Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. To answer the Senator from Florida, I am not opposed to a surcharge or a prescription charge but a charge that is going to assume a new $600-per-year additional tax or cost on our seniors while providing very little in benefit that would overcome that cost.

Mr. GRAMS. If you are going to have the $25 copay and $125 a month deductible.

Mr. GRAMS. Yes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to talk about an issue which has commanded a lot of attention lately in this body, an issue which has been a major concern of mine for a long time. That is, prescription drug coverage under our Medicare program. Prescription drugs, as we all know, are becoming an increasingly important, in fact, an essential component of our health care delivery system in the United States. Because of their increasing role in the improvement of health outcomes, I believe a newly designed Medicare would unquestionably include a prescription drug benefit. Unfortunately, Medicare is still operating under a 1965 model. Our seniors continue to lack this very essential coverage. Over a year ago I introduced the Medical Ensuring Prescription Drugs for Seniors Act, or MEDS, and this role would provide a prescription drug benefit for all Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, and on a volunteer basis. My plan would ensure that our neediest seniors would get the assistance they need, when they need it, for as long as they need it. And MEDS, as most other plans that have been introduced in the Senate, is a comprehensive, Medicare-based approach and will take a few years to fully implement. Though I fully support MEDS and will fight for its passage, I believe our seniors need some relief now. To that end, I am supporting Senator Roth's bill, which would send Federal funds back to the States today in order to establish or improve our prescription drug coverage immediately for our seniors and those seniors who need that help and coverage now. I want to be clear, the only way that Congress will be able to address the prescription drug needs of our seniors this year is to pass the Roth proposal. We need to do it. Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle disagree with that view. They would rather work to push a massive Medicare-based plan which only seems to increase the burden on the majority of seniors through increased premiums, reduced benefits, and more bureaucracy; in other words, create a bigger and bigger government bureaucracy to handle this. I believe it is a backdoor tax increase on our seniors, which is both irresponsible, and it would be totally unacceptable, especially to those who really need the help in the coverage to afford prescriptions. The Democratic proposal, which Vice President Al Gore and others advocate, is frought with a lot of problems. First, his plan would take 8 years to be fully implemented--8 years. The Roth bill would go into effect today. The Vice President's plan would take 8 years to phase in. You don't hear that when they talk about it, do you? But we all know that our seniors cannot afford to wait 8 years, especially the neediest of our seniors' population, to start realizing a prescription drug benefit under our Medicare program. This is a part of the plan that often goes unmentioned and one that needs to be highlighted. Either have a plan now that is immediate and provides help to our seniors today, or pass a plan that costs more, reduces benefits, and asks our seniors to wait 8 years to have it fully implemented under Medicare. The second problem with the proposal is that when it is fully phased in, it will put a new tax on our seniors because it asks for premiums of $600 a year in new additional premiums over and above what they are paying. Above and beyond the fact that many seniors would find that $600 to be cost prohibitive, statistics suggest that the average senior uses only about $675 in prescription drugs in a year. I am not a mathematician by profession, but I can tell you when the proposal only covers 50 percent of the costs of the prescription drugs to begin with--so, in other words, after paying your $600-a-year premium, you have to pay a 50-percent copay on all the drugs you consume, and I believe there is also a cap with it--it means that for the additional $600 premium, again a new tax on our seniors, the average senior would receive at best $37.50 in benefits. Considering the enormous financial burden this is going to place on an already ailing Medicare system, I am not sure the American people are going to want to assume what will inevitably be a new tax liability and at the same time risk the collapse of Medicare in order to prop up a plan that delivers only pennies a year in prescription drug benefits. Because it is a bit politically distasteful, supporters of this plan and similar measures fail to mention the cost of these proposals. They make it sound as if this is going to provide Medicare prescription drug coverage to all seniors at no cost. That is the way they always like to present a lot of these plans, that somehow it is free. I don't know of many seniors out there who believe they are going to get something for nothing. When was the last time they had a free lunch? They know that. Our seniors are smarter than that, but yet they are being told these are things we can provide free. The bill supported by the Vice President and a number of my colleagues will cost nearly $250 billion over the next 10 years. Aside from having to raid either the Social Security or Medicare trust funds to pay for it--and that is how they pay for it. They are going to take money from an ailing trust fund and try to shift it into expanding new benefits and saying nobody has to pay for it but they are basically robbing from Peter to pay Paul and weakening an already weak system. An equally troubling fact is that it does nothing to modernize the Medicare program at all. It is basically just putting a Band-Aid over an old system that has problems; again, trying to bring in a 1965 model and adapt it to the year 2000. When the Medicare Commission actually made these proposals, President Clinton pulled the plug. He did not even consider what this panel was recommending. But thanks to Senators Frist and Breaux, they are introducing this plan which makes sense, and that is to overhaul, to reform Medicare, and to make sure prescription drugs are an important part of that. But the Roth bill would be that stopgap in order to provide coverage today for our seniors until we can have a real Medicare reform package. In the absence of these important reforms, this plan offered by the Vice President is nothing more than a prescription for disaster. The funding comes out of the Social Security surplus, which, by the way, the Vice President claims to wall off for only Social Security and only Medicare, but while they are doing that they are trying to expand these services and say it is going to cost nothing. It is a free lunch, a free ride. Nobody believes that can happen. Especially our seniors know that there is no free lunch. Adding new demands on Medicare through the Social Security surplus without reforming the program, again, will only put Medicare further at risk than what it is today. Finally, their proposal provides no flexibility in terms of being able to opt in or opt out of their program. Again, our proposal is voluntary. If it benefits you, you can get into it. If it doesn't benefit you, don't; keep your own coverage as you have it today. But you have a choice. Again, these big government programs, the first thing they want to eliminate is choice for the consumer, and in this case for our seniors. You only have one shot under the Vice President's plan to get in and that is it. Seniors, as they age into Medicare, need to make a determination whether they want to get in and save a few dollars a year at best, into a system that is going to cost them at least $600 a year in more taxes. If they take it and change their mind, it is simply too late; they are stuck. They are either in or they are out. I am happy and proud to have been one of the first to introduce a prescription drug plan in the Senate, and I am hopeful that by having done so, my commitment to this issue and our Nation's seniors is underscored. But, most importantly, I want to ensure that any effort we undertake in Congress will actually help to provide assistance to those who truly need it and provide it sooner rather than later; not with a plan where we are going to try to solve the problems for 6 or 10 percent of the population, but the way they try to solve it is to mandate 100 percent of Americans get involved in their big new bureaucracy for prescription drugs. Importantly, too, my plan does not use the Social Security surplus which I have also secured in a lockbox. I reiterate, I believe our seniors deserve a prescription drug plan that is truly voluntary, one that will not jeopardize the future of Medicare, and one which will not place on the backs of taxpayers any additional burdens or liabilities. Instead, I am hopeful the Senate can pass legislation immediately returning the money to the States to provide relief while strengthening Medicare and implementing the long- term comprehensive benefit that does not result in a new tax on our seniors. We have an historic opportunity to help our Nation's seniors. I believe we should act now, this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. What business is before the Senate?

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the strong partnership between localities and the federal government in preventing crime across the United States. As my colleagues may know, October is recognized as ``National Crime Prevention Month.'' Earlier this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced that serious crime had declined nationally for the eighth consecutive year. Although many reasons for this promising news can be cited, I believe the efforts of state and local governments have caused a reduction in crime rates. To ensure continued success, the federal government should not impose additional mandates upon local communities that will only prevent the development of effective crime prevention programs. During this session of the 106th Congress, I am pleased to have worked with Minnesota's public safety officials on a number of crime and drug abuse prevention initiatives. Most importantly, I am pleased that the Fiscal Year 2001 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill includes $4 million for the State of Minnesota to develop a statewide computer network that will provide judicial and law enforcement agencies with universal access to critical information about criminal offenders at the time of their arrest, prosecution, sentencing, and during other important proceedings. Information is the key to an effective and accountable criminal justice system. The Minnesota Legislature recently enacted legislation, known as ``Katie's Law,'' that provides state funding for the development of this initiative. I also believe it is essential that Congress do more to ensure that anti-drug resources reach the areas of our country where drug abuse and crime is on the rise and the anti-drug resources of state and local law enforcement have been seriously strained. That is the situation facing law enforcement agencies in my home state that have worked to combat methamphetamine production and trafficking throughout our communities--particularly in rural areas. For more than a year, I have been working to address the rising methamphetamine drug epidemic in Minnesota by having Minnesota designated as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, HIDTA. This designation will provide additional anti-meth resources to Minnesota and ensure better coordination of federal-state-local efforts at defeating this threat to public safety. I am pleased that the Fiscal Year 2001 Treasury-Legislative Branch Appropriations bill includes funding for new HIDTA designations, and a directive to the Office of National Drug Control Policy that Minnesota must be among the first states considered for HIDTA designation in the upcoming fiscal year. My rural crime prevention agenda has included strong support for S. 3009, the ``Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2000.'' The value of this legislation was brought to my attention by St. Cloud State University Professor John Campbell and several Minnesota police chiefs and sheriffs. I greatly appreciate having the benefit of their expertise. The Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act would provide funding to the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement to expand the technical assistance and training available to rural law enforcement personnel. As a cosponsor of this bill, I am hopeful that rural Minnesota will soon establish a regional center that will bring the benefits of these programs to our state. During National Crime Prevention Month, it is also important to note the impact the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, has had upon the rate of domestic abuse, stalking, and sexual assault across the nation. Since its enactment, the VAWA has provided thousands of communities with assistance to develop innovative and effective programs that have contributed toward protecting individuals from sexual offenses and domestic abuse. In Minnesota, domestic violence shelters and centers have improved their services to victims of sexual, emotional, and physical abuse through such important programs as the Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement Grant program and funding to combat violence against women on university campuses. Additionally, many domestic abuse victims have benefited from the counseling and guidance provided through the National Domestic Violence Hotline established under the Violence Against Women Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and expect that this legislation will be passed before the 106th Congress adjourns. Finally, I commend the dozens of Minnesota cities that are active participants in the ``National Night Out'' program. These neighborhood residents have sent a strong message to criminals that our neighborhoods are organized and fighting back against the threat of crime. Similar to the TRIAD seniors crime prevention program, National Night Out encourages increased citizen interaction with law enforcement officers to prevent crime. I will continue to be a strong advocate in Congress for the National Night Out and TRIAD programs. I am proud of the active involvement of our citizens in developing innovative crime prevention initiatives. Their commitment to ensuring safer streets and safer communities throughout our state has made Minnesota a better place to work and a better place to call home.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 599, S. 150; Calendar No. 600, S. 11; Calendar No. 601, S. 451; Calendar No. 602, S. 1078; Calendar No. 603, S. 1513; Calendar No. 604, S. 2019; Calendar No. 651, S. 869; Calendar No. 659, H.R. 3646; Calendar No. 735, S. 2000; Calendar No. 736, S. 2002; Calendar No. 738, S. 2289; and Calendar No. 824, S. 785. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4277 to H.R. 3646 be agreed to, any committee amendments be agreed to, as amended, if amended, the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any title amendments be agreed to, and any statements relating to any of the bills be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 139, introduced earlier today by Senator Inouye.

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and finally that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading, and object to my own request.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I understand that S. 3137 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding a recess or adjournment, Senate committees have from 10 a.m. until 12 p.m. on Friday, September 29, in order to file legislative or executive matters.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 12 noon on Monday, October, 2. I further ask consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Byrd, or his designee, 60 minutes; Senator Thomas, or his designee, 60 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 858, H.R. 4115.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. on Monday. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2557, the bill regarding America's dependency on foreign oil. No votes will occur prior to 5:30 p.m. on Monday. However, at 5:30 p.m., the Senate will proceed to a vote on the conference report to accompany the energy and water appropriations bill.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I will talk for a couple of minutes about one of the issues about which I am most passionate, and that is taxes, or the overtaxation of the American people in a time of surpluses, and the refusal of this Congress, this President, to even make an attempt to have meaningful tax cuts or meaningful tax relief before the end of this Congress. In 1997, the Congress passed and the President signed into law my $500-per-child tax credit legislation. As a result, today about 40 million children in this country receive this tax credit every year, and it returns a total of about $20 billion a year in tax savings to families. That is money that families can use for savings for their children's education, for day care, for tutors, for braces, a new washer, dryer--anything--a family vacation. But it is what the family decides to spend their hard-earned money on, rather than waiting for a handout from Washington. In fact, for the first time since the 1980s, this tax credit and other Republican-initiated tax cuts have reduced the tax burden for low- and middle-income families. I have heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle bragging about how some people in the United States are paying less taxes today--and that is true--but it is mainly true because of the $500-per-child tax credit, nothing else that this administration or this Congress has done. Despite this tax credit, the total tax burden is still way too high for working Americans. Today, let's look at an average two-income family. The median two-income family pays $26,759 in Federal, State, and local taxes. Let's compare this with back in 1992. Those taxes were $21,320 a year--a 26-percent increase in the tax burden for average families in just the last 8 years of the Clinton administration. That is according to the Nonpartisan Tax Foundation. To date, $26,759; 8 years ago, $21,320. That shows the increase in taxes to the median-income family--not the rich of this country. They are paying more in taxes, as well. But it is the average working family that is paying the brunt of the tax increases imposed by this administration. Again, that is according to the Nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Total taxes nationwide claim 39 percent of hard-earned income, and that is more than the typical family in this country pays for food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. In the past few years, over 20 million Americans earning between $30,000 and $50,000 have been pushed from the 15-percent tax bracket into the 28-percent tax bracket due to our unfair tax system. They are paying almost twice as much for those incomes, pushed from the 15- percent to the 28-percent tax bracket. As low-income and minimum wage workers work harder and pay more, their payroll taxes also increase, taking a huge bite out of their hard-earned dollars--dollars that I believe are desperately needed to keep those families above the poverty line. Taxes collected by the Federal Government have reached 20.6 percent of all national income. That is the highest level since World War II. The government takes one-fifth of every dollar produced in this country every year. In the next 10 years, working Americans will pay taxes that will contribute to an over $2.2 trillion non-Social Security surplus. This non-Social Security surplus will be $2.2 trillion and that is even after assuming government spending is increasing along with the level and rate of inflation. This non-Social Security surplus comes from increased personal taxes and the realization of our capital gains taxes. I believe this money should be returned to working Americans in the form of some tax relief, debt reduction, and also Social Security reform. Yes, overtaxed American families still need tax relief today. I believe using some of the non-Social Security surplus to expand the $500-per-child tax credit is one of the right things to do because Washington, again, is taking more taxes from American families at a time when it doesn't need the money as bad as families do. I have repeatedly argued in this Chamber that the family has been and will continue to be the bedrock of our society. Strong families make strong communities, strong communities make for a strong America, and our tax policies should strengthen families and should be there to reestablish the value of families. Between 1960 and 1985, Federal taxes on American families increased significantly. For families with 4 children, the Federal income tax rate increased 223 percent; for families with two children the rate increased 43 percent. The inflation-adjusted median income for families with children also decreased between 1973 and 1994. So its income was going down and taxes were still going up. While the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, which included my $500-per-child tax credit, has helped to change this situation, there is still room for improvement, a lot of room for a lot of improvement. For example, combined with the dependent exemption, the tax benefits for families raising children still falls well below both the inflation-adjusted value of the original dependent exemption, and also the actual cost of raising children according to Minnesota's Children Defense Fund. In addition, this child tax credit and the income threshold for families qualifying for credit are not indexed for inflation. As a result, the value of this child tax credit would also shrink in the future and fewer families would qualify for the credit. That is why I am introducing tonight legislation aimed at expanding the tax credit. My legislation would increase the tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000, and it would be adjusted for inflation every year. It would also index the income threshold for families qualifying for this tax credit. While I strongly support this increase as well as the marriage penalty repeal and getting rid of the death tax, the only way we will achieve meaningful tax relief is to reform our entire tax system completely. Even my legislation today, I look at as just an interim step toward this very essential goal of having a tax system that is simple, fair, and easy to understand. With these proposed improvements we would allow overtaxed working families with children to keep a little bit more of their own money-- give them the opportunity to spend it on their own priorities, not looking for a handout from Washington, not saying they need another program from Washington, not that they want another big government approach--but allowing them to keep some of their dollars so they can make the determination on how they want to spend their money, a little bit more of their own money, to spend on their own priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.