarter of that amountwas being spent by the State of Texas.The vast majority of the spending wasby hospitals and doctors for charitycare, and by county governments, notby the state.

On the Texas record on the unin-sured, Governor Bush claimed that thepercentage of the uninsured in Texashad gone down, while the percentage ofthe uninsured in America had gone up.In 1998, the overall percentage of theuninsured dropped by identicalamounts both nationally and inTexas—4.9 percent in Texas and 4.9 per-cent nationally. But, because of Gov-ernor Bush’s inaction on children, thepercentage of children in Texas whowere uninsured dropped only half asmuch as the drop nationally—10 per-cent nationally and only 5.2 percent inTexas. When Governor Bush took of-fice, Texas ranked second from the bot-tom of all 50 States in covering chil-dren and citizens of all ages. Today,after six years under his watch as Gov-ernor, Texas still ranks second fromthe bottom.

There is still time for the truth to betold. I am hopefully that every Amer-ican will examine the records of thetwo candidates carefully. On healthcare, there should be no question at allas to which candidate stands with thepowerful special interests and whichcandidate stands with the Americanpeople. The choice is clear. GovernorBush stands with the powerful, and ALGORE stands with the people.

I reserve the remember of my time.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The dis-

tinguished Senator from Texas is rec-ognized.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President,once again I would like to make therecord clear. Since the distinguishedsenior Senator from Massachusetts fo-cused on health care and children’shealth care, I would like to talk aboutthe Texas record. I would like to talkabout Governor Bush’s leadership onhealth care for our children.

Under Governor Bush, the percentageof Texans without health insurance hasgone down while the number of Ameri-cans without health insurance has goneup.

I also think it is worth mentioningthat the Governor, along with the bi-partisan legislature, took all of Texas’tobacco money, $17.4 billion in tobaccomoney, and allocated almost every sin-gle penny—in fact, every single pennythat was not put aside for education

programs to try to encourage youngpeople not to smoke has gone forhealth care, health care for children,health care for indigents. The money,wisely, was put into trust, and everycounty in Texas reaps the benefit ofthat trust fund because the interest onthe trust fund is spent in each countyfor indigent health care.

So I think Governor Bush and theTexas Legislature are to be com-mended for focusing on health coveragefor the people of Texas and for the chil-dren of Texas. In fact, under the leader-ship of Governor Bush, Texas spent $1.8billion in new funding for health carefor the uninsured. He also increasedfunding for childhood immunizationsby $330 million, resulting in an increasein the percentage of immunized chil-dren from 45 percent to 75 percent.

Mr. President, although I have tosay, once again, I do not think it getsanyone anywhere to talk about therecord in Texas, and misrepresent thatrecord, I think it is very clear thatTexas is one of the leading States inour Nation in taking care of children,in improving its public education sys-tem, and it has been a focus of Gov-ernor Bush and our Democratic speak-er and our former Democratic Lieuten-ant Governor; We now have a Repub-lican Lieutenant Governor. We haveimproved health care and education.

Mr. KENNEDY. May we have order,Mr. President? The Senator is entitledto be heard.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Massachusetts is absolutelycorrect. The Senate will be in order sothe distinguished Senator from Texascan be heard.

The Senator from Texas.Mrs. HUTCHISON. So I think Gov-

ernor Bush’s record is clear. I think thegreat speaker, Pete Leahy, workingwith the Governor, Bob Bullock, andRick Perry, working with the Gov-ernor, have done very well in healthcare for the children and for the unin-sured in Texas. Just as we are proud ofthe improvements in our public edu-cation system—and certainly we recog-nize every State has problems. I do notthink it does much good to talk aboutthe records of different States. But I dothink if you look at the record of Gov-ernor Bush in Texas on these issues,you will be impressed that it was a pri-ority and that we have been successfulin improving public education, in cov-ering our children under the SCHIPprogram, making more people eligiblefor these programs, and immunizingour children so they would be protectedfrom the normal childhood diseases.

I stand by my Governor and by myState. Once again, I do hope we canstop the misrepresentation of therecord.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield for a question? Doesthe Senator from Texas yield for aquestion?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy toyield to the distinguished Senator fromAlabama.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11342 October 29, 2000The PRESIDING OFFICER. My ques-

tion is, is the Governor given an impor-tant role in education under State lawsof Texas? And does he play a big role ineducation?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. In Texas, actu-ally——

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeallocated to the distinguished Senatorhas expired.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me just say,our Governor has made it a role for theGovernor. He has been a leader. He hada program; he worked with the legisla-ture to enact it; and it is successful.

I thank the Senator for the question.f

BANKRUPTCY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, thereare two additional important issuesthat I would like to discuss tonight.There are few clearer examples of thisRepublican Congress siding with pow-erful special interests against averagepeople than the pending bankruptcybill.

The bankruptcy conference reporttargets working men and women whocomprise the vast number of Ameri-cans in bankruptcy. Two out of everythree bankruptcy filers are workerswho have lost their jobs because of lay-offs or downsizing. One out of everyfive has huge debts because of healthcare expenses. Divorced or separatedpeople are three times more likelythan married couples to file for bank-ruptcy.

Working men and women in eco-nomic free fall often have no choice ex-cept bankruptcy. Yet, under pressurefrom the credit card industry, this Re-publican Congress is bent on denyingall these innocent victims of financialhardship the safety net that the bank-ruptcy laws have provided for a cen-tury.

This legislation unfairly targets mid-dle class and poor families, and itleaves flagrant abuses in place.

Time and time again, President Clin-ton has told the Republican leadershipthat the final bankruptcy bill must in-clude two important additions—ahomestead provision without loopholesfor the wealthy, and a provision thatrequires accountability and responsi-bility from those who unlawfully—andoften violently—bar access to legalhealth services for women. The currentbill includes neither of these provi-sions.

The bill does include a half-hearted,loop-hole filled homestead provision. Itwill do virtually nothing to eliminatefraud. With a little planning—or insome cases, no planning at all—wealthy debtors will still be able tohide millions of dollars in assets fromtheir creditors. For example, AllenSmith of Delaware—a state with nohomestead exemption—and JamesVilla of Florida—a state with an un-limited homestead exemption—aretreated differently by the bankruptcysystem today. One man eventually losthis home. The other was able to hide

$1.4 million from his creditors by pur-chasing a luxury mansion in Florida.

The Senate passed a worthwhileamendment to eliminate this in-equity—but that provision was strippedfrom the conference report. Surely, abill designed to end bankruptcy fraudand abuse should include a loop-hole-free homestead provision. The Presi-dent thinks so. As an October 12 letterfrom White House Chief of Staff JohnPodesta says:

The inclusion of a provision limiting tosome degree a wealthy debtor’s capacity toshift assets before bankruptcy into a homein a state with an unlimited homestead ex-emption does not ameliorate the glaringomission of a real homestead cap.

Yet there is no outcry from our Re-publican colleagues about the injus-tice, fraud, and abuse in these cases. Infact, Governor Bush led the fight inTexas to see that rich cheats trying toescape their creditors can hide their as-sets under Texas’ unlimited homesteadlaw.

In 1999, the Texas legislature adopteda measure to opt-out of any homesteadrestrictions passed by Congress. Thelegislature also expanded the urbanhomestead protection to 10 acres. It al-lowed the homestead to be rented outand still qualify as a homestead. Iteven said that a homestead could be aplace of business. This provision givesthe phrase ‘‘home, sweet home’’ newmeaning.

The homestead loop-hole should beclosed permanently. It should not beleft open just for the wealthy. I wishthis misguided bill’s supporters wouldfight for that provision with the sameintensity they are fighting for thecredit card industry’s wish list, andfighting against women, against thesick, against laid-off workers, andagainst other average individuals andfamilies who will have no safety net ifthis unjust bill passes.

The hypocrisy of this bill is obvious.We hear a lot of pious Republican talkabout the need for responsibility whenaverage families are in financial trou-ble—but we hear no such talk of re-sponsibility when the wealthy andtheir lobbyists are the focus of atten-tion.

The facts are clear. The bankruptcybill before us is designed to increasethe profits of the credit card industryat the expense of working families. If itbecomes law, its effective will be dev-astating. It eminently deserves theveto it will receive if it ever reachesthe White House.f

IMMIGRATION

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, an-other issue in which this RepublicanCongress is ignoring working familiesis immigration.

Action on the Latino and ImmigrantFairness Act is long overdue. Theissues in this legislation are not new toCongress. The immigrant community—particularly the Latino community—has waited far too long for the funda-

mental fairness this legislation willprovide.

The Latino and Immigrant FairnessAct keeps families together. It rewardsimmigrants who work hard and paytaxes, and it makes our immigrationpolicies simpler and fairer.

Our proposal is based on the funda-mental principle that immigrants insimilar situations should be treatedequally. The Latino and ImmigrantFairness Act includes parity for allCentral Americans, and for Haitiansand Liberians. In 1997, Congress en-acted legislation granting permanentresidence to Nicaraguans and Cubanswho had fled their repressive govern-ments. But Congress did not grant thesame protection to other CentralAmericans and Haitians. The Latinoand Immigrant Fairness Act will elimi-nate these disparities and create fair,uniform procedures for all of these im-migrants.

The Latino and Immigrant FairnessAct will also change the registry cut-off date, so that long-time immigrantswho have been residing in this countrysince before 1986 will qualify to remainin the United States permanently, andit will restore a provision to the immi-gration laws that was unfairly allowedto expire in 1997.

These proposals are pro-family, pro-business, fiscally prudent, and a matterof common sense. But that hasn’tstopped the Republican leadership fromopposing them and offering a blatantlyinadequate substitute that pays lipservice to fairness for Latinos and im-migrants in our communities but de-nies them real help.

Under even the most generous inter-pretation, the Republican proposal ig-nores the vast majority of immigrantsand families. It will perpetuate thecurrent patchwork of contradictoryand discriminatory provisions enactedby the Republican Congress in recentyears.

Republicans propose two things.First, a new temporary ‘‘V’’ visa wouldbe created that allows certain spousesand minor children of lawful perma-nent residents to enter or stay in theU.S. and be granted work authorizationwhile waiting for their green card. Toqualify for the visa, applicants musthave had applications for entry pend-ing for over three years.

On the surface, this may sound like agood idea. But it unfairly picks andchooses among family members, grant-ing relief to some, but not to others.The GOP proposal perpetuates thepiecemeal and discriminatory immi-gration policies we are seeking to end.

Second, the Republican plan wouldprovide an opportunity for individualsto apply for green cards—but only ifthey were part of two particular classaction lawsuits against the INS for im-proper handling of the 1986 amnestyprogram. This selective proposal isgrossly inadequate. It provides reliefonly for individuals who sought coun-sel from a specific lawyer and joined aspecific lawsuit, even though countless

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11343October 29, 2000other individuals affected by the INSruling are left out. Also, of those peo-ple who are actually covered by thisplan, less than 40 percent are expectedto prevail.

Republicans acknowledge that the1986 law was implemented unfairly. Itis wrong and inconsistent to deny aremedy to all who were affected. It iswrong to help only those who were ableto hire the right attorney, and whofilled out the right forms. All eligibleindividuals should receive relief.

Governor Bush praises his trilliondollar tax break for the wealthy, andcriticizes Democrats for supportingtargeted tax relief that helps some in-dividuals, but not others. It’s obviousthat Republicans don’t care about uni-formity when the issue is immigration.It’s unfair and unjust to pick andchoose among immigrants who will re-ceive this well-deserved and long-over-due relief.

We have welcomed these individualsto the United States. They are part ofour communities. We have come toknow them as neighbors, friends, andcolleagues. We should support thosewho have come here in their search forfreedom, equality, and a better life.These are the same dreams our ances-tors came here to find in the past.

It is essential to pass the real Latinoand Immigrant Fairness Act and treatimmigrants fairly. Hard-working im-migrant families deserve this long-overdue relief, and they deserve it now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mi-nority controls the remainder of thetime.

Mr. REID. I yield that time to Sen-ator DORGAN.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from North Dakota is recognizedfor 9 minutes 17 seconds.f

THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I amnot going to talk about Texas. Therehas been plenty of discussion aboutthat tonight. I am going to talk aboutthis country. I saw this morning aninterview in which Governor Bush said:‘‘They had their chance,’’ talkingabout Vice President GORE, of course.‘‘They had their chance.’’ I want totalk about what has happened in thelast 8 years.

It is important to remember exactlywhat the Clinton-Gore administrationinherited and where we are. They hadtheir chance. Let’s talk about Presi-dent Clinton and Vice President GORE.

In 1993, when they took office, we hada $290 billion deficit that year, and itwas rising. That deficit was exploding.Our economy was in trouble. Econo-mists predicted slow anemic growth foran entire decade ahead. That is whatthe Clinton-Gore administration inher-ited.

Now, instead of the largest deficit inhistory, we have the largest surplus inhistory. Is that an accident? I don’tthink so. We had a vote in this Senateand they had a vote in the House on a

new plan to take this country to a newdirection, and it passed by one vote—one vote in the House and one vote inthe Senate. Not one member of the ma-jority party voted for that in either theHouse or the Senate. We moved thiscountry to a new direction. Now in-stead of the largest deficits in history,we have the largest surpluses in his-tory.

This is a chart which shows whatthese deficits and surpluses were whenGovernor Bush said: They had theirchance. This is what we inherited fromPresident George Bush in 1992 and 1993:red ink that was growing every year.This country was choking on deficits,and every year, when we changed direc-tion and created a new economic planto give people hope that we wouldmake the tough decisions to turn thiscountry around, we have seen lowerand lower deficits and finally sur-pluses. That is not an accident.

They had their chance, GovernorBush said. They turned the biggestdeficits into the biggest surpluses. Howabout economic growth? In the 12 yearsprior to the Clinton-Gore administra-tion taking office, average economicgrowth was 2.8 percent. Since then,economic growth has been on average3.9 percent.

Jobs: 1988 to 1992 was one of the worst4-year periods in history for the cre-ation of jobs. In fact, I have a chartthat I think will be useful to show interms of the creation of jobs: In theBush administration, 1988 to 1992, 2.5million new jobs in 4 years. In 8 years,the Clinton-Gore administration hadan economy that rebounded, and wehad 22 million new jobs created in thiscountry. They had their chance.

How about the unemployment rate?In 1981–1982, Reagan-Bush averaged 7.1-percent unemployment. Currently,there is 4.1-percent unemployment, thelowest level in 30 years.

Home ownership: From 1982 to 1992,home ownership fell in this country.Now it is the highest in history.

Welfare rolls increased 22 percentfrom 1981 to 1992. Now they have de-creased by 53 percent.

The Dow Jones was 3,300. Now it isover 10,000.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senatoryield?

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy toyield.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I think the Sen-ator is making an important point, butI would like him to supplement it be-cause I, too, have been startled in hear-ing Governor Bush explain they hadtheir chance to enact a Patients’ Billof Rights. Indeed, it is my memorythat on more occasions than I can re-member the Clinton-Gore administra-tion, with support of Democrats in thisHouse, attempted to have a Patients’Bill of Rights.

I heard Governor Bush say on pre-scription drugs that we promised it andhad not delivered it; we had ourchance. Indeed, the Clinton-Gore ad-ministration supported prescription

drugs and Democrats supported it inthe Congress but failed.

Is my recollection of this correct,that we had our chance, we have at-tempted to do it but, ironically, thepeople who have stopped it are now thesame people who constitute the Bushcampaign?

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is abso-lutely correct. They had their chance.What about the issue of the Patients’Bill of Rights? We were blocked by themajority party.

What about campaign finance re-form? We have tried, tried, and triedand were blocked by the majorityparty.

What about a prescription drug ben-efit for the Medicare program? We havetried and tried and were blocked by themajority party.

How about the issue of education andproviding some help to reconstruct andrenovate and provide for better schoolsand better classrooms?

Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator willyield, can we focus on that one as wellbecause I heard in debates GovernorBush said on education Clinton-Gorehad their chance. Indeed, the Presidentproposed 100,000 new teachers repeat-edly and has been fighting for it everyyear—got it enacted at one point—in-cluding right up to tonight on schoolreconstruction, which has not beensupported, to my knowledge, by Gov-ernor Bush, certainly not supported byhis party in Congress. So indeed theyhad their chance on education, and theClinton-Gore administration led oneducation as they led on health care.

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is abso-lutely correct. We have had the longesteconomic expansion in American his-tory. That did not happen by accident.Governor Bush says: Well, gosh, that’sdue to the American people. The Amer-ican people worked hard in 1981, 1982,1983, and 1984. The American people hadas much ingenuity, as much tenacityto work hard then. But you need publicpolicies in place that help them aswell.

The public policies that the Clinton-Gore administration and the Demo-crats in Congress put in place in 1993said we were going to stop these Fed-eral deficits. We had a new fiscal pol-icy. We turned this country around.

The American people understandthat when they have hope for the fu-ture, they do things that reflect thathope. They buy cars; they buy homes;and they take vacations. They do thethings that represent their hope for thefuture.

There was not much hope for a longwhile because every year the deficitwas getting worse and no one wantedto do much about it, but the Clinton-Gore administration came in and said:We have a new plan and it will be a lit-tle tough. It was hard to vote for—infact, so hard that not one member ofthe majority party voted for it.

I see on the floor my friend fromTexas, Mr. GRAMM, whom we havequoted many times. He said: If you

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11344 October 29, 2000pass this plan, this country is going togo into a tailspin. Those are not hisexact words, but it is exactly what hemeant.

Of course, he was wrong. This coun-try passed a new economic plan andgave the American people confidenceabout the future. Guess what happened.The largest deficits in history turnedinto the largest surpluses in history.We have had the longest economic ex-pansion on record—welfare rolls aredown, home ownership is up, inflationis down. Almost every basic index inthis country is better.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?Mr. DORGAN. Yes, I will yield.Mr. DURBIN. When the Senator from

Texas—Governor Bush’s home State—voted against the Clinton-Gore plan in1993, he said: ‘‘This program is going tomake the economy weaker, hundreds ofthousands of people are going to losetheir jobs as a result of this program.’’

Was the Senator from Texas correctas a result of the Clinton-Gore plan?Did hundreds of thousands of peoplelose their jobs?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, theSenator from Illinois asked a questionabout job creation. This administra-tion, during these 8 years, has seen 22million new jobs created in this coun-try. In the 4 years prior under Presi-dent George Bush, 2.5 million new jobswere created. You will see this is one ofthe most robust periods of economicexpansion in this country’s history. Isit an accident? No. This administrationhad a new economic plan that said let’smove away from growing and chokingdeficits and give the American peoplesome confidence about the future. Theresult of it was that confidence mani-fested a growing economy that creatednew jobs and new opportunities. Everysingle feature of this economy has be-come better in the last 8 years, everysingle one. Unemployment, inflation,welfare, home ownership—in every sin-gle instance, things are better in thiscountry.

This morning, when I heard the Gov-ernor say, ‘‘Well, you have had yourchance,’’ I would say, yes, this admin-istration had its chance and it inher-ited a weak and troubled economy andturned it into a strong, vibrant, grow-ing economy, and good for them.

It did not happen because they tookthe easy road. This was not the easything to do. In 1993, when they had thevote on the new plan, it passed by onlyone vote in the House and the Senate.We did not get even one vote on themajority side. We took our licks forvoting for it, but history shows thatwhat we created was the strongesteconomy in this world, and I thinkVice President GORE and PresidentClinton and those who voted for thatnew plan in this Congress can takesome pride in what the result of thatplan has been.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeallotted to the distinguished Senatorhas expired.

MAKING FURTHER CONTINUINGAPPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCALYEAR 2001

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I under-stand the Senate has received the con-tinuing resolution. I ask that the pre-vious order now commence, and theclerk report the joint resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will report the joint resolutionby title.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 119) makingfurther continuing appropriations for the fis-cal year 2001, and other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider thejoint resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The jointresolution having been considered readthe third time, the question is, Shallthe joint resolution pass?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask forthe yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There appears to be a sufficient sec-ond.

The clerk will call the roll.The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the

Senator from Missouri (Mr. ASHCROFT),the Senator from Missouri (Mr. BOND),the Senator from Kansas (Mr.BROWNBACK), the Senator from Mon-tana (Mr. BURNS), the Senator fromColorado (Mr. CAMPBELL), the Senatorfrom Idaho (Mr. CRAPO), the Senatorfrom Wyoming (Mr. ENZI), the Senatorfrom Tennessee (Mr. FRIST), the Sen-ator from Washington (Mr. GORTON),the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.GRAMS), the Senator from North Caro-lina (Mr. HELMS), the Senator fromOklahoma (Mr. INHOFE), the Senatorfrom Vermont (Mr. JEFFORDS), the Sen-ator from Arizona (Mr. KYL), the Sen-ator from Indiana (Mr. LUGAR), theSenator from Florida (Mr. MACK), theSenator from Arizona (Mr. MCCAIN),the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.MCCONNELL), the Senator from Alaska(Mr. MURKOWSKI), the Senator fromDelaware (Mr. ROTH), the Senator fromWyoming (Mr. THOMAS) and the Sen-ator from Tennessee (Mr. THOMPSON),are necessarily absent.

I further anounce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from North Caro-lina (Mr. HELMS) and the Senator fromMontana (Mr. BURNS) would each vote‘‘yea.’’

Mr. REID. I announce that the Sen-ator from California (Mrs. BOXER), theSenator from Georgia (Mr. CLELAND),the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.CONRAD), the Senator from California(Mrs. FEINSTEIN), the Senator fromSouth Carolina (Mr. HOLLINGS), theSenator from Wisconsin (Mr. KOHL),the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. LAU-TENBERG), the Senator from Vermont(Mr. LEAHY), the Senator from Con-necticut (Mr. LIEBERMAN), and the Sen-ator from Minnesota (Mr. WELLSTONE)are necessarily absent.

The result was announced—yeas 67,nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 292 Leg.]YEAS—67

AbrahamAkakaAllardBaucusBayhBennettBidenBingamanBreauxBryanBunningByrdChafee, L.CochranCollinsCraigDaschleDeWineDoddDomeniciDorganDurbinEdwards

FeingoldFitzgeraldGrahamGrammGrassleyGreggHagelHarkinHatchHutchinsonHutchisonInouyeJohnsonKennedyKerreyKerryLandrieuLevinLincolnLottMikulskiMillerMoynihan

MurrayNicklesReedReidRobbRobertsRockefellerSantorumSarbanesSchumerSessionsShelbySmith (NH)Smith (OR)SnoweSpecterThurmondTorricelliVoinovichWarnerWyden

NAYS—1

Stevens

NOT VOTING—32

AshcroftBondBoxerBrownbackBurnsCampbellClelandConradCrapoEnziFeinstein

FristGortonGramsHelmsHollingsInhofeJeffordsKohlKylLautenbergLeahy

LiebermanLugarMackMcCainMcConnellMurkowskiRothThomasThompsonWellstone

The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 119)was passed.

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote, and I move tolay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.f

EUROPEAN SECURITY ANDDEFENSE POLICY

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on Oc-tober 10, 2000, the Center for Strategic& International Studies (CSIS) hostedan important luncheon discussion onthe European Union’s evolving Euro-pean Security and Defense Policy(ESDP). The guest speakers at thatluncheon were Ambassador ChristopherMeyer of Great Britain, AmbassadorJuergen Chrobog of Germany, and Am-bassador Francois Bujon de l’Estang ofFrance. Senator LEVIN and I were privi-leged to sponsor this luncheon on Cap-itol Hill, in the Senate Armed ServicesCommittee hearing room. Attendees atthis luncheon included a prestigiousgroup of former ambassadors and ad-ministration officials, representativesfrom industry, policy and research or-ganizations, and senior congressionalstaff from both the House and Senate.

Since December 1999, when the Euro-pean Union (EU) Heads of State an-nounced at a summit meeting in Hel-sinki their ‘‘determination to developan autonomous capacity to take deci-sions and, where NATO as a whole isnot engaged, to launch and conductEU-led military operations in responseto international crises,’’ there has beena great deal of discussion and debateabout the development of a commonEuropean defense identity. While Icommend our European allies for their

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11345October 29, 2000willingness to do more militarily, Ihave been concerned about the impactof an ESDP on the NATO Alliance.

My views on the development of theEuropean Security and Defense Policystart with the basic premise thatNATO has been the most successfulmilitary alliance in history. NATO wonthe cold war; it is now plying an in-strumental role in keeping the peace inEurope. Whatever is done in the con-text of an ESDP, it must not weakenNATO.

There are a number of questions con-cerning the content of an ESDP—ques-tions I, Senator LEVIN, and othersraised at the October 10 luncheon. Forexample, Europeans are discussing in-creasing their military capabilities ata time of declining defense budgets, ina number of NATO partners. How is anadded military capability possible withless money? Will ESDP developments—particularly the establishment of EUmilitary structures—take valuable andscarce resources away from NATO mili-tary capabilities? How will the EUmilitary force interact with NATO?Will NATO have the right of first re-fusal—or veto power—over an EU-ledmilitary operation?

These are important questions thatshould be answered. During the meet-ing on October 10, the Ambassadorsprovided valuable insight into the de-velopment of an ESDP. I commendtheir participation in today’s forum. Iask unanimous consent that the open-ing statements of the three Ambas-sadors be printed in the RECORD.

I will continue to monitor these de-velopments and keep the Senate in-formed.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:SPEECH BY AMBASSADOR CHRISTOPHER MEYER

EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENSE POLICY(ESDP) AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITEDSTATES AND NATO

In October 1998 Tony Blair launched an ini-tiative on European defense in a speech atPo

¨rtschach.

He had been dismayed by the inadequacy ofEuropean diplomatic and military perform-ance in the Balkans. It undermined thecredibility of the EU’s common foreign andsecurity policy. It corroded the Atlantic alli-ance by giving comfort to those in the U.S.who argue that the Europeans refuse to as-sume their share of the burden.

He saw that the Europeans lack militarytransportation over long distances; logisticalsupport to sustain fighting forces for longperiods away from home; and enough capa-bilities such as airborne surveillance, preci-sion-guided munitions and command, controland communications. The Kosovo campaignin particular showed up these deficiencies.

Blair’s aim was, and remains, three-fold:To strengthen the AEU’s capacity to actinternationally in a more effective manner;to deliver a step-change in Europe’s abilityto manage crises; and to strengthen the Eu-ropean Contribution to the Atlantic alliance,in particular through more robust Europeanmilitary capabilities.

In the British view this is overwhelminglyin the interests of the U.S., the alliance andof Europe.

Since Blair’s speech, he and presidentChirac have been the main drivers of this ini-

tiative. The British-French St. Malo declara-tion was the first land-mark. But, of course,over the last two years, the full membershipsof the EU and NATO have become increas-ingly involved, notably Germany.

My colleagues will speak to you about theimplications of this initiative for the U.S.and NATO; about the current state of play;and about next steps.

I want to make only two observations.The first is that the initiative has made

extraordinary progress in less than 2 years:Last December, at Helsinki, the EU set

itself a headline goal: to be able by 2003 todeploy 60,000 troops at 60 days’ notice for op-erations lasting at least a year. By the endof this year we should have identified whowill need to do what to make this goal re-ality; and we ought to have in place key ele-ment of EU/NATO arrangements, as well asnecessary internal EU structures. My col-leagues will say more about this.

My second observation is that behind theofficial statements of welcome for this ini-tiative, there has been chronic suspicion andskepticism on this side of the Atlantic, espe-cially on Capitol Hill. Why?

First, there is a long-standing schizo-phrenia at work. For decades you have beentelling the Europeans to get their act to-gether: one emergency phone number, please.But whenever we show signs of doing whatyou ask, you become suspicious and anxiousthat we are doing things behind your back.European defense initiative has been muchafflicted by this schizophrenia. Damned if wedo, damned if we don’t.

Second, some of you don’t actually believewe will ever put our money where our mouthis and increase European military effective-ness. But, Britain and, I’m sure, France andGermany are determined to make a realityof this initiative. Britain has just increasedits military budget accordingly. The capa-bilities commitment conference will be heldprecisely to pin member-states down to con-crete commitments. The UK has alreadymade clear that it will offer a pool of landforces adding up to about 20,000, of whom amaximum of 12,000 would be deployed in anyone scenario. The pool would allow deploy-ment of one a group of armored, mechanizedor air assault brigades, with probably twoadditional brigades in support (e.g. Artillery,air defense, attack helicopters, HA and sig-nals).

The UK defense budget is rising in realterms. Procurement plans announced thisyear include four C–17 strategic lift aircraftwith more to follow; maverick precisionguided munitions and new air-to-air missilesfor the Eurofighter; two new aircraft carriersand six new type–45 destroyers; new com-mand, control and intelligence systems.

Third, you sometimes exaggerate the shareof the burden the U.S. have to assume. Itstrue you flew most of the sorties in theKosovo campaign. That is something we Eu-ropeans have to rectify. But don’t forgetthat today in Kosovo, 85% of the NATO-ledforce comes from Europe. So does most ofthe civil aid. That’s how it should be.

Fourth, the question is asked why it is nec-essary to introduce the EU into the equa-tion, when there is already a security bodycalled NATO, of which 13 out of 15 membersare European. Isn’t, the skeptics ask, the Eu-ropean defense initiative really about replac-ing NATO as the basis for collective Euro-pean defense and cutting transatlantic secu-rity ties? This is perhaps the most deep-seat-ed of U.S. concerns.

The answer to this last question is an em-phatic ‘‘no’’, as my colleagues will confirm.NATO will remain the bedrock of our defenseand that of European allies. This initiative isnot about replacing NATO or underminingits role in collective defence and other de-

manding crisis management missions. No-one in Europe is suggesting an EU role incollective defence. European allies havemade perfectly clear, in actions as well as indeclarations, our preference to act alongsidethe U.S. wherever possible, particularly inhigh intensity operations.

Instead, this initiative is about othercases, where the U.S. does not want to be in-volved, ‘‘putting out fires in our backyard’’,as French defence minister Alain Richardhas put it. With the U.S. where you want tobe present, otherwise on our own. ‘‘Sepa-rable, but not separate’’.

Bear in mind that we are not writing on ablank piece of paper. Rather than creating anew security body, we are replacing an exist-ing body that has not proven effectiveenough—the western European union—byone with far greater political, financial andorganizational muscle—the European union.We are trading up for a more useful instru-ment. But our aims have not changed: amore effective European defence, organicallylinked to NATO and its structures.

Submerging Western European Union(WEU) functions into the European Union(EU), we simplify not multiply European se-curity structures. We end an artificial sepa-ration between hard defence in NATO andWEU, from foreign and security policy in theEU. EU policies should become less declara-tory, more hard-headed. That will be goodfor us all.

Finally, let me underline one point thatTony Blair has made clear, repeatedly, rightback to his first speech in October 1998: thisinitiative should be judged, and we ourselveswill measure its success, by whether there isa real improvement in military capabilities.We are under no illusions about the dif-ficulty. But it has been and remains the cen-tral aim of the initiative.

SPEECH BY AMBASSADOR JU¨RGEN CHROBOG


Now that Sir Christopher has outlined howESDP came into being and what it is allabout, I would like to concentrate on thecontrobution ESDP will make to NATO andthe transatlantic partnership. In doing so,I’ll try to address some of the questions thathave been raised in this country aboutESDP. I’ll certainly be happy to discussthem in more detail later on. ChristopherMeyer’s remarks have pointed out whyEDSP is vital to further European integra-tion. With ESDP, the European Union hascommitted itself to making essentialprogress towards a political union which isunderpinned by credible political and mili-tary action. But ESDP is of equal impor-tance to NATO, the U.S., and the trans-atlantic relationship—and not just because astrong Europe is very much in the interest ofthe United States.

To underpin this, I would like to make fourbrief points:

First: ESDP will enable Europeans to en-gage in crisis management, principally onthe European continent. ESDP is an historicstep towards strengthening the military ca-pabilities of the Europe NATO partners. Inthis respect, it is a product of the lessonslearned from Bosina and Kosovo. ESDP en-hances the ability of the EU to make deci-sions in crisis management. With ESDP, Eu-rope will be able to perform a broad spec-trum of missions ranging from civilian con-flict prevention to military crisis manage-ment. These include humanitarian assist-ance, evacuation measures during crisis situ-ations in third countries, and military peace-keeping and peace-enforcing—all of which werefer to as the ‘‘Petersberg Task.’’ I would

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES11346 October 29, 2000like to mention here the efforts to enhanceEuropean capabilities predates the St. Maloagreement of 1998 by a few years. In June1992, on German initiative, a WEU Ministe-rial meeting near Bonn first outlined the‘‘Petersberg tasks’’ which later became thebasis for ESDP objectives. Within the frame-work of ESDP, the EU will develop tools forcivilian crisis management, including a taskforce of police officers ready to deploy onshort notice. This will make the EU the onlymultilateral organization that can offer thefull range of conflict management measures.

Second: By developing European capabili-ties in key military areas, ESDP will makea substantial contribution to transatlanticburden-sharing. These new capabilities in-clude command and control, strategic intel-ligence, and strategic airlift—just to namethe most important ones. These prioritieswill also play an important role in the re-form of the German armed forces which hasrecently begun. This reform will triple thenumber of troops that Germany will be ableto rapidly deploy from 50,000 to 150,000. Thisincrease in the readiness forces will enablethe Bundeswehr to participate in one majoroperation with up to 50,000 soldiers for a pe-riod of up to one year or two medium sizedoperations, each with up to 10,000 soldiers forseveral years, a significant improvementover current capabilities as demonstrated bythe 7,500 men presently deployed in the Bal-kans. Germany will thus be in a better posi-tion to meets its responsibilities withinNATO and the European framework. Ger-many’s defense budget will increase by 3.2%in 2001. As you know, a German-French ini-tiative is already underway on establishing aEuropean air transport command—a way tocombine financial resources to achieve therequired capability quality and quantity.The modernization of European forces will beharmonized with NATO’s Defense Capabili-ties Initiative and thus simultaneously con-tribute to both the European and NATOforce goals. Senator Chuck Hagel of Ne-braska said it very plainly in his recent arti-cle for ‘‘Defense News’’ (3.7.2000), and I quote‘‘Greater European military capabilities willmake the alliance stronger, lift some of theburden the United States now carries in hav-ing to act in every crisis, and make the U.S.-European relationship a more equal one.’’End of quote. I could not agree more. Astrong Europe is good for the United States.For this very good reason, not only SenatorHagel but also a whole generation of Amer-ican politicians before him have been callingfor exactly the same steps which we are nowtaking with ESDP.

Third: Within NATO, ESDP will strength-en the transatlantic link. The EuropeanUnion will use its crisis management capa-bility to complement and reinforce NATO.There may be occasions when the U.S. is notinclined or, for other reasons, is unable todispatch American troops to deal with a con-flict in Europe which needs to be addressed.This is precisely the type of scenario inwhich ESDP can play a role. Let me be clear:The EU is not competing with NATO. TheEuropeans will take care of business ‘‘whereNATO as a whole is not engaged’’ (EuropeanCouncil Helsinki, Dec. 1998). There will be noseparate European army. There will be nounnecessary duplication of assets or capa-bilities between NATO and the EuropeanUnion. In fact, the EU might require NATOassets to conduct EU-led military oper-ations. ESDP reflects the EU’s willingness toshoulder more of the burden of safeguardingpeace and democracy. As the New StrategicConcept of the Alliance, which was endorsedat NATO’s Washington summit in April 1999,states: ‘‘The increase in the responsibilitiesand capacities of the European allies with re-spect to security and defense enhances thesecurity environment of the alliance.’’

And finally, my forth point. The EU willinclude other European countries in ESDP.Procedures are being put in place to allowthe six European NATO members which arenot EU member states and possibly othercontributing states to fully participate inEuropean-led operations. That includes theEastern and Southeastern countries that arecandidates for EU membership. ESDP thusreinforces and broadens the security um-brella of NATO.

To sum up: EU and NATO have very dif-ferent backgrounds, histories and structures.They will not detract from each other, butgrow closer in values, convictions, and ac-tions. For the European Union, and Germanyin particular, the transatlantic partnershipand the U.S. political and military presencein Europe remain the key to peace and secu-rity on the European continent. And onething is absolutely certain: NATO remainsresponsible for the collective defense of Eu-rope. NATO will not lose any of its impor-tance, and ESDP will strengthen the Euro-pean Union and NATO.

SPEECH BY AMBASSADOR FRANCOIS BUJON DEL’ESTANG


I would like to thank Dr. Hamre andSimon Serfaty for this excellent initiativetaken by the CSIS.

From St. Malo to today, some apprehen-sion has been expressed on Capitol Hill re-garding European security and defense pol-icy. This apprehension has been largely due,I believe, to misconceptions and lack of un-derstanding of our intentions and our objec-tives. Perhaps terminology has not helped ei-ther, with the European predilection for omi-nous acronyms

After the excellent presentations of myBritish and German colleagues, there is lit-tle left to add. However, there is only onething worse than a European conspiracy: aFrench-inspired European conspiracy. Ac-cording to a rather popular theory in Wash-ington, ESDP is a dark and dangerous plotorganized by France to finally break up theAtlantic Alliance with the unknowing com-plicity of its blind European partners. There-fore, people are undoubtedly paying close at-tention to the current French Presidency ofthe EU. Let me spend a few minutes to shedsome light on our plans until December 31,and briefly go over the goals—and achieve-ments—of our current presidency in order todispel and doubt that might still be lingeringin your minds.

1. To quote Lord Robertson, ESDP is aboutthree things: capabilities, capabilities andcapabilities. I wholeheardly subscribe to thisassertion, for at least two reasons: first ofall, France has always prided itself, on a na-tional level, with a strong commitment torobust defense capabilities, and our presentforces are there to show it—it is only naturalthat we attempt to pursue our European en-deavor with the same priority. Second, be-cause capabilities are the key to the successof ESDP, in terms of political credibility ofcourse but also in terms of our military ob-jectives.

Let me tell you what our projects are interms of capabilities:

As you all know by now, at Helsinki, lastDecember, the fifteen heads of State or Gov-ernment set themselves two series of targetsin terms of military capabilities.

On the one hand, the quantitative so called‘‘head-line goals’’ (60,000 troops rapidlydeployable, self-sufficient for a whole yearwith the necessary air and naval support);

On the other hand, qualitative targets re-garding collective capabilities in areas such

as command and control, intelligence andstrategic transport. What we are doing todayis to transform these political objectivesinto concrete goals, in a very detailed man-ner. In political objectives into concretegoals, in a very detailed manner. In otherwords, the dozen or so lines in the Helsinkiconclusions on capabilities have, thanks toan alchemy performed by EU military plan-ners with input from their NATO colleagues,turned into some 50 pages of specific require-ments.

This allows us to match up what we needto what we currently have, and of coursemeasure the gaps, which we will aim to closeat the Capabilities Commitment Conference,to be held in Brussels next November 20 byDefense Ministers of the 15. This event willallow each member State to make pledgestoward meeting these requirements. We alsoaim to decide, before the end of our Presi-dency, on a European review mechanismthat will allow us to continue narrowing thegap until 2003, and more generally to reviewthe nature and composition of Europeanmilitary forces.

Just to give you a flavor of this work,which suddenly makes all of these debatesvery real: the Defense Ministers of the 15agreed, two weeks ago, that in order to ful-fill the Helsinki objectives the EU needed:80,000 troops in order to allow for a simulta-neous contingency and still be able toproject 60,000 as agreed (allowing for rota-tions, this means of course 200,000 to 230,000troops); 300 to 350 fighter planes; some 80combat ships . . . these are just some of theelements in this catalogue of forces thathave been agreed. I could also mention stra-tegic lift, UAVs, amphibious landingships . . .

I would like to mention in passing that, asyou can see, we are not just aiming at oper-ations on the low end of the peace-keepingspectrum as I have sometimes heard. Doesthis mean that we would be able, in 2003, tocarry out an operation such as ‘‘AlliedForce’’ entirely by ourselves? Of course not—and it would be dangerous to create such ex-pectations. But the imbalance between U.S.and European forces which we witnessed lastyear would be substantially reduced—and2003 will be an important stepping stone onthe path to such a capability, which we needto keep as a longer-term goal in order to beprepared for all non-article 5 contingencies.

3. I often hear people complaining aboutthe fact that the EU is not working to im-prove its capabilities, but just creating newinstitutions. This is inaccurate on bothcounts: as I have just pointed out, we are ac-tively working on reinforcing our capabili-ties. As for institutions, I would agree withSir Christopher that we are re-organizing,not multiplying European institutions. Aswe have reiterated at the last EuropeanCouncils, our goal is to develop an autono-mous capacity to take decisions and, whereNATO as a whole is not engaged, to launchand conduct EU-led military operations inresponse to international crises’’. The capac-ity to take decisions and to conduct EU-ledmilitary operations requires the adequatepolitical-military decision-making struc-tures, procedures and expertise. During ourPresidency, we are working hard in order toallow these new EU structures (the Politicaland Security Committee, the Military Com-mittee and the Military Staff) to get up andrunning in their permanent configuration,taking over from their interim one. Thesebodies are analogous to those that existed inthe past in the WEU, and which will be dis-banded.

I might add that those new institutionsthat are being created are those which fulfillthe objective of allowing consultation andcooperation with NATO and with non-EU

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11347October 29, 2000countries, two goals that I know are verydear to many of those here today, as they areindeed to us. Under our Presidency, we havealready held a joint meeting between theNorth Atlantic Council and the Interim Po-litical and Security Committee (and therewill be more to come), as well as severalmeetings of the newly set up joint workinggroups between the EU and NATO. These areneeded to address, in a pragmatic and solu-tion-oriented way, the issues that the twoorganizations need to work out together (ac-cess to NATO assets, information security,etc.) and to work out the elements of thelong-term EU–NATO relationship. We havealso set up an inclusive forum for the 15 Eu-ropean non-EU partners and, within thisforum, for the 6 non-EU NATO allies. Severalmeetings have also already been held in thetwo months that have gone by since we tookup our presidency. These countries will, ofcourse, be closely associated to the Novem-ber Capabilities Commitment Conference.

One final word: after having gone into suchdetail into our current projects, just to giveyou a taste of how complex this whole en-deavor is and how seriously we are takingour task, I wouldn’t want the trees to hidethe forest.

The crucial element to bear in mind is thatwe are at a turning point in the history ofthe European Union, of the Atlantic Allianceand of transatlantic relations. There is muchat stake, both for the future of the EU’s for-eign and security policy, and therefore forour ability as Europeans to play our role onthe world stage, and for the transatlanticlink as well. We have taken the full measureof what is at stake and are pleased to seethat quarreling and suspicion have givenlargely given way, on this side of the Atlan-tic, to a better understanding of our commoninterests and our shared objective.

f

BRIAN BENCZKOWSKIMr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, at the

end of this session of the 106th Con-gress Brian Benczkowski will be leav-ing my staff. Brian has worked on theHill since his third year in law school.He stared as an intern while still in lawschool, served as the senior analyst forjudiciary issues for the Senate BudgetCommittee, and worked closely withmy general counsel to develop, andenact, over the President’s veto, theSecurities Litigation Reform Act of1995.

Brian was my counsel for the secondround of Whitewater hearings and waspart of the team for the historic im-peachment trial of President Clinton.Brian worked on Juvenile Justice legis-lation, and helped me take on theMexican drug lords.

He learned the highway, airport andother infrastructure needs of New Mex-ico as well as any Highway and Trans-portation Secretary in any Governor’scabinet. He was knowledgeable on im-migration issues and helped my case-workers with the really tough, but wor-thy immigration problems that are adaily fact of life in a border state. Justto prove that Brian had a soft side, hewas my staff person for CharacterCounts during the 106th Congress.

Brian was instrumental in draftingthe claims process legislation for thevictims of the Cerro Grande fire. Fromthe date that the fire first started tothe day that the President signed thebill, complete with the $640 million topay the claims, was fifty days. It is agood legislative product, and it provedthat the delegation and the Congresscould be bipartisan and act expedi-tiously in an emergency.

Brian is a talented lawyer, a caringand hard working member of my staff.

For a young man raised in Virginia,taught the law in Missouri with par-ents now living in Connecticut, he hasmade many New Mexico friends, devel-oped a taste for green chile andamassed an understanding of the bor-der. At one point I remarked that hisSpanish was as good as any other staffmember in my office.

So what is it that such a talentedyoung man would choose to do whenleaving Capitol Hill?

Banking legislative assistants andcounsels with backgrounds in securi-ties often end up at the Securities andExchange Commission, the Commod-ities Futures Trading Commission orat one of the Wall Street firms. How-ever, the typical career path wouldn’tdo for this untypically talented younglawyer. He is going to New York towork for the first, real sports stockmarket.

This new sports stock market willlist the baseball and other tradingcards of today’s marquee athletes andmajor league sports rising stars. Justlike any major stock exchange, the ex-change is a market maker. Just like E-trade or Ameritrade people will havesports brokerage accounts.

Brian is a baseball fan, former base-ball player and a font of knowledgewhen it comes to sports. As a formerminor league baseball player myself, Iknow baseball and am a fan of mostother sports. ESPN was a great inven-tion that adds to most men’s enjoy-ment of life, sports and the pursuit ofhappiness. Hopefully, this new sportsstock exchange will add another di-mension to the way we all followsports.

Many of us share a passion for sports,but very few of us get to take that pas-sion, and merge it with the law, get animpressive title like assistant generalcounsel, receive a pay check and stockoptions. However, Brian is going to dojust that at thePit.com. I wish him andhis new company every success.

f

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

At 7:30 p.m., a message from theHouse of Representatives, delivered byMs. Kellaher, one of its reading clerks,announced that the House has passedthe following joint resolution, in which

it requests the concurrence of the Sen-ate:

H.J. Res. 119. Joint resolution making fur-ther continuing appropriations for the fiscalyear 2001, and for other purposes.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

A message from the House of Rep-resentatives, delivered by Ms. Kellaher,one of its reading clerks, announcedthat the Speaker has signed the fol-lowing enrolled joint resolution:

H.J. Res. 119. Joint resolution making fur-ther continuing appropriations for the fiscalyear 2001, and for other purposes.

The enrolled bill was signed subse-quently by the President pro tempore(Mr. THURMOND).

f

ORDERS FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER30, 2000

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, on be-half of the distinguished majority lead-er of the Senate, I ask unanimous con-sent that when the Senate completesits business today, it recess until thehour of 5 p.m. on Monday, October 30,2000. I further ask consent that onMonday, immediately following theprayer, the Journal of proceedings beapproved to date, the time for the twoleaders be reserved for their use laterin the day, and the Senate then pro-ceed to a period of morning businessuntil 7 p.m., with Senators speakingfor up to 10 minutes each, with the fol-lowing exceptions: Senator REID, or hisdesignee, from 5 to 6 p.m.; SenatorDOMENICI, or his designee, from 6 to 7p.m.


f

PROGRAM

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, for theinformation of all Senators, the Senatewill convene tomorrow at 5 p.m., withup to 2 hours for morning business,with Senators REID and DOMENICI incontrol of the time.

Under the previous order, there willbe a vote on a continuing resolution at7 p.m. That will be the first vote of theday. However, other votes may be nec-essary during tomorrow evening’s ses-sion. Good-faith negotiations are ongo-ing, and it is hoped that an agreementcan be finalized this week.

f

RECESS UNTIL 5 P.M. TOMORROW

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, if thereis no further business to come beforethe Senate, I ask unanimous consentthat the Senate stand in recess underthe previous order.

There being no objection, the Senate,at 7:58 p.m., recessed until Monday, Oc-tober 30, 2000, at 5 p.m.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E2017October 29, 2000

CONGRATULATIONS TO SEIU ON 25YEARS OF SERVICE

HON. DONALD M. PAYNEOF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Sunday, October 29, 2000

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, Oc-tober 28th, I had the privilege of attending the25th anniversary celebration of an organiza-tion which has led the way in offering im-proved opportunities and a better quality of lifefor working men and women, the Service Em-ployees International Union. Honored at theevent were President and Co-founder John‘‘JJ’’ Johnson and all the Charter members ofLocal 617. The program featured union mem-bers, friends and supporters, including NewarkMayor Sharpe James; former President CurtisGrimsley; Patricia Ford, SEIU International Ex-ecutive Vice President; Carol Graves, EssexCounty Registrar; and Thomas Giblin, EssexCounty Democratic Chairman.

Three decades ago, when public sector em-ployees in my home city of Newark, New Jer-sey, and throughout the nation had not yetbegun to organize, Service Employees Inter-national Union took the historic initiative ofchartering Local 617. In February of 1976,Local 617 began to negotiate with the NewarkBoard of Education for its first contract. Whenno satisfactory results were reached, themembers voted to strike. With strong supportfrom the Newark community, members re-mained on strike for 12 days. SEIU PresidentCurtis Grimsley and Executive Vice PresidentJohn Johnson met with Governor BrendanByrne and requested his intervention to reacha settlement of the dispute. The strike endedwith an understanding that both parties returnto the table and bargain in good faith andagree to binding mediation.

Since 1976, Local 617 and Local 3 jointlynegotiated contracts with the Newark Board ofEducation. After the contract was settled in1976, President Curtis Grimsley and ExecutiveVice President John Johnson were subpoe-naed to appear in court, and a fine was im-posed on Local 617. Personal fines were im-posed on President Grimsley and ExecutiveVice President Johnson and they were placedon two years probation because of the strike.In 1977, Local 617 organized the City of New-ark Crossing Guards, who went on strike afterthere was no progress during negotiations. Acontract was eventually reached after MayorKenneth Gibson met with the Union leader-ship. That same year, Local 617 established aCommunity Service Plaque Award for Commu-nity involvement to be presented to a studentfrom each of the Newark High Schools.

The Local also successfully petitioned torepresent the Bus Attendants of the NewarkBoard of Education. In 1978, there was a 3-day strike which led to approval of a benefitpackage for the membership consisting of pre-scription drugs coverage, dental care, visioncare and temporary disability, benefits whichmembers still enjoy today.

In 1990, Local 617 organized the NewarkPre-school Employees. That year, 250 work-ers went on strike with the support of the par-ents and the community. This strike, lasting 7weeks, was the longest in the history of Local617. Since that time, SEIU has been certifiedto represent additional units, which includeCommunity Day Nursery, Christ Church DayCare Center, Mary E. Wheeler Willis Edu-cational Center, Irvington Housing Authority,HOPES, Irvington Crossing Guards, City ofNewark Department of Public Works, City ofNewark 911 Communication Operators andthe Jersey City Head Start Program. TheUnion also obtained an affiliation agreementwith the International Union, which mergedLocal 305 of the Newark Housing Authorityinto Local 617. The Local has also affiliatedwith Joint Council 33, the Eastern Conferenceof Service Employees, the New Jersey AFL–CIO, Essex West Hudson Labor Council, theIndustrial Union Council, the Council of UnionEmployees, and the A. Randolph Institute.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues here inCongress join me in congratulating Local 617of the SEIU, an organization which has grownfrom 25 members in 1969 to over 3000 today,as they continue to champion the rights ofworking men and women.f


HON. VERNON J. EHLERSOF MICHIGAN



Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No.572, I was unavoidably detained. Had I beenpresent, I would have voted ‘‘yea.’’f

HONORING JIM MOUER OFSACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

HON. ROBERT T. MATSUIOF CALIFORNIA



Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to atruly outstanding citizen of Sacramento, JimMouer. He will be retiring after over 45 yearsof service in the baking industry and 21 yearsof working for BCTGM Local 85. As his friendsand family gather to celebrate on Saturday,October 28, I ask all of my colleagues to joinwith me in saluting his remarkable career.

Jim Mouer was born on September 27,1935 at County Hospital on Stockton Boule-vard in Sacramento. He graduated from Sac-ramento High School in June 1954. After at-tending Sacramento City College, Jim went onto work as a bakery apprentice at Hearts Bak-ery. His career continued as a baker with sev-eral employers, including his own bakery withhis father. He eventually joined ContinentalBakery (Wonder Bread) in 1960.

After 19 years with Wonder Bread, Jim wenton to become Secretary/Treasurer of the

Bakers Union, Local 85. Since then, he hasguided the Union in contract negotiations andrelated matters.

In addition to his work with BCTGM Local85, Jim Mouer was instrumental in the rebirthof the Coalition of Organized Labor, an organi-zation dedicated to the sharing of ideas anduniting the labor community. In 1984, Jim andfellow labor leaders Chuck Brooks, Obie Bran-don, and Tom Lawson recognized the need toorganize various local unions with the intent ofcreating a better working relationship amongthe various labor groups. The Coalition wasable to achieve numerous goals including pro-moting Union Solidarity, establishing coordi-nated boycott actions, and educating mem-bers.

In retirement, Jim will have the opportunityto spend more time with his strong, growingfamily. He and his wife Audrey have six chil-dren, ten grandchildren, and four great-grand-children.

Mr. Speaker, as Jim Mouer’s friends andfamily gather to celebrate his retirement, I amhonored to pay tribute to a truly remarkablecitizen of Sacramento. His contributions to ourarea have indeed been commendable. I askall of my colleagues to join with me in wishinghim and his family continued success in alltheir future endeavors.f

IN MEMORY OF RONALD RONNYFINGER AS THE COMMUNITIESIN SCHOOL 2000 BACK TO SCHOOLGALA HONOREE

HON. KEN BENTSENOF TEXAS



Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I honorthe memory of an extraordinary man, RonaldJack ‘‘Ronny’’ Finger of Houston, whom isbeing honored posthumously at the Commu-nities in School Back To School Gala in Hous-ton, Texas on November 4, 2000. His passingwas a tremendous loss for his family, includinghis wife Linda and their three children, Scott,Jan, and Cristina, and his friends. But, we areall richer in spirit and community for the timehe was with us.

A distinguished businessman and dedicatedcommunity advocate, Ronny Finger contrib-uted in countless ways to building a better fu-ture for Houston, especially the city’s Jewishcommunity, the arts, and education.

Born in Houston to Hyman and Bessie Fin-ger, he graduated in 1960 from the Universityof Texas and served as a lieutenant in theNavy. Two years later, he joined his brothersMarvy and Jerry in the Finger Cos., a majordeveloper of real estate and multifamily hous-ing. During the 1970s he was the president ofthe Houston and Texas Apartment Associa-tions and Vice President of the National Apart-ment Association.

Ronny became fervently involved with Com-munities in School (CIS) after visiting the CIS

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 03:59 Oct 30, 2000 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0626 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A29OC8.000 pfrm04 PsN: E29PT1

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE2018 October 29, 2000program at Austin High School in 1992. Hewas so impressed by the effectiveness of thisprogram he joined the CIS Board of Directorsin 1994, and he and his wife, Linda,underwrote the CIS program at Key MiddleSchool from 1997 to 2000. The CIS DropoutPrevention Program provides children withneeded school supplies, tutoring, family coun-seling or assistance, or a safe haven duringthe after-school hours. During the 1999–2000school year, 74 Houston area schools partici-pated in the CIS program and served nearly29,000 at-risk children. These students had a98 percent graduation rate, a 98 percent stayin school rate, and 80 percent saw a markedimprovement in academics, behavior, and/orattendance.

Ronny Finger was also a dedicated and val-uable member of the Museum of NaturalScience Society, Houston Symphony Society,Anti-Defamation League, Houston Women’sArea Center, and the Salvation Army. And, hewas a dear friend to my family and me. Mr.Speaker, I honor the memory of Ronny Finger.He is missed, but his commitment to our youthand community live on as a tribute to his life.f

REVEREND HOWARD’S HISTORICROLE AT BETHANY BAPTISTCHURCH

HON. DONALD M. PAYNEOF NEW JERSEY



Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, today—SundayOctober 29th—marks a very special occasionat the historic Bethany Baptist Church in New-ark, New Jersey, with the conclusion of athree-day installation celebration for the newpastor, The Reverend Dr. M. William Howard,Jr. I was pleased to be among the many well-wishers who attended the solemn morningworship service to officially welcome ReverendHoward, under whose dynamic leadershipBethany Baptist will continue to flourish and toreach even greater heights.

Bethany Baptist, the oldest African Amer-ican Baptist Church in Newark, was foundedin 1871. Underscoring the church’s strong em-phasis on community involvement and culturalcommitment, the building itself was designedto resemble an African hut. Ministries of thechurch include a senior citizen center, AIDSministry, hospice program, computer literacyprogram, prison ministry, race track ministryfor jockeys, a farmer’s market, support for fos-ter children, and missionaries in Africa, Asia,and the Caribbean.

Reverend Howard served as President ofNew York Theological Seminary, a graduateschool of theology committed to increasing thecapacity of church workers as they strive tomake a positive difference in their congrega-tions and their communities, from 1992 to2000. In recognition of his work, the ArthurVining Davis Foundations named NYTS therecipient of its Award for Excellence for theyear 2000. Prior to assuming the presidencyat NYTS, Rev. Howard was for 20 years amember of the national staff of America’s old-est Protestant denomination—The ReformedChurch in America. He also served as moder-ator of the World Council of Churches/Pro-gramme to Combat Racism, President of theNational Council of Churches, and President

of the American Committee on Africa. An ac-tivist for social justice at home and abroad,Reverend Howard was a leading participant inthe movement against apartheid in South Afri-ca for two decades. His strong moral standprompted the former apartheid government todeny him a visa to visit South Africa. WhenNelson Mandela made his first visit to theU.S., Reverend Howard chaired the committeewhich organized the interfaith worship serviceat the Riverside Church at which Mr. Mandelawas welcomed to New York. In 1979, duringthe hostage crisis in Iran, Dr. Howard con-ducted Christmas worship for Americans beingheld captive at the U.S. embassy, and in1984, he chaired the delegation which alongwith the Reverend Jesse Jackson succeededin obtaining release of a U.S. Navy pilot beingheld prisoner in Syria after having been shotdown during a bombing mission over Leb-anon. His work has taken him to Cuba, theformer Soviet Union, the People’s Republic ofChina, Central America and the Middle East.

Reverened Howard, a native of Americus,Georgia, is a graduate of Morehouse Collegeand Princeton Theological Seminary. He holdsseveral honorary degrees, keys to cities andawards from many organizations. A memberof Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity and the Council ofForeign Relations, he has served as Secretaryof the Association of Theological Schools, amember of the New York City Board of theEnterprise Foundation, and a commissioner ofthe Schomburg Center for Research in BlackCulture.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues in Con-gress join me in congratulating ReverendHoward and his wife Barbara Jean, who arethe parents of three children, as he officiallyassumes this new leadership role at the his-toric Bethany Baptist Church.f


HON. VERNON J. EHLERSOF MICHIGAN



Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No.573, I was unavoidably detained. Had I beenpresent, I would have voted ‘‘nay’’.f

THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THEBELARUSAN-AMERICAN ASSOCIA-TION

HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.OF NEW JERSEY



Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like tocongratulate the Belarusan-American Founda-tion on the auspicious occasion of its 50th an-niversary. I am very proud of the fact thatCentral New Jersey is home to a significantBelarusan-American community. I happen tobe very close to one particular member of theBelarusan-American community in this area:my wife, Sarah.

While we are here to celebrate, we mustalso recognize that Belarus has not made thesuccessful transition to democracy like Poland,Slovakia, and as recently as this month, Ser-bia. Over nearly a decade of independence,

the promise of democracy, freedom of expres-sion and association, and the flowering of anational identity have not come to pass for theBelarusan people. The fault for this sad stateof affairs rests, as all of us know, with Presi-dent Aleksandr Lukashenka. The Presidenthas illegally extended his term of office be-yond the legally mandated expiration date.Throughout his tenure, President Lukashenkahas monopolized the mass media, underminedthe constitutional foundation for the separationof powers, used intimidation and strong-armtactics against the political opposition, sup-pressed freedom of the press and expression,defamed the national culture, maligned the na-tional language and eroded Belarus’s rightfulposition as a sovereign nation.

Worse, just two days before the Parliamen-tary elections held on October 15, PresidentLukashenka issued a fresh denunciation ofmarket reforms. And, I am disappointed anddisturbed that the Parliamentary elections al-most exclusively involved candidates whoback Lukashenka. Clearly, not a single OSCEcondition for free and fair elections was met.This past week, Representatives GEJDENSONand SMITH introduced a Resolution con-demning the October 15 elections. I will try toensure that this bill reaches the House floor inthe remaining days of this Congress. Andtoday, I again express my strong condemna-tion of these ‘‘sham’’ elections.

For at least four years, I and other Membersof Congress have been working to addressLukashenka’s abuses of power. In 1996, I in-troduced a Resolution expressing concernover the Lukashenka regime’s violations ofhuman and civil rights in direct violation of theHelsinki Accords and the constitution ofBelarus, and expressing concern about theunion between Russia and Belarus. That Res-olution also recognized March 25 as the anni-versary of the declaration of an independentBelarusan state. A year later, I worked withleaders of the International Relations Com-mittee to include language in the State Depart-ment Authorization bill, which passed theHouse, calling for our President to press theGovernment of President Lukashenka on de-fending the sovereignty of Belarus and guar-anteeing basic freedoms and human rights.

For years now, the Belarusan-Americancommunity has been trying to inform theAmerican people about the truth in Belarus,that President Lukashenka’s actions do nothave widespread support and his regime haslost any sense of legitimacy it once may havehad. I want to thank the Belarusan-Americancommunity in New Jersey and throughout thenation for continuing to speak the truth aboutevents in the land of their ancestors.

Earlier this year, I joined CongressmanGEJDENSON and others in introducing yet an-other Resolution that condemns the continuedegregious violations of human rights in the Re-public of Belarus, and the lack of progress to-ward the establishment of democracy and therule of law in Belarus to continue to put pres-sure on Lukashenka. The Resolution also callson President Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s regimeto engage in negotiations with the representa-tives of the opposition and to restore the con-stitutional rights of the Belarusian people, and


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E2019October 29, 2000calls on the Russian Federation to respect thesovereignty of Belarus.

Obviously, President Lukashenka has notbeen moved by these expressions of concernby the United States and the internationalcommunity. But we must not give up. We must

continue to go on record condemning theabuses that have taken place and that con-tinue to take place in Belarus. We must urgeour President and State Department to keepthe pressure on President Lukashenka—andalso on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

I congratulate you for this occasion and forall of your efforts. I look forward to continuingto work together to pursue real democracy,and truly free and fair elections that complywith OSCE principles and the Helsinki Ac-cords.


D1150


Daily DigestHIGHLIGHTS

Senate passed Continuing Resolution.The House passed H.J. Res. 119, Making Further Continuing Appropria-

tions.

SenateChamber ActionRoutine Proceedings, pages S11317–S11347Measures Passed:

Continuing Resolution: By 67 yeas to 1 nay(Vote No. 292), Senate passed H.J. Res. 119, mak-ing further continuing appropriations for the fiscalyear 2001, clearing the measure for the President. Page S11344

Messages From the House: Page S11347

Record Votes: One record vote was taken today.(Total—292) Page S11344

Recess: Senate convened at 4 p.m., and recessed at7:58 p.m., until 5 p.m., on Monday, October 30,2000. (For Senate’s program, see the remarks of theActing Majority Leader in today’s Record on pageS11347.)

Committee MeetingsNo committee meetings were held.

h

House of RepresentativesChamber ActionBills Introduced: 1 public bill, H.R. 5600; and 4resolutions, H.J. Res. 121–124, were introduced. Page H11526

Reports Filed: Reports were filed today as follows:H. Res. 662, providing for consideration of certain

joint resolutions making further continuing appro-priations for the fiscal year 2001 (H. Rept.106–1015); and

H. Res. 663, providing for consideration of S.2485, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to pro-vide assistance in planning and constructing a re-gional heritage center in Calais, Maine providing forconsideration of the bill (S. 2485) to direct the Sec-retary of the Interior to provide assistance in plan-ning and constructing a regional heritage center inCalais, Maine, and providing for the adoption of aconcurrent resolution directing the Clerk of theHouse of Representatives to make certain correctionsin the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2614) to amendthe Small Business Investment Act to make im-

provements to the certified development company(H. Rept. 106–1016). Page H11526

Journal: Agreed to the Speaker’s approval of theJournal of Saturday, Oct. 28 by a yea and nay voteof 286 yeas to 42 nays, Roll No. 574. Pages H11491–92

Motions to Instruct Conferees: RepresentativesHolt and Wu notified the House of their intentionto offer motions to instruct conferees on H.R. 4577,Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations on Mon-day, Oct. 30. Page H11492

Further Continuing Appropriations Resolutions:The House passed H.J. Res. 119, making furthercontinuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001 bya yea and nay vote of 342 yeas to 7 nays, Roll No.575. Pages H11492–95

H. Res. 646, the rule that provided for consider-ation of the joint resolution was agreed to on Oct.25, 2000.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:18 Oct 30, 2000 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0627 Sfmt 0627 E:\CR\FM\D29OC0.REC pfrm04 PsN: D29OC0

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D1151October 29, 2000

Motion to Instruct Conferees—Labor, HHS, Edu-cation Appropriations: Rejected the Pallone mo-tion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4577, Labor,HHS, Education Appropriations to insist, in resolv-ing the differences between the two Houses on thefunding level for program management in carryingout titles XI, XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Se-curity Act, to choose a level that reflects a require-ment on Medicare+Choice organizations to offerMedicare+Choice plans under part C of such titleXVIII for a minimum contract period of three years,and to maintain the benefits specified under the con-tract for the three years by a recorded vote of 170ayes to183 noes, Roll No. 576. Pages H11495–H11504

Meeting Hour—Monday, Oct. 30: Agreed thatwhen the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meetat 9 a.m. on Monday, Oct. 30. Page H11504

Quorum Calls—Votes: Two yea-and-nay votes andone recorded vote developed during the proceedingsof the House today and appear on pages H11492,H11494–95, and H11503–04. There were noquorum calls.Adjournment: The House met at 6 p.m. and ad-journed at 11:58 p.m.

Committee MeetingsMAKING FURTHER CONTINUINGAPPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001Committee on Rules: Granted, by voice vote, a ruleproviding for consideration of joint resolutions H.J.

Res. 121, H.J. Res. 122, H.J. Res. 123, and H.J.Res. 124, under separate closed rules. The rulewaives all points of order against consideration ofeach joint resolution. The rule provides one hour ofdebate in the House on each joint resolution equallydivided and controlled by the chairman and rankingminority member of the Committee on Appropria-tions. Finally, the rule provides one motion to re-commit with or without instructions.

SAINT CROIX ISLAND HERITAGE ACTCommittee on Rules: Granted, by voice vote, a closedrule providing one hour of debate in the House onS. 2485, to direct the Secretary of the Interior toprovide assistance in planning and constructing a re-gional heritage center in Calais, Maine, to be equallydivided between the chairman and ranking minoritymember of the Committee on Resources. The rulewaives all points of order against consideration of thebill. The rule provides one motion to recommit,with or without instructions. Finally, the rule pro-vides that a concurrent resolution directing the Clerkto make certain corrections to the enrollment ofH.R. 2614 is adopted.f

COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR MONDAY,OCTOBER 30, 2000

SenateNo Committee meetings were held.

HouseNo Committee meetings are scheduled.


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST

Congressional Record The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported bythe Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to directionsof the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate

provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting veryinfrequent instances when two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed at one time. ¶Public access to

the Congressional Record is available online through GPO Access, a service of the Government Printing Office, free of charge to the user.The online database is updated each day the Congressional Record is published. The database includes both text and graphics from thebeginning of the 103d Congress, 2d session (January 1994) forward. It is available on the Wide Area Information Server (WAIS) through theInternet and via asynchronous dial-in. Internet users can access the database by using the World Wide Web; the Superintendent ofDocuments home page address is http://www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs, by using local WAIS client software or by telnet toswais.access.gpo.gov, then login as guest (no password required). Dial-in users should use communications software and modem to call (202)512–1661; type swais, then login as guest (no password required). For general information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access UserSupport Team by sending Internet e-mail to [email protected], or a fax to (202) 512–1262; or by calling Toll Free 1–888–293–6498 or (202)512–1530 between 7 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. ¶The Congressional Record paperand 24x microfiche will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, at the following prices: paper edition, $179.00 for six months,$357.00 per year, or purchased for $3.00 per issue, payable in advance; microfiche edition, $141.00 per year, or purchased for $1.50 per issuepayable in advance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may be purchased for the same per issue prices. Mail orders to:Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954, or phone orders to (202) 512–1800, or fax to (202) 512–2250. Remitcheck or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or use VISA, MasterCard, Discover, or GPO Deposit Account.¶Following each session of Congress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the Superintendentof Documents in individual parts or by sets. ¶With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication ofmaterial from the Congressional Record.

UNUME PLURIBUS

D1152 October 29, 2000

Next Meeting of the SENATE

5 p.m., Monday, October 30

Senate Chamber

Program for Monday: After the recognition of two Sen-ators for speeches and the transaction of any morningbusiness (not to extend beyond 7 p.m.), Senate will con-sider a continuing resolution making further continuingappropriations for the fiscal year 2001, with a vote tooccur thereon. Also, Senate may consider any othercleared legislative and executive business.

Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

9 a.m., Monday, October 30

House Chamber

Program for Monday: Consideration of H.J. Res. 120,Making Further Continuing Appropriations (closed rule,one hour of debate);

Consideration of motions to instruct conferees on H.R.4577, Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations;

Consideration of H. Res. 662, rule providing for con-sideration of joint resolutions making continuing appro-priations for FY 2001; and

Consideration of H. Res. 663, rule providing for con-sideration of S. 2485, Saint Croix Island Heritage Act.

Extensions of Remarks, as inserted in this issueHOUSE

Bentsen, Ken, Tex., E2017Ehlers, Vernon J., Mich., E2017, E2018Matsui, Robert T., Calif., E2017Pallone, Frank, Jr., N.J., E2018Payne, Donald M., N.J., E2017, E2018
