Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur today on the pending motion to suspend the rule at 4 o'clock and that the time between now and 4 o'clock be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Democratic leader's comments and the sincerity of those comments. But I think a few points should be made in response to them. Then I will make a unanimous consent request relative to the motion which has been put forward by the Democratic leader. The first point is that the rules of the Senate are being followed. The Democratic leader knows the rules a great deal better than I do. But the vote on cloture yesterday, to which the Democratic leader on a number of occasions has alluded to represent the Democratic leader's commitment to the H-1B proposal, is the vote which puts the Democratic leader in the position that he is in now, which is that the amendment he is offering is not relevant and not germane to the underlying bill. So, as a practical matter, for him to first claim that, with great enthusiasm, they voted for cloture but now they are being foreclosed under the rules of the Senate from doing what they want to do is, I think, crocodile tears. Secondly, it appears at about this time every election cycle we see a movement that occurs from this administration which involves bypassing the usual and legal procedures for obtaining citizenship. Citizenship is the most sacred item of trust that we can impart as a nation to someone who wishes to come to our shores and live. The granting of citizenship is an extraordinary action because it gives a person the right to live in our Nation--the greatest nation on Earth-- and the capacity to vote and participate as a full citizen and to raise a family here as a citizen. So it is something where we have set up a fairly significant and intricate set of laws in order to develop a process so there is fairness in how we apply citizenship. Yet every election year, during this administration, or at least for the last two major election years--especially Presidential election years--we have seen an attempt, basically, to set aside the law as it is structured for purposes of obtaining citizenship, and to create a new class of citizens independent of what is present law. To say that people shall be given the imprimatur of citizenship just before the election, ironically--and the last time this occurred under Citizenship USA, which was the title given to it, a title which was truly inappropriate because it ended up being ``Felony USA,'' thousands of people were given citizenship outside of the usual course. They did not have to go through the usual process, in a rush to complete citizenship prior to the election, which led to literally thousands of people who ended up being felons and criminals receiving citizenship. We are still trying to track down many of the felons who received citizenship under Citizenship USA, which was the last aggressive attempt to bypass the citizenship laws of this country during an election year. I think we should have learned our lesson from that little exercise, that attempt at political initiative for the purposes of political gain, which ended up costing us literally millions of dollars to try to correct and leave us with, fortunately, a number of good citizens but, unfortunately, a number of people who should never have gotten citizenship who are literally felons and who have committed serious crimes. So this attempt to bypass the citizenship process must be looked at with a certain jaundiced eye in light of the fact it is an election year because there is a history which asserts that it should be viewed with a jaundiced eye, because the Citizen USA was such a debacle and so grossly political and ended up costing our Nation so dearly, by giving the sacred right of citizenship to people who are criminals and who committed lawless acts against other citizens. So that is why we are in this position today. The Democratic leadership claims that they strongly support H-1B and so they voted for cloture. Then they come forward and claim: But the rules are limiting us. They were the ones who voted for the rule that happens to be limiting them. They can't have it both ways, but they appear to want to. It is, as I said, crocodile tears on their part, in my opinion. However, the Democratic leader has the right to make this request. He has positioned himself procedurally in that order. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the pending motion to suspend the rules, that the vote occur today at 4 o'clock, and that the time between the two sides until 4 o'clock be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of this innovative and much-needed piece of legislation, the Fair and Simple Shortcut Tax (FASST) Act, which would streamline the process of paying federal taxes for millions of Americans. I am very pleased to join Senator Dorgan in introducing this important legislation. The current Federal tax code is a tangle of requirements, deductions, credits, and other regulations that only a few lawyers and accountants fully understand. Still, we expect the average American citizen, under penalty of law, to have a complete grasp of all their tax obligations and to pay them in full and on time. The complexity of the current tax code has made it a burden to pay ones's tax obligations. This burden must be alleviated. The good news is that we can do something to simplify the tax code for the millions of Americans who do not have complicated investment or corporate income and for whom paying taxes should be as easy and painless as possible. The FASST Act offers a voluntary tax plan which would simplify the filing process for millions Americans. It also provides much needed tax relief through the elimination of the marriage penalty, a tax which actually punishes people for getting married. The FASST Act would provide a single, low tax rate of 15 percent for taxpayers who earn up to $100,000 per year in wages and receive no more than $5,000 in income from capital gains, interest, and dividends. A taxpayer who chooses to participate in this program would not receive a tax return, nor would he have to pay the federal government on April 15th because too little in taxes was deducted from his payroll. Instead, the employee would elect to fill out a modified W-4 form at work whereby his employer would withdraw the exact tax obligation at the single low rate of 15 percent. What a relief it would be for those folks who qualify to be free from the yearly burden of trying to decipher the federal tax code. Taxpayers who elect to participate in this program would still benefit from the current standard tax deduction, as well as personal exemptions, child care credits, the Earned Income Tax Credit and a deduction for home mortgage interest expenses and property taxes. Thus, employees would experience the best of both worlds--the current tax system's generous deduction and credit system for working families, as well as a simplified tax system. This bill also provides generous savings incentives by exempting up to $5,000 of all interest, dividends and capital income from taxes. Taxpayers who do not participate in the FASST program would also benefit from provisions in the FASST Act. First, this act reduces the marriage penalty, and provides an exemption from the Alternative Minimum Tax for many sole proprietors and small businesses. In addition, all taxpayers would be eligible to receive a 50 percent credit for up to $200 in tax preparer expenses if they file their taxes electronically. And again, there is a substantial incentive for savings and investment as up to $500 of dividend and interest income is exempt for individuals. The FASST Act is good for all taxpayers. I believe that the FASST Act provides much needed reform to our tax system. Our current federal tax code is immense, complex, and confusing. It has become a burden on the American taxpayer. The FASST Act takes a much-needed first step toward providing a simpler, friendlier means of collecting taxes from our hard-working citizens. I am pleased to join with my fellow Senators from North Dakota and Illinois in introducing the Fast and Simple Shortcut Tax Act today.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask consent that the vote occur on adoption of the pending conference report at 3 p.m., and that paragraph 4 of Rule 12 be waived.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me begin by stating I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume debate on the China PNTR legislation. Amendments are expected to be offered throughout the day. Any votes ordered with respect to those amendments will be scheduled to occur on Monday or Tuesday of next week. If significant progress can be made during today's session, votes will be postponed to occur on Tuesday morning. Therefore, those Senators who have amendments are encouraged to come to the floor during today's session. It is hoped the Senate can complete action on this important trade bill as early as Wednesday of next week. On behalf of the leader, I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, ironically, I came to the floor to talk about some of Vice President Gore's proposals, specifically in the areas he is spending money. The fact he has created this Pyrhhic lockbox--not Pyrhhic, this mystical lockbox he is claiming for the extra surplus which has been identified under the new budget estimates, which is mystical because he has already spent the entire surplus plus whatever would occur as a result of the increased estimates on the surplus. In fact, according to the Budget Committee, he spent under the high estimate almost $1 trillion more than the surplus. As a result, he is significantly invading the Social Security accounts. But having listened to the Senator from Massachusetts, I do not believe his words can go unanswered because he has, first, made a number of statements which are inaccurate about Governor Bush's proposals on the drug plans for seniors and, second, I think he has put forward the basic premise of the debate between the two parties on the issues that should be answered. Let's begin there before I go to the specifics of the areas of his presentation, which were unfortunately numerous as they related to Governor Bush's positions. The difference here is fairly simple between the two approaches. What was very distinctly stated by the Senator from Massachusetts is that they want to create--they use the term ``universal,'' but a 100- percent program in the drug benefit area, which is totally managed by the Federal Government--100 percent. Vice President Gore wants to do for prescription drugs what Hillary Clinton wanted to do for health care generally. He wants to take ``Hillary Care,'' which is essentially a nationalization of health care, and apply it to the prescription drug program. There are a lot of problems with nationalizing the prescription drug program, with having the Federal Government take over the senior citizens' ability to buy drugs. I think most seniors understand that having the Federal Government tell them what they are going to be able to buy in drugs, exactly what type of drug program they are going to have--and it will be one size fits all for this entire country--I think most seniors have an inherent understanding, as most Americans have an inherent understanding, that that program has some significant flaws. One of the reasons this Congress and the American people so enthusiastically rejected ``Hillary Care'' is that people intuitively understand that taking a program and turning it over to the Federal Government to operate, specifically when that program is critical to one's well-being, as is health care, is putting at risk one's health care, by definition. So the Gore plan is essentially a nationalization plan. The term is used ``universal, 100 percent.'' That means the Government runs it all. Well, 68 percent of the seniors in this country today already have a drug benefit. Many of them are fairly happy that they are able to go out and purchase a drug benefit that is tailored to what they need. There are, obviously, a lot of seniors in this country who need assistance in purchasing that drug benefit. There are a lot of seniors in this country today who do not have adequate coverage in drug benefits. The concerns of those seniors need to be addressed. But we don't address them by taking all the other senior citizens of this country who have set up their own systems--and most of them come as a result of their employer continuing to cover their drug benefit as a result of their retirement--and saying to them: No longer can you participate in your employer plan, no longer can you participate in a plan which you chose which covers the needs which you and your family have. No. Now you must participate in a plan designed by Vice President Gore and a group of bureaucrats here in Washington under the guidance of the Senator from Massachusetts, and you either participate in that plan or you get nothing. When you participate in that plan, you don't get options. You have to do exactly what the Federal Government says. That can be a nightmare. That can be a nightmare, as we all know. That is the fundamental difference. What Governor Bush has put forth is a proposal which will address the needs of seniors who do not presently have adequate prescription drug coverage and will address it in a way that allows seniors to have choices. It allows them to tailor their health care plans to what they need, not to what somebody here in Washington thinks they need. That is the difference of opinion here. There is the Washington mindset which says we in Washington actually know better than you do, John Jones out in Iowa, what you need to buy for your prescription drug benefits. It is this arrogance, this elitism that just permeates Washington and which was so precisely stated in the ``Hillary Care'' package and which is now just being repackaged with new words--``universal, 100 percent''--under the Gore drug plan. Governor Bush has put forward a very thoughtful, very aggressive proposal in the area of prescription drugs that does address the needs of seniors who cannot afford those programs and seniors who need assistance in those programs. It was, regrettably, misinterpreted by the Senator from Massachusetts. To begin with, it doesn't start 4 years from now. It actually begins much sooner and potentially 2 years sooner than the Gore plan. The Gore plan does not go into effect until 1 year after the date of enactment, which means we are probably looking-- should we have the fate of having the Vice President become President, we are probably looking at somewhere around the year 2002 before it even gets operating. That is a pretty optimistic viewpoint. The Senator from Massachusetts said Texas took a long time to participate in the CHIPS program and all the other States took a long time to participate in the CHIPS program. What was that? That was an attempt by the Federal Government to make sure all the kids who are low income, who need insurance in this country, get health insurance. It was passed by the Congress. Do you know how long it took this administration to put in place the regulations to manage the health care plan for children, CHIPS? They have not done it yet. They are still working on those regulations. Why have States not been able to put their CHIPS program into place quickly? Because the regulations have taken so long to get in place. They have a majority of them in place now, but it literally took years to get the regulations in place so the States could comply with them. So the idea that the Vice President, should he be fortunate enough to be elected President, is going to put in place a drug program that is going to be managed by the same agencies that manage the present systems, that manage the health care system we have--and they couldn't even do that--is going to set up a program for the country in a prompt way is, on its face, not believable. The fact is his plan, if he is lucky, assuming he was able to pass the nationalization of the prescription drug programs in this country, assuming he was able to inflict ``Hillary Care,'' relative to drugs, on our people, assuming he was able to get that through the Congress, there is no way that plan would be in place and operating even by the year 2002, which he claims it could be. Maybe 2003; maybe 2004. This timeframe thing the Senator from Massachusetts talked about is just a lot of mush. The fact is, the Gore plan, by definition, cannot start until 2002, and we know, as a practical matter, the way the Federal Government operates, and especially the way HCFA operates, there is no way it will be operating until probably sometime in 2005, whereas Governor Bush has proposed a unique and creative idea. He recognizes that what we need is fundamental Medicare reform. We need to bring all the parties to the table and reach a Medicare package that will reform the whole system to get efficiencies into the system, to reduce the costs of the operation of the system, to make it work more like a system for the 21st century rather than a system designed in the sixties, which is the way it works today. He said it is going to take time to develop that package, it is going to take time to develop that comprehensive agreement, bipartisan in nature, so let's have a bridging program and let's begin the bridging program immediately. He said one of his first pieces of legislation will be a bridging program in the area of drugs which will allow the States, during the period when the Federal Government is working out major Medicare reform, to address not only drug benefits but everything else that deals with Medicare. During the period when the Federal Government is working on that, he said let's set up a specific program that will benefit seniors who need prescription drugs as a bridging program. That program can be in place--if the Congress actually wants to get to work, that program can be in place by March of next year. There is a distinct difference in timeframe, yes. The difference is, under the Gore proposal, which is nationalization of the prescription drug program, which is ``Hillary Care'' for the prescription drug program, it puts all seniors in America under one system managed by the Federal Government. We know it is going to be a bureaucratic disaster and there are going to be a lot of delays. By definition, his plan does not start for 2 years, whereas what Governor Bush suggested is that he understands Government takes time to address major issues such as this, so let's put in a bridging program and start the program early. There is a time difference. The difference is Governor Bush's plan starts a heck of a lot earlier than the Vice President's plan. The Senator from Massachusetts was wrong in that assessment. Secondly, the Senator from Massachusetts--there are a whole series of points, and I am not going to be able to cover them all--the Governor's plan only covers 25 percent of the cost and we cover 50 percent of the cost. I remember a story told by an attorney in New Hampshire who represented the northern part of New Hampshire. He said he was once working for a logging company and sent back a report. There were five loggers at this base camp, three men and two women. One of the women married one of the men, and a report said that 50 percent of the women had married 33 percent of the men. This statistic is one of those types of statistics. It is a nice statistic. It may make sense, but if you look behind it, it makes absolutely no sense because the statistic is based on two different programs. The Gore plan, yes, covers 50 percent of the cost, but what it says is every American must use the federalized system of drug care. As I mentioned earlier, 68 percent of senior citizens already have a drug program. Many of them do not need a new drug program. Some may want to opt into a new drug program if it is available, but many of them do not. They are quite happy with what they have from their company which continued to cover them after they retired. If they have to pay 50 percent now under a Federal program, it actually works out for many seniors that the premium costs of the Gore plan will be higher than the premium costs which they have for their present drug program. If one looks behind this 50-percent number, it becomes very clear that it is not a positive number for seniors, it is very negative for a lot of seniors who will end up paying more for their drug benefit than they pay today because they are going to be put in a Federal plan where the premium costs more than the premium they have today, and they do not have any choice, they have to go into the Fed plan. Why? Because Al Gore knows better; because the Members on the other side of the aisle know better; they are smarter than the rest of Americans; they should design the plan for the rest of Americans, and it should be run out of Washington. It is called elitism and, as I said, it permeates this city. Whereas under Governor Bush's plan, yes, 25 percent of the premium will be picked up by the Federal Government, but he also said this is an option, this is not a requirement. In other words, a senior will take that option if it is a better deal than what they already have. He has also said that for low-income seniors, people at 175 percent of poverty, his plan covers all the premium. So let's not have any of this class warfare jargon we have been hearing from the other side of the aisle through their convention and since then. Actually, Governor Bush said he will cover all the premium for people up to 175 percent of poverty; the Vice President said he is only going to cover all the premium up to 150 percent of poverty. Governor Bush has exceeded, for low-income seniors, the assistance that will be given. This 25-50 percent is a nice number, but it has no relevance to reality because they are two different plans which have two huge, different impacts on the flow of events around how this is covered. Then the Senator from Massachusetts went on to say that block grants are a terrible idea generally, which has always been the theory coming from the other side of the aisle because they do not like to give States any authority, and especially in this instance it is a bad idea because of, as I mentioned earlier, the time lag between when the block grant is created and when the States will be able to operate under it. The point is, once again, that is a Democratic approach to a block grant. A Democratic approach to a block grant is: We will give you the money, but we will set up a whole bunch of strings in Washington which you have to comply with before you get the money. Governor Bush's proposal is a real block grant. ``Block grant'' has become a pejorative. It should not be a pejorative. It is a return of funds to the States, and it says to the States: Manage these funds for low- and moderate-income seniors so they have a drug program. I happen to think States are going to do that more effectively than HCFA has done their job in a variety of different areas, or the other Medicare activities that have occurred. I am willing to put the State of New Hampshire up against the Federal bureaucracy in health care any day of the week, and I can absolutely assure you that New Hampshire citizens are going to get a lot better care when the State of New Hampshire is making the decisions than when some bureaucrat in some building in Washington is making decisions under the guidance of Hillary Clinton or under the guidance, in this case, of Vice President Gore. Why can I say that? Because it is a fact. It is the way it works today. We have seen it time and time again. This proves the point of what I am saying: that HMOs have been dropping their participation like flies, radically. The Senator from Massachusetts pointed out that HMOs have been moving out of States, as they have in New Hampshire--senior HMOs, Medicare HMOs. That is absolutely right. Why? Because the Federal Government under this administration shortchanged the reimbursement to HMOs. HCFA specifically undercut the ability of Medicare HMOs to function because they would not reimburse Medicare HMOs at a reasonable rate. It has become such a crisis that before this Senate adjourns and before this Congress adjourns, we are going to adjust that. Unfortunately, so much of the damage has been done by this administration's Health and Human Services Department that I am not sure we are going to recover the HMOs. He is proving my point by saying the HMOs are falling out of business. It is another classic example of a statement which, on its face, may make sense, but if you look behind it, just the opposite is the fact. It is like another story in New Hampshire, another legal story, which is the guy who shoots his parents and then goes to the court and claims he is an orphan and throws himself on the mercy of the court. The administration is shooting the Medicare HMOs, left and right, because they will not reimburse them. Then they come here and say: Oh, the Medicare HMOs are falling off; therefore, plans can't work because they might use Medicare HMOs. It is a little hard to accept that logic. And it is especially inappropriate for that argument to be made, in my opinion, from people in this administration. So beyond the specific errors of the statement, which I think were considerable as they related to Governor Bush's proposal, and which I have tried to outline--I am sure I have not hit them all because I am not that intimately familiar with the entire package; but even with general familiarity, I noticed a number of mistakes--beyond that, it really does come back to this basic philosophical difference: Do we want to give our senior citizens in this country the opportunity to have quality prescription drug coverage, which they get to choose, and have some part in the participation, in making decisions as to what it will be, what type of coverage they want, and how much it will benefit their families, or do we want to nationalize the prescription drug care process in this country, and have what is essentially another slice of ``Hillary Care'' put upon the Nation? That is the difference. That is the difference between these two approaches. Both approaches try to address the needs of the low- and moderate-income seniors and give them adequate health care and drug coverage. Governor Bush's proposal does a little better job because he takes 175 percent of poverty and covers all the premiums up to that, and Vice President Gore's proposal only goes to 150 percent of poverty. So we are not talking anymore about whether or not low-income seniors are going to have adequate drug care. We are talking about timing. Governor Bush's proposal moves a lot quicker than Vice President Gore's in getting the money out and getting support to seniors. But what we are really talking about is the ability of seniors to play a role and have participation in the choice of the drug care they get as versus having the Federal Government doing it all. So that is a response to Senator Kennedy's comments on drugs, which I guess we are going to hear a lot more about, and which I am sure the Senator will have a response to my response, if he decides he deems it worthwhile. I was going to discuss this other issue, so let me quickly discuss it. I know the Senator from Idaho has been very patient. I do have to make this one point that this chart illustrates which is that the Senate Budget Committee took a look at the Vice President's proposals. Anybody who has been listening to the Vice President wandering around the country knows he has gone to just about every interest group in this country and has suggested money he will spend to assist them in some program, which is his right and, obviously, his philosophical viewpoint. But at some point you have to pay the piper. You have to add those numbers up. So the Senate Budget Committee added those numbers up. When you get to the bottom line, which is shown on this chart, the surplus, over the next 10 years, which is $4.5 trillion, is entirely spent. We have heard a lot from the Vice President about how Governor Bush's proposal of the $1.3 trillion tax cut, which is about a quarter of the entire surplus, is going to eat up the surplus and, therefore, not leave anything for anybody else. But what we do not hear about, because maybe the press has not focused on it because it is a lot of numbers-- but they can now go to the Senate Budget Committee numbers and focus on it fairly easily--is that Vice President Gore has already spent the surplus. He has spent the entire surplus. If you use the low range, he has overspent the surplus by $27 billion. That is the low range. That is if you give him every benefit of the doubt. If you use the high range, which is not an outrageous high range--if it were my high range, it would be a lot higher than this is from the Budget Committee; and they tend to be fairly conservative number crunchers up there--it comes up to $900 billion, almost $1 trillion, that he has spent that exceeds the surplus. From where does that come? That comes from Social Security. That is what you end up hitting. There are a couple numbers on this chart that stand out like sore thumbs that I want to mention quickly, and then I will stop. First, the tax cut relief. In the entire Gore package--we have a $4.5 trillion surplus--do you know how much tax cut relief there really is? The Vice President says he has $500 billion, but that is, once again, one of these numbers which, if you look behind it, is not really there. The net tax cut relief in his package is $147 billion out of a $4.5 trillion surplus. The American people are paying $4.5 trillion more to the Federal Government than the Federal Government needs to operate. That is what the surplus is. Everyone in this room, everyone in America who pays taxes is paying taxes which the Federal Government does not need to operate. It adds up to $4.5 trillion. And all that the Vice President can agree to give back in the way of a tax cut--and it is not really a tax cut, returning taxes that do not need to be paid--is $147 billion out of $4.5 trillion. It is incredible. That number distinctly reflects the view that any money that comes to Washington is not the money of the taxpayers; it is the money of the people who live in Washington. It is the Vice President's money; therefore, he does not have to give it back. It is the Government's money. They don't have to give it back. Not in my view. Not in Governor Bush's view, which is that it is the taxpayers' money. It comes out of your pocket. It is your taxes. It is your money. If the Government has too much of it, let's give it back. The second item that I want to highlight is this retirement savings plus plan, which is a brand new major entitlement of huge proportions and a massive increase on the next generation. This is only a 10-year number shown on the chart. That number explodes, as you move into the outyears, into trillions. It is the most significant major entitlement ever put on the books of the American Government, in my opinion--if it were to pass. It will exceed Medicare by a huge function in the outyears, as we head toward the year 2030, I believe. But it will at least be competitive with Medicare as a massive new entitlement program. Who is going to pay it? The next generation. Our kids. My daughter who just got her first job. She is out of college, which we are very happy about because we don't have to pay tuition. She got a job, which we are even more happy about. Unfortunately, around about 10 or 15 years from now, assuming she keeps her job, she is going to be paying taxes at an outrageous rate in order to support a brand new entitlement put on the books by Vice President Gore, if he should become President. That, to me, is a little number in there that seems little in this package, although it is huge--obviously, even in this package; $750 billion on the upper side. That is not talked about much but should be looked at by the American people as they consider who they are going to vote for in this coming election. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Idaho in allowing me to proceed for a little extra time. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I congratulate the Chairman on a strong bill that will improve our national security. As a conferee I understand the many challenges he faced in putting this bill together. While I support the overall bill, I would like to express my deep concern over a provision of this conference report that reduces funding for an important electronic warfare system for the F/A-18E/F. The conference report reduces funding for the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasure (IDECM) program by $29.6 million in the F/A-18E/F procurement account. I understand that this reduction may provide insufficient funding for Low Rate Initial Production, significantly increase the risk to full rate production, and may mean that operationally deployed F/A-18E/F aircraft will not have adequate protection against radio frequency guided missile threats. Therefore, I would like to ask the Chairman for his support in addressing this issue for FY01.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I was wondering if the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee would rise to engage in a brief colloquy.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues to express my deepest sympathy for Nancy and Paul's family. I had the great good fortune to come to the Senate with Paul Coverdell, as did the Senator from North Dakota, who I see sitting across the aisle. Paul was a special individual. He brought to this Senate an infectious enthusiasm and gracious energy which dominated the institution and those of us who worked with him. He always had a smile. He always had an idea. He always had a purpose. The purpose was tied to making this country a better place to live--for all of us and for our children. He used to wander around this institution with a styrofoam cup that had ``Waffle House'' on it. That was one of the great mysteries to me in this institution--how Paul Coverdell managed to get Waffle House coffee sent all the way from Georgia. It was a great promotor of Georgia. He never missed an opportunity to promote Georgia. That was only one of the minor ways he did it. He was a great friend, also. I had lots of discussions with him. We worked on lots of issues--our concerns about the original health care proposal put forward by this administration, to when we set up the first aggressive, active task force that I got involved in and that he was also involved in. Even at the time we were both new to this institution, he had an incredible amount of ideas and initiatives on ways to address the issues. He was always tactically two or three steps ahead of the rest of us. He understood the way the institution worked long before some of us--I put myself in that category--who didn't fully understand the institution. He had an intuitive sense about the Senate--a feel for it and a love of it. He knew how to work an issue, to address an issue in order to produce better policy and better government for our country. I worked with him on that. It seemed almost all of the time we were working on an answer with Paul Coverdell because he was involved in about every issue that came through the institution that had significance. The last major issue I worked with him on, of course, was education. We had a task force on our side to put forward what I thought was an extremely positive educational agenda, much of which came from his thought processes, which I was proud to support. We worked a lot, of course, on Governor Bush's campaign. I had a discussion last Friday with him about that. He was working hard on an issue having to do with that campaign, and we was very hopeful that Governor Bush would become the next President. He also had, as I mentioned, a deep regard for this body. I think one of the discussions I will remember fondly occurred last week when we were sitting in my office. Some of the offices in the Russell Building have unique marble fireplaces. Many offices have unique desks. He was very concerned that we didn't really have a historical database of where these desks came from, who had these desks, and we didn't have a historical database of where the marble, for example, of the fireplaces came from; We had not, as a Senate, done our job of maintaining our own traditions and our own history as well we might. We got to talking about that and the history of the Senate. His love of the institution was exuberant. What a huge impact he had in such a short time. We only came 8 years ago--the two of us. At that time, I think there were 11 after the class finally got settled in. He took a while to get here because he confronted a number of races, but with his perseverance he was totally committed and won them all. In that time, he left a huge mark. One of the true strengths of our democracy is that it totally exceeds any individual. This institution includes Daniel Webster, Calhoun, Clay; people in our century who had a huge impact, including Taft, Bob Dole. When they leave, the institution goes on; it functions. It functions extraordinarily well for a democratic body--as well as a democratic body can function. It produces governance for our people which is fair and honest and committed to a better life. Recognizing that the institution goes on, there are still people who leave a mark. There are still people whose memory will be there, and will be there for a considerable amount of time. Paul certainly falls in that category. It will be hard for me to turn and look at that door and not see Paul standing by it, working on some issue. That is where he usually worked from, the pillar back there, addressing some concern, planning some initiative, all of which was directed at one single purpose: Preserving and keeping our democracy. We will miss him. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in commemorating the Town of Jackson, New Hampshire on the occasion of its Bicentennial and in appreciation of the contributions its citizens have made to our nation. Jackson is the only New Hampshire town celebrating its Bicentennial in the Year 2000. Founded by settlers as New Madbury circa 1775 and incorporated on December 4, 1800, Jackson proudly traces its roots deep into the history of our state and nation. Originally named Adams, in honor of then President John Adams, Jackson selected its current name on July 4, 1829 to honor President Andrew Jackson. It is here, settled gently into the awe inspiring beauty of New Hampshire's Presidential Mountain Range, at the foot of Mount Washington, where Jackson, a quiet farming community with an abundance of open space and spectacular scenic views, evolved into a popular American resort destination for artists and summer vacationers. The centuries have been bridged by generations of old and new Jackson families. Today, visitors come year round, joining local residents, to enjoy its pastoral vistas, timeless ridge lines, wild and scenic rivers, covered bridge, water falls, white steepled church, mountains, rolling farmland and outdoor recreation amidst the magnificence and splendor of New Hampshire's world famous White Mountain National Forest. On the occasion of its 200th Birthday in the Year 2000 please join me to proudly salute and celebrate Jackson, New Hampshire, a classic American community with a unique character, spirit and old world charm which has enriched the State of New Hampshire and our Nation.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I always allow the Parliamentarian to determine relevancy, as the Democratic leader has always allowed the Parliamentarian to determine relevancy. That is why, when we use the term ``relevant,'' if we both agree on the term ``relevant,'' let's put it in the unanimous consent request and move forward.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator's position is he is willing to allow relevant amendments, then we can develop a unanimous consent request which says ``relevant amendments.'' Is that the Senator's position? The Senator just used the world ``relevant'' three times to describe the amendments he would propound. Therefore, it should not be a problem for the Senator to offer relevant amendments.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, obviously, the PNTR bill is an extremely important bill. This body understands that. Certainly those of us on this side of the aisle who have been the force for expanding trade in this world, who have been basically the majority vote of things the President has wished to do--for example, on the African free trade agreement and on NAFTA, two areas where it was really our side of the aisle that carried the ball for the administration, as they tried to open our trade opportunities across the world--are strongly supportive of the concept of PNTR. But there is still a fair amount of work that has to be done before we can bring it to the floor. Specifically, as was alluded to, there is the Thompson amendment, which would be nice to be able to deal with independent of PNTR. There are also other issues which we are going to have to address before the PNTR is ripe for consideration. So at this point I would have to object, although it is clearly the intention of our side of the aisle to bring up the PNTR issue and to hopefully pass it, as we did with NAFTA and as we did with the African free trade agreement. So I object.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the issue being debated and brought forward by the minority leader was that he wanted to take up and discuss H-1B. The presentation was for the purpose, at least formally it appeared, of taking up the H-1B issue. We are willing to take up the H-1B issue. And we are willing to do it with relevant amendments. Now, the other side says that is not the English language and it is not common sense to use the term ``relevant.'' That term has been used for the past 200 years in this body, and I think it is reasonable to continue to use it. On a number of occasions, we have presented unanimous consent requests asking that we be allowed to take up the H-1B legislation with relevant amendments. In fact, the Democratic leader said specifically that the amendments he was talking about would be relevant. He used the term ``relevant.'' I understand that was more in the context of not necessarily the Senate, but in any event he used the term ``relevant.'' Right now, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, to proceed to Calendar No. 490, S. 2045, the H-1B legislation, and it be considered under the following limitations: Three relevant amendments per each leader in order to the bill; No other amendments in order other than second-degree amendments which are relevant to the first-degree amendments. I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the above amendments, the bill be read the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage, with no intervening action or debate. The purpose of this unanimous consent request is to bring up the H-1B visa issue, which I believe should be brought to the floor with relevant amendments.

Mr. GREGG. Is it the position of the Senator that the Senate does not function under the English language?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the H-1B bill happens to be a priority of this side of the aisle. I would be happy to move to this if we could move to the H-1B bill. Unfortunately, the Democratic leader isn't proposing that we move to the H-1B bill. What the Democratic leader is proposing is that we move to an extraneous agenda attached to the H-1B bill, that we bring to this bill debate on all sorts of issues which have no relevance to H-1B. In fact, we have offered, on this side of the aisle, to bring up the H-1B bill with relevant amendments. That has not been accepted by the other side of the aisle. We are continuing to be agreeable to bringing up the H-1B bill with relevant amendments. There is no question but that we should pass the H-1B bill. I do sense a touch of crocodile tears coming from the other side of the aisle because, as a practical matter, almost all the bills that are listed as being held up, such as the education bill--the PNTR is a little different class, but the H-1B bill, for sure--are being held up not because of the underlying bill, not because the underlying issue is in contest as to whether or not we should take it up--we are perfectly willing to take up those issues on this side of the aisle and have propounded a series of unanimous consent requests to accomplish exactly that--but it is because there is a whole set of other agenda items, which the Democratic leader has a right to and desires to bring up, but he cannot bring them up on those bills and then claim he is bringing up those bills, because he is not bringing up those bills; what he is bringing up is those bills plus an agenda as long as my arm of political issues that they wish to posture on for the next election. If he wishes to bring up the H-1B bill with three relevant amendments, or even five relevant amendments, on each side, we would be happy to accept that type of approach. I have to object to the present proposal, but I would be happy to propound a unanimous consent which limits discussion to relevant amendments, if the Democratic leader is willing to pursue a course of bringing up H-1B with relevant amendments. On the proposal as laid out by the Democratic leader, I object.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, that is our position.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I think that is a good place to stop. I reserve the remainder of the time on our side.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing forward this extremely positive proposal in the area of patient protections. This bill has a lot of initiatives, many of which have been outlined very well by my colleagues. One that has not been highlighted as completely as I would like because of time--and I want to touch on it quickly--is the issue of liability. When our bill initially passed the Senate, we did not include an opportunity to sue, but we have changed that policy. Under the bill as it is proposed today, first there is a tremendously positive appeals process. If a patient believes they have been aggrieved by their HMO, they have the right to an internal appeal and an external appeal which is set up with an independent group of physicians who will review the case and who are knowledgeable on that subject. More importantly, if a patient thinks they have been aggrieved, under certain circumstances, they will be able to sue that HMO. What they will not be able to do is have an open season on the employer. If one looks at the proposal that has been put forward by the other side, they are suggesting we have an open season on employers. The whole exercise in the Patients' Bill of Rights is not to have open season on employers. It is to address inequities occurring to people as they deal with their insurers, specifically with health maintenance organizations. If we allow this open season on employers, we will simply drive people out of insurance. Instead of improving insurance for individuals across the country, individuals across this country will walk into work one morning and their employers will say: I did not give you this health care policy which happens to be a very expensive event in my day in trying to make an effective workplace; I did not give it to you so lawyers could use it as a game area to bring suits against me. Employers across this Nation are going to simply drop their health care insurance. They will give their employees a certificate to buy their own health insurance or some other type of vehicle to allow them to compete in the marketplace. Because employers are able to get a better price and are able to tailor their insurance policies more effectively to the needs of their employees in different regions of this country, the practical effect will be employees get significantly much less health care under the proposal coming from the other side because employer after employer will simply drop their employees' health insurance programs and will allow the marketplace to compete for their employees. Unfortunately, the result will be the employees will be left with the short stick. I think that is the actual goal of the other side. I think their real goal is to drive up the number of uninsured across this country. If one looks at the pattern of activity on the other side of the aisle, it has been to annually increase the number of uninsured by raising the price of insurance in this country. Since this administration has been in office, the number of uninsured has gone up by 8 million people because the price of insurance has gone up and up as the other side has tried to drive up the price of that insurance. What is the ultimate goal? ``Hillary care.'' If they put enough people on the street, if they create enough uninsured, inevitably they will have to claim: I am sorry, everybody is uninsured so we have to nationalize the system.