John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes off the time. I wonder if anybody in this body remembers Enron. Let's trust that they are going to do right. They are a U.S. corporation that created more tax shelters than the IRS could count. It took a group of Philadelphia lawyers 2 months to even add up the number of tax shelters they had around the world. They had so many the IRS couldn't even follow it. If you are going to give people who have tax shelters and a stash in income in foreign tax havens a huge benefit to bring the money back into this country, we ought to make sure they are going to use it for job creation. Without my amendment, they have to file a plan that says this is what they are going to spend it on. Suppose they don't spend one nickel more than they did last year on job creation. Suppose they don't spend one nickel more on capital expenditures than they did last year. Suppose they don't spend one more nickel on pensions for the workers than they did last year, but they comply with what they said they were going to do in their little plan. They are fine. They don't have to spend one nickel more under the committee bill, with all this money they are going to bring back at a 5-percent tax rate, in terms of creating jobs than they did before. The Breaux-Feinstein amendment says: If you want to bring it back for that purpose, you have to show us that is what you are using it for. That, in fact, you have spent more money in the next 3 years than you would have the previous year on job creation. That is not too much to ask. When we are giving a multinational corporation an enormous tax gift of having to pay not 35 percent but only 5 percent, at least get a requirement that they are using it for something to do with job creation and that they spend at least something more than they did the year before. Without the Breaux-Feinstein amendment, there is no requirement that they spend one nickel more on job creation than they did previously after bringing this money back. Guess what. You talk about an incentive to locate overseas. There will be a whole group of people saying: We did it for 1 year. Let's do it next year, a third year; let's continue this. How about making this 5 percent permanent so we can put all the jobs overseas, knowing Congress is going to take care of us every time there is a downturn in the economy and there is another amendment to extend the 5-percent tax break 1 more year. We will just move everything over to the Caymen Islands. We will move everything ever over to a Third World country. Because, guess what, Congress is going to let us bring it back at 5 percent because the pressure will be there, because the economy is not doing well, and all the jobs go overseas. The only thing the Breaux-Feinstein amendment says is, if you are going to bring it back for job creation, prove it, tell us you spent a little bit more than you would have ordinarily. Without Breaux-Feinstein, there is no requirement that they spend one nickel more than they did before. That is a big difference in what we are trying to accomplish. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BREAUX. Are we going to rotate? Are we just going to hear one side?

Mr. BREAUX. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BREAUX. Suppose you have somebody who may not do that. Is there any provision in the bill that says what will happen to the company that does not abide by the plan? I believe in trust but verify. If you don't do what you say you are going to do, you should have consequences. Is there anything in the bill that says they would lose their deduction?

Mr. BREAUX. Trust but verify.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, would the Senator point out anything in the legislation before this body now that would take any action against any companies if they did not abide by what they said they were going to use it for? Do they lose their tax deduction? Is there anything in the legislation, without my amendment, that would say what would happen to companies if they use it for something totally different from what their plans say they are going to use it for? Suppose they decided to use it for something totally unrelated to job creation. Is there anything, without my amendment, that says what would happen to those companies?

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator from Oregon yield for a question?

Mr. BREAUX. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator, the cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. BREAUX. We have an hour equally divided?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this is a jobs bill. That is the title of the bill. Presumably a jobs bill is intended to create jobs and hopefully is created to create jobs in America. That is the legislation that is before us. It is absolutely essential that this legislation be adopted. But one of the provisions in the legislation gives me great concern. I offered an amendment in the Finance Committee. It was unanimously supported by every single Democrat in the Finance Committee and it lost by a partisan vote because our Republican colleagues at that time did not feel they could support the amendment I offered. It was unanimously supported by every single Democrat member of the Finance Committee. The question deals with how we treat companies that have earnings they have stashed away in foreign countries. These amounts of money, many of them, are in fact earned overseas. Companies know if they bring those earnings back to the United States, the United States, on a worldwide tax basis, will tax those earnings with a deduction for the amount of tax they have paid in the country in which they earned those revenues. They pay the regular corporate rate minus the tax credit they get for having paid taxes on those earnings in the foreign country. However, there is no tax consequence to those companies if the money in fact stays in the foreign country. That is called deferral. We defer any U.S. tax on foreign earnings as long as the earnings stay in the foreign country in which they are earned. The legislation before this body now says we are going to give a very special break to U.S. companies that have money overseas, in many cases in tax havens. We are going to let you bring that money back, not as other companies in the past have brought it back, paying U.S. tax minus what they paid overseas, but we are going to cut you a special sweetheart deal. We are going to give you a sweetheart deal of an 85-percent tax credit by reducing the amount of taxes you would pay if you bring it back to the United States--not to pay what every other corporation pays, 35 percent--we are going to ask you to pay 5 percent, 5.25 percent. That is an 85-percent tax reward to companies that have stashed money in tax havens, in many cases overseas, for the sole purpose of avoiding U.S. taxation. The IRS has recently cited a number of companies that have these types of tax shelters and overseas tax havens, such as in The Netherlands, Barbados, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda--you name the tax havens. Companies that earn money in one country will bring it over to a tax haven and keep it there, avoiding U.S. taxes. But some now say that is such a great idea, we are going to give them a real tax break and ask them to please bring it back over to the United States. If you do so, we are only going to tax you at about a 5-percent rate. That is what the legislation says. The legislation says bring it back, you get a huge tax reward for keeping money overseas and now bringing it back to the United States, unlike what other companies have had to do. Every person we have talked to says we are going to bring it back to create jobs. I say, All right, if that is what you are going to do, bring it back to create jobs in the United States of America, we will let you do the 5-percent tax break. We will allow you to do it. My amendment simply says two things are different from the bill before the Senate. No. 1, it says you can bring it back for job creation, for hiring more people. If you want to use it for that purpose, OK. If you want to use it for research and development-- pharmaceutical industry or other electronic types of industry--OK, we will let you use it for that. If you want to use it for capital expending, you want to build another plant, OK, we will let you use it for that. If you want to use it for your underfunded pension funds, OK, we will let you use it for that. But we will not let you use it for something as nebulous as financial stabilization of the company, which is in the bill but not defined. What does that mean? Buy another Gulfstream? Yes, that might financially stabilize the company. Stock buybacks? Yes, that might be a good idea for a few people, but it does not create a lot of jobs, if any. Second, there has to be an enforcement mechanism, more than filing a plan; and there is no responsibility if you do not follow it. My amendment says: All right, companies, if you bring it back for those purposes, we want proof you actually use it for those purposes. You can use the next 3 years to take these billions of dollars and use it for legitimate purposes, but we would like some proof. We know it by seeing you have actually spent more in the next 3 years in these areas than in the previous 3 years. That is very important. Here is an interesting statistic from the Joint Committee on Tax. Where is the money like this coming from? From tax havens: Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland. How much money are we going to let flow into the United States at a 5-percent rate when it should come in at the regular corporate rate minus what they pay in the foreign country? Our legislation, the Breaux-Feinstein amendment, is about responsibility and accountability, about creating jobs in this country, not stock buybacks that enrich a few at the expense of jobs in this country. There is a legitimate argument we ought to look at the whole tax system and see whether we should go to a territorial system or not, but that is not before the Senate at this time. This legislation is absolutely essential if we are going to maintain any credibility on creating jobs instead of enforcing or creating tax havens. We have enough tax havens. We should not encourage more. This amendment helps stop that. How much time remains?

Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I call up an amendment that is at the desk, No. 3117, Breaux-Feinstein.

Mr. BREAUX. Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. BREAUX. I understand there is 1 minute for the proponents of the Breaux-Feinstein amendment.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Louisiana Assisted Living Association, LALA, which will be celebrating ``Assisted Living Day'' open April 14, 2004 in the State capitol. Both in my home State and in States across the Nation, disabled individuals and older Americans are voicing their demand for a wide range of long-term services. Assisted living represents a significant piece of that continuum of care. Decades ago, those in need of long-term care had limited options-- family caregivers, skilled nursing homes or institutional care. In many cases, family caregivers cannot provide the proper level of care for their loved one for a variety of reasons. In other instances, the person does not require the high level, around-the-clock care of a skilled nursing facility or institution. Now, many disabled persons and older Americans with functional limitations and/or cognitive impairments are finding the assistance they need and desire in assisted living, and in other home and community-based settings. Unfortunately, our Federal financing structure has a strong institutional bias and does not reflect Americans' growing desire to be cared for in settings other than nursing homes or institutions. Public preference is not the only momentum driving this need for change--we see this direction in our courts as well. At the Federal level, the landmark Olmstead decision underscored this push toward allowing our countrys' elderly and disabled to live in the least restrictive settings for as long as possible. And, in my home State of Louisiana, this momentum was echoed in the Barthelemy case, in which the court strengthened the rights of people to get assistance in home and community-based settings. We now know that we are not talking about merely a preference for non-institutional care--but a legal right to it. In my capacity as ranking member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I have held numerous hearings on long-term care and the importance of supporting the continuum of care options. Assisted living is one of the most significant of these options and offers a real choice to those Americans wanting assistance outside of an institutional setting--a preference that will only grow as more of our baby boomers look for help with long-term care. Today, I salute the Louisiana Assisted Living Association for taking time to educate and improve awareness about a service that I believe can and will improve the lives of many of our Nation's disabled and elderly.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, Senator Landrieu and I rise today to add our voices to those who have been calling for a comprehensive national solution to the asbestos litigation problem. Several members of both parties have recently come to the floor to discuss this very issue and we want to join with them in urging our colleagues to address this matter with immediate legislation. I have always believed that one of the greatest freedoms in this country is the ability of ordinary citizens to seek redress in an impartial court of law from other citizens or businesses--no matter how large or powerful. However, in the case of asbestos litigation the system no longer is able to meet this goal. The courts are so backed up with asbestos lawsuits, many of which are brought by individuals who are not yet sick or may never get sick, that those victims who are truly suffering from asbestos-related illnesses are not receiving compensation and businesses are going bankrupt in the process. Asbestos litigation is a serious and growing problem in our home state of Louisiana. For the benefit of victims, union members, and businesses in Louisiana--both large and small--that are suffering the consequences of this crisis, we urge the Senate to resolve this problem as soon as possible. Let me be clear: we want a bill that will provide guaranteed, fair compensation to deserving victims in our state and around the country. And, we want a bill that will provide certainty for victims and businesses in Louisiana and elsewhere that have been caught up in this crisis. I am becoming increasingly troubled by reports that negotiations between the parties on the asbestos bill are reaching a standstill. Too much work and tireless hours of negotiation have gone into this bill to let it become yet another marker in the growing graveyard of failed legislation. I would like to use this opportunity to urge all parties in this matter to continue working in good faith with one another to find agreement on the issues that are still outstanding. A final deal on asbestos will not be easy and it will require more concessions from all parties. I know a number of my colleagues have worked unflagging to try and get this issue resolved. I commend them for all their effort and work. However, it is also important that we realize how close we are to not having any bill at all. I am concerned that by hastily pushing forward legislation that only has partial support, we will effectively kill this bill. We cannot stand back and allow the current system to continue to spiral out of control. Another failed cloture vote will not help victims, nor will it help business. This is an issue that we should be able to vote out of the Senate, not by 60 votes, but by 70 or 80. We must continue to work together to this end. The asbestos litigation system is broken and it must be fixed.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Voinovich, to introduce the Uniting Neighborhoods and Individuals to End Racial Profiling Act, also known as the UNITE Act. In the fall of 2002, there was a meeting in my office with a number of African-American leaders from Louisiana. They told me that the single most important issue they want to resolve is racial profiling. I turned to Senator Voinovich, who has been a leader on this in Ohio and in the Senate, to come up with the first, truly bipartisan racial profiling bill to be introduced in the Senate. After more than a year of hard work, we have finally come up with a bill that meaningfully responds to the issue of racial profiling while striking the right balance between the concerns of law enforcement and the minority community. Most importantly, our UNITE Act will begin to end racial profiling in this country. This bill strives to fix the real incidents of racial profiling through education, public outreach and oversight. It also combats the perception that law enforcement is engaging in racial biased policing. By banning racial profiling, putting safeguards in place and providing the public with a meaningful complaint procedure, this bill responds to the concerns of minority communities and hopefully helps rebuild their trust in law enforcement agencies. I believe we have crafted the first, reasonable and passable solution to the issue of racial profiling. I hope as we unveil this legislation publically for the first time today, that both the civil rights and law enforcement communities will see this bill as a good starting point to find a solution to this serious problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues, law enforcement and the civil rights community to get this legislation passed and signed by the President this year.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Voinovich, to introduce the Uniting Neighborhoods and Individuals to End Racial Profiling Act, also known as the UNITE Act. In the fall of 2002, there was a meeting in my office with a number of African-American leaders from Louisiana. They told me that the single most important issue they want to resolve is racial profiling. I turned to Senator Voinovich, who has been a leader on this in Ohio and in the Senate, to come up with the first, truly bipartisan racial profiling bill to be introduced in the Senate. After more than a year of hard work, we have finally come up with a bill that meaningfully responds to the issue of racial profiling while striking the right balance between the concerns of law enforcement and the minority community. Most importantly, our UNITE Act will begin to end racial profiling in this country. This bill strives to fix the real incidents of racial profiling through education, public outreach and oversight. It also combats the perception that law enforcement is engaging in racial biased policing. By banning racial profiling, putting safeguards in place and providing the public with a meaningful complaint procedure, this bill responds to the concerns of minority communities and hopefully helps rebuild their trust in law enforcement agencies. I believe we have crafted the first, reasonable and passable solution to the issue of racial profiling. I hope as we unveil this legislation publically for the first time today, that both the civil rights and law enforcement communities will see this bill as a good starting point to find a solution to this serious problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues, law enforcement and the civil rights community to get this legislation passed and signed by the President this year.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, 35 years ago Lois and I, along with John Jr. and Bill Breaux, rented a U-Haul truck and headed north to Washington, D.C. Lois tells the story about Bill the night before we left saying his prayers and concluding with ``Good-bye God, we are moving to Washington.'' And, we had to pull John Jr. from under the house. Well, today, John Jr. is 38 years old. Bill is 37, and Beth is married to Jeff Shepherdson and has three children--Anna Kate, 6, Campbell, 4, and C.J., 2 years old, and Julie, our youngest is now 28, works in New Orleans, and is here with us today. I'll always remember that trip. My mother, who is deceased, and my father, followed us to D.C. We got there at night. I had never even visited Washington, so we drove right to the Capitol, and that evening the Marine Corps band was in concert on the Capitol steps. It was beautiful, and I thought they were playing just for us. It's been a great 35 years--a few years as a staff person, 14 years as a Member of the Congress, representing southwest Louisiana, and it will be 18 years as a U.S. Senator, representing our State of Louisiana. I had the privilege of serving with five Governors and seven Presidents. I have said for a year now that I would announce my decision whether to seek another term as U.S. Senator after the governor's election this year. I further said that I would make that announcement between November 15 and December 15. The difficulty of that decision is shown by the fact that today is December 15. Lois and I have spent a lot of time discussing this decision--not formally, but, ``what do you think?'' type discussions. Although one time she actually sat up in bed, drew a line down the middle of a page, and listed the pros and cons of running--not surprisingly, they came out just about even. We have received lots of advice--from my staff, from family and supporters here in Louisiana, and from around the country. Some of the letters from total strangers were so touching and heartfelt that we will forever treasure them. My colleagues in the Congress, especially in the Senate, spoke to both Lois and me frequently with their thoughts and suggestions. Colleagues, actually from both sides of the aisle, urged me to run again, and for their encouragement and friendship I cannot begin to say how much Lois and I appreciate them. My special appreciation also goes to Tom Daschle, Harry Reid and Mary Landrieu. The citizens of Louisiana have greatly honored my family and me by allowing me to serve these 30-plus years as their Congressman and U.S. Senator. I can honestly say I enjoyed every moment and appreciated the opportunity that I have had to serve. But there comes a time in every career when it is time to step aside, and let others step up and serve. And for my family and me that time has arrived. I will not seek re-election to the U.S. Senate. Throughout my years in Congress I have been guided by a simple philosophy to make government work for everyone. I did not go to Washington to get nothing done other than argue about whose fault it was when we failed to make government work. My sincere hope is that future Congresses will be able to pursue the center- out coalitions that I have advocated. It is my hope that cooperation and legitimate compromise between our political parties will not be seen as political failure, but rather as a means of building a stronger democracy that better serves our Nation. To my wife Lois, we started this journey together many years ago and you have been there every step of the way--through the good times, and there were many, and through the not so good times, and there a were a few. I could not have asked for a more helpful and supportive partner and friend. No one has been more lucky and fortunate than me in finding you. To my staff here in Louisiana and in Washington, let me say I could not have accomplished anything without you. Our office has the greatest of reputations and all of you are truly part of our family--and will always be. To my father Ezra and to Lois' mom, Doris, I say thank you for putting up with all the things we dragged you through, whether you wanted to be there or not. And to our children, John, Bill, Beth and Jeff, and Julia, I say thank you for being there--you have made us very proud every step of the way. I am not leaving today. There is still a lot to get done this Congress. We have to get the energy bill passed, and I want to get started on legislation for the 40 million Americans who have no health insurance. I look forward to co-chairing with Governor-elect Kathleen Blanco the very important summit meeting on healthcare in Louisiana. So this is not goodbye. After working more than half my life on issues important to Louisiana, I intend to continue that involvement in the future, but in a different capacity. But for now, thank you for the privilege and honor of serving Louisiana and our country.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today we passed historic Medicare legislation. Getting here was not easy. Behind the scenes, for months and even years, staff has worked incredibly hard to help produce this complex and comprehensive bill. In particular, I would like to thank Senator Baucus' Finance Committee staff who put in countless hours and remained dedicated to this legislation during long and difficult late-night and weekend sessions. Dr. Elizabeth Fowler lead the Finance health team. Dr. Fowler's expertise, even-handedness, and professionalism were critical in getting us to where we are today. Other professional staff, including Jon Blum, Pat Bousliman, Andrea Cohen, Bill Dauster and Daniel Stein, all served the entire U.S. Senate and served us well. The Minority Staff Director, Jeff Forbes, was also instrumental in seeing this legislation through until the end. We were able to achieve many Democratic priorities in this bill because of their hard work and dedication. I would also like to thank Senator Grassley's staff on the Senate Finance Committee for the critical role they played in passing this historic legislation. Linda Fishman, Ted Totman, Colin Roskey, Jennifer Bell, Mark Hayes and Leah Kegler worked tirelessly for many months to get a bill drafted, through the Senate Finance Committee, passed on the Senate floor and out of tough conference negotiations with the House. The majority staff director of the Senate Finance Committee, Kolan Davis, also played an integral role in getting this conference report passed. Our Nation's senior citizens owe the whole Senate Finance Committee team a debt of gratitude for making this Medicare legislation possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank my distinguished colleague for engaging in the colloquy. Retail Pharmacies and Community Pharmacists

Mr. BREAUX. Similarly, is it your understanding that a specialty hospital that has completed or substantially completed architectural plans but has not yet received full funding would also qualify for the exception?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we have reached that point where the debate is on the size of the bill and not the merits of the bill. Let me just say, 38 years ago this Congress passed this document that I have in my hand for the first time. It was in 1965 that we enacted Medicare, which was a noble experiment. It was led by Democrats and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. It was, indeed, a change and a challenge. No one knew whether it was going to work. People could not be guaranteed it was going to serve the needs of America's seniors. But it was a chance worth taking. It was a change. I suggest today Democrats in particular should not fear change if it is aimed at improving a document that has served this country so well. The only defect of this legislation was that it didn't do everything that it should have. For instance, while it covered doctors and it covered hospitals, it did not cover what at that time were new innovations in the area of prescription drugs. Members of Congress knew we had to take care of seniors going to the hospital. We had to take care of seniors seeing their doctors. But no one really thought that seniors getting prescription drugs was going to be that important. Today we have the opportunity to correct what we did not do in 1965 and bring about a reform to this program which is greatly needed. I would just say that is why organizations such as the National Council on Aging, which represents all of these seniors who go to these senior centers throughout our States and congressional districts, as well as the AARP--and Democrats many times cite the AARP when they agreed with them. But now when they do not agree with them they find fault with the organization. I suggest the Nation's largest organization representing over 35 million seniors has had their health economists and their lawyers carefully study the document that is before us and made a recommendation to those of us in Congress. They said this is something we support because it is indeed, on balance, the bill we should approve and send on to the President for signature. Again, I say it is not a perfect bill. But, once again, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We also cannot let the political pundits of both of our parties suggest we cannot vote for this bill because somehow it may give credibility to the other party. I have actually heard that from both sides of the aisle. I think that would be a tragic mistake. The issue today is not which political party wins. The issue today is whether we can craft legislation that allows America's 40 million seniors to come out a winner. I think on balance this bill does that because it combines the best of what government can do with the best of what the private sector can do. Many on my side of the aisle think the Federal Government should do everything all the time. We can't do that. We can't do it very effectively. So I think it is important to note that on the other side of the aisle, many of them think the Federal Government should not do anything and that the private sector should do it all. The truth lies, as most truthful matters lie, somewhere in between. The fact is, we ought to combine the best of what Government can do with the best of what the private sector can do and create a new Medicare reform for the 21st century. With regard to the points of order, I made it very clear the two points of order we are going to be voting to waive are not dealing with the so-called premium support language that is in the bill. It doesn't deal with the cost containment provisions that are in the bill. It doesn't deal with whether we are going to bring in the Medicare Program all low-income seniors who are currently in, under the State Medicare Program--it doesn't deal with any of that. It deals basically with the fact that we are spending more money in this legislation than the structure of the budget would allow us to do. That is not uncommon, and the proper procedure is to have a waiver of those points of order, which is what we are going to be voting on. The first point of order really lies because of the fact that we put more money to help the State Medicaid Programs, something that most people on my side of the aisle strongly supported, to make sure we help those programs make sure the drugs that they are going to still be involved in helping seniors with--that they will be able to help them to the maximum degree possible. In addition, one of the other reasons the first point of order lies is because previously the Finance Committee helped the States with their unemployment insurance, something most people on my side of the aisle strongly supported. It is not sufficient for people to go back to our States and tell seniors that we somehow prevented this bill from being adopted because of a point of order that was very technical in its essence. I think people want to know where we stand on the merits of the bill. Are we for prescription drugs for the first time, for seniors, since 1965? Are we for giving them a program where the Federal Government pays 75 percent of their drug costs? Are they for or against a program that is going to give particular help and assistance to our Nation's low-income seniors, which is so terribly important? Are we for bringing low-income seniors into one standard national Medicare Program or are we not? I would not want to go back and somehow argue the technical merits of the point of order and say this is why I could not vote for prescription drugs for seniors, a $400 billion package. There are going to be some on the more liberal wing and more conservative wing who will find reasons to be against this bill, but on balance it represents a centrist coalition, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee. We have now come to the time of decision with regard to whether we are going to have the capacity to, in fact, reach a compromise on one of the great issues of the day; that is, whether the Congress has the political courage and political will to set aside partisan differences and to allow both sides to come together and reach agreement. We can argue about which party benefits from a Medicare reform bill and which party will suffer, but the real issue is not whether the Democratic Party or the Republican Party wins or whether the President gets to sign a bill that reforms Medicare in the Rose Garden. The real question before this institution on both sides of the aisle should be whether for once we can come together and craft a piece of legislation that creates a program that is substantially better than the 40 million seniors currently have under Medicare. When Medicare was created in 1965, it was bipartisan. It was a change. Some say we should not change Medicare. I would argue that Democrats have never feared change. In 1935, when we wrote the Social Security Program under Franklin Roosevelt's leadership, Democrats changed the status quo. When we led in 1965 the effort to provide medical assistance for our Nation's seniors, we challenged the status quo. We stood up for change and created a new program. Today, over 38 years later, we have the opportunity to once again change a program which has served seniors well but not nearly as well as they deserve. Democrats should not fear that type of change. Medicare today, on average, does not cover 47 percent of the average senior's health care costs in this country. Not one of us in this institution--our employees, Members of Congress--has health care insurance that is that deficient in what it does not cover. Forty-seven percent of those costs have to be borne by the senior citizen individually or, if they do not have enough money, by their children or their grandchildren or, if they become so poor, they are put into the State Medicare Program for the poorest of the poor. That is unacceptable. That is not in keeping with the greatness of this Nation, to have a health care program for seniors that is that deficient. This institution cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This bill is not perfect, but this bill is good. We cannot let political pundits on both sides of the aisle who try to dictate what our choices are say, well, let's pass a Republican-only bill so that we can blame the failure of its passing on the Democrats. Neither can we allow Democratic political pundits to say to us we should not pass this bill for the reason that it would allow the President of the United States to sign it in the Rose Garden and that would be a political benefit for him. If we cannot take good legislation and pass it and both claim credit for it, then, quite frankly, we should be doing something else. Good government is good politics. This is good government. This is a good bill. There are two different approaches to solving health care. Some of my friends on the Republican side would say: The Government should have nothing to do with it. The private sector should do everything, keep the Government out of it, and we can design a program with the free enterprise system that will work just fine. Unfortunately, there are some on my side who would say: No, the Government has to do everything. Government would have to do it all. The private sector cannot be involved at all. Both of those approaches are incorrect. The best way to solve health care problems is to do what this bill does; that is, to combine the best of what government can do with the best of what the private sector can do and come up with legislation that says: Yes, the Federal Government can supervise it but not micromanage it. Yes, the Federal Government can help pay for it through the tax system--and this bill does that--but the private sector needs to be involved as well. The private sector can bring about innovation. They can come up with new ideas and new concepts faster than we can in the Congress and in the Federal bureaucracies here in Washington. The private sector can bring about a degree of competition which is sorely lacking under the current micromanaged system with 133,000 pages of rules and regulations. That does not allow innovation or competition. That is one of the reasons the program as we know it today, as good as it is, can be made a lot better. The issue for our Nation's seniors is not just living longer lives; it is also about living better lives. For the first time, seniors will know that when they need prescription drugs, they will be available. Four hundred billion dollars will set up a structure where they will have insurance that covers prescription drugs, just as in 1965 when we made changes that said the Federal Government will help provide insurance to cover hospitalization, we said that for the first time the Federal Government will help with a program that will provide insurance coverage for doctors. This is a good program. We should not fear change. This is a major step in the right direction.