John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have heard the horror stories: An HMO delays a breast cancer patient's treatment until the cancer has spread throughout her body. Parents are forced to drive their critically ill child to a hospital 50 miles away from their home because their insurer refuses to let them take the boy to a hospital 5 miles from their home. A patient complaining of chest pains is not allowed to see a cardiologist, and as a result suffers a fatal heart attack. Americans want their doctors--not managed care bureaucrats--to make their medical decisions. And when managed care wrongfully delays or denies care, Americans want the right to bring a lawsuit to hold managed care responsible for its misconduct. And let me tell you directly--the Gregg amendment won't do a thing to help Americans who suffer from the abuse of HMOs. It will maintain the provision in ERISA that allows patients in employer self funded plans to only recover damages in court from an HMO related to the cost of the treatment delayed or denied. It denies the right of Americans to receive punitive damages that send the message to insurance companies that when they do wrong, they'll be held accountable for the wrong they do. The Gregg amendment sets up a weak appeals process where patients could first dispute the HMO's ruling with a doctor within the insurance plan (but not the one they saw for treatment) and if they are still not satisfied then they can talk to a second doctor that is outside of the insurance plan but regulated by either a state or federal agency. Whatever each of the doctors rule would then be binding. The Gregg amendment only exacerbates a bureaucratic nightmare. It doesn't allow Americans to hold insurance companies accountable in court. It doesn't address the real impediment to accountability in health care: ERISA. Today, even if an HMO has been directly involved in dictating, denying or delaying care for a patient, it can use a loophole in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to avoid any responsibility for the consequences of its actions. ERISA was designed over 25 years ago, long before managed care companies became the powerful entity in controlling the health care of Americans that it is today. ERISA was originally designed to protect employees from losing pension benefits due to fraud, mismanagement and employer bankruptcies during the 1960's, but the law has had the affect of allowing an HMO to deny or delay care with no effective remedy for patients. Judge William G. Young, a Reagan appointed US District Judge, in his landmark opinion in one case, laid the problems out before us in clear language. He said, and I quote, ``ERISA has evolved into a shield of immunity that protects health insurers, utilization review providers, and other managed care entities from potential liability for the consequences of their wrongful denial of health benefits. ERISA thwarts the legitimate claims of the very people it was designed to protect.'' Judge Young was barred by law from awarding damages for wrongful death in an HMO case--his hands were tied by ERISA--but he laid out the point we're trying to make today. We need to end the ERISA nightmare that is hurting ordinary Americans. We have built a system that puts paperwork ahead of patients and ignores the real life and death decisions being made in our health care system. We must do better. Americans deserve better care, and deserve the right to hold insurers accountable if they do not receive that care. Our opponents erroneously argue that ensuring that plans are held accountable will drive up premium costs and result in lost coverage. They fail to acknowledge however, that the timely appeals mechanisms in our amendment could prevent lawsuits before harm can occur. In fact, an independent study by Coopers and Lyband found that the Democratic provision to hold health plans accountable would cost a mere 3 to 13 cents a month. Ironically, the industry's cry that liability will raise costs assumes that health plans are very negligent and that patients do indeed suffer real harm. History bears out our case: access to the court system for ordinary Americans--the right to seek redress--rescued America from Pintos that caught on fire, it gave us seatbelts, bumpers, airbags in cars, and every innovation in safety for consumers that we've witnessed over the last thirty years. So why would we oppose access to the court system for patients injured by runaway insurance companies? Well, some have said it will clog the courts and increase costs and premiums on insurance. And all the studies that prove otherwise aren't enough for these ideologies. Well, they might want to take a look at the State of Texas, where, over Governor George Bush's objections, they gave Texans the right to sue their HMO. And what's been the result? In 2 years since an external review process was established, only 480 complaints have been filed with the Texas Independent Review Organization--about 30 times less than the 4,400 complaints that were predicted in the first year alone by the Texas Department of Insurance. Even more important, only one medical malpractice lawsuit has been filed under this law. Mr. President, the Republicans have been asking America to look towards Texas for some answers--Mr. President, this is one issue on which I think we ought to follow Texas's example. It works. Americans overwhelmingly favor holding managed care plans accountable. A Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey released in January of this year found that 78 percent of voters believe that patients should be able to hold managed care legally accountable for malpractice. A poll released in September of 1998 by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News revealed that 71 percent of voters favor legislation that gives patients the right to hold managed care accountable for improper care, even if that might increase premiums-- which studies show it would not. Mr. President, it is clear that accountability is the key to enforcing patients' rights. A right to emergency room care on a ``prudent layperson'' standard or a right to specialty care does little to protect patients if such care can routinely be delayed or denied. Only legal remedies provide adequate protection against managed care's biggest abuses. And it's time we embraced those legal remedies. That is something about which we should all agree. I ask unanimous consent to have articles from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks in support of the Clean Energy Act of 1999. There is a strong consensus in Congress, and throughout the nation, that it is time to restructure our electric utility industry. The driving force behind this consensus is the potential to save working families and businesses billions of dollars in their electricity bills as competition replaces regulated markets and drives down costs. The Clinton Administration has estimated that the nation may save as much as $20 billion through restructuring, and other estimates are even higher. Some twenty states, including Massachusetts, have already acted to bring competition to their state industry and capture these savings. In addition to saving billions of dollars, electric utility restructuring also presents us with the opportunity to enhance environmental protections. The Clean Energy Act of 1999 advances environmental goals that I believe should be considered as part of the final electric utility restructuring proposal passed by the Senate--and that is why I am an original cosponsor. I know that some in Congress have argued that we should not include environmental protections in a utility restructuring proposal. I think that would be a grave mistake, because some--by no means all--power plants are the source of too much pollution to be ignored. In Massachusetts, for example, five power plants release more than 90 percent of the pollution from power plants in the state. If each of these plants met modern standards, it would reduce as much pollution as taking more than 750,000 cars off the road. And, while Massachusetts struggles with some of these dirty plants, many more can be found in the Midwest and other parts of the nation. The consequences of this pollution are significant. In the Northeast we experience frequent and widespread violations of national health standards for ozone. Long-term exposure to ozone may increase the incidence of respiratory disease and premature aging of the lungs. Acid deposition, whose source may be plants far outside of the Northeast, degrades public health and damages aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Mercury, which is highly poisonous, accumulates in aquatic species. Finally, carbon dioxide pollution continues to accumulate in the atmosphere and increase the potential for destructive and irreversible climate change. The Clean Energy Act of 1999 would put in place important public health and environmental policies. Most importantly, it would level the playing field by requiring old, heavily-polluting power plants that are now exempt from health and environmental standards, to clean up. This is important for New England, because while many of these plants are located in the Midwest, their pollution is carried through weather patterns to our air, forests, lakes, streams and lungs. We should close this loophole. Many energy companies have achieved environmental improvements, and those achievements should not be minimized, but the fact remains that electricity generation from old, heavily-polluting power plants increased 15.8 percent from 1992 to 1998, nationwide. I want to add that I have heard from the citizens of Massachusetts who live around old coal and oil plants that pollute far more than newer plants. They feel strongly that all plants should comply with environmental standards and employ the best environmental technology, and that no family should be forced to live in the shadows of a plant that may cause environmental harm. In addition to having tougher standards and closing loopholes in current law, the Act would require the Environmental Protection Agency to review any plant that emits excessive pollution through pollution permit trading to determine whether it is causing adverse local environmental and health impacts. As a result, the bill allows for robust trading so that we can capture all of its economic and broader environmental benefits, but only when it does not harm local communities. Finally, other provisions of the Act will benefit the environment and make the U.S. a leader in clean energy technologies. For example, it would require that a percentage of the Nation's power is generated by solar, wind and other renewable sources. For years we have given heavily-polluting plants a free ride. Now it is time to reverse course and create a market force to bolster our renewable energy technologies so that we will have a growing clean power industry as we start the 21st Century. I thank Senator Jeffords for introducing the Clean Energy Act of 1999, and I am pleased to join Senators Lieberman, Moynihan, Schumer, Kennedy, Dodd, and Lautenberg as an original cosponsor. I hope this legislation will help shape the Senate debate over utility restructuring and ensure that provisions to protect the environment and the public health will be part of the final legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes today in support of the Act to Save America's Forests. Over the past 200 years, 95 percent of America's forests have been logged. The Act to Save America's Forests is an effort to save the remaining 5 percent of these original forests. The legislation is based on our best science and recognizes that we can preserve our national forests for future generations and still harvest the renewable resource of timber. It is supported by over 600 scientists, who wrote to Congress that the act will ``give our nation's precious forest ecosystems the best chance for survival and recovery into the 21st century and beyond.'' The truth is, this bill represents a prudent approach. It has been criticized by those who want to ban all logging on national lands and by those who feel that our current forest policy is too restrictive. I am optimistic that it will bring opposing sides together around common progress. The Act to Save America's Forests will protect some of the most treasured wild lands in America. Millions of Americans visit our national forests every year, generating more than $100 billion for local economies. In our forests, families hike, fish, boat, mountain climb, bird watch ad even dog sled. And, they act as watersheds and are home to rare species. In Oregon, our national forests have trees over 1,000 years old. The Sequoia National Forest in California is home to the world's oldest trees. These are true natural--and national--treasures. In New England, we have the Green Mountain and White Mountain National Forests. Only 100 miles from Boston, they are home to Mt. Washington, the Old Main of the Mountain and the Appalachian Trail. These are favorite spots for our citizens to back-pack, ski, canoe, kayak and witness the fall foliage. The remaining unbroken forests in the Green Mountain draw wildlife from great distances, such as migratory song birds from central and South America. The Lamb Brook, Glastenbury and Robert Frost Mountain forests, which are threatened with clearcut logging, are critical habitat for New England's black bear population, who needs these remote areas of solitude to breed and forage. The Act to Save America's Forests would permanently protect these forests and their biodiversity from logging or roadbuilding. Today, there are 490 million acres of harvestable timberlands in the United States. Only approximately 20 percent of this harvestable timberland, some 98 million acres, are owned by the Federal Government and would be impacted by the Act to Save America's Forests. The remaining 80 percent of the harvestable timberland is on private land, and would not be regulated by the Act to Save America's Forests. The major provisions of the Act to Save America's Forests will ban logging and road building of any kind in 13 million acres of ``core'' national forest. Core forests include ancient forest and biologically significant and roadless areas. Only environmentally compatible, sustainable logging would be permitted outside of the protected core forest areas. Clearcutting and even age logging would be banned on all federal lands. The Act will protect watersheds and fisheries by prohibiting logging within 300-foot buffer areas along streams and lakes. It directs the Federal agencies to protect and restore native biological diversity. Finally, it establishes a panel of scientists to provide guidance on Federal forest management. I want to thank Senator Torricelli for introducing this legislation and Representative Anna Eshoo for offering similar legislation in the House of Representatives. I strongly support this effort to balance our need to preserve and restore our national forests while allowing for the harvest of the renewable resource these forests provide.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks in support of the Clean Energy Act of 1999. There is a strong consensus in Congress, and throughout the nation, that it is time to restructure our electric utility industry. The driving force behind this consensus is the potential to save working families and businesses billions of dollars in their electricity bills as competition replaces regulated markets and drives down costs. The Clinton Administration has estimated that the nation may save as much as $20 billion through restructuring, and other estimates are even higher. Some twenty states, including Massachusetts, have already acted to bring competition to their state industry and capture these savings. In addition to saving billions of dollars, electric utility restructuring also presents us with the opportunity to enhance environmental protections. The Clean Energy Act of 1999 advances environmental goals that I believe should be considered as part of the final electric utility restructuring proposal passed by the Senate--and that is why I am an original cosponsor. I know that some in Congress have argued that we should not include environmental protections in a utility restructuring proposal. I think that would be a grave mistake, because some--by no means all--power plants are the source of too much pollution to be ignored. In Massachusetts, for example, five power plants release more than 90 percent of the pollution from power plants in the state. If each of these plants met modern standards, it would reduce as much pollution as taking more than 750,000 cars off the road. And, while Massachusetts struggles with some of these dirty plants, many more can be found in the Midwest and other parts of the nation. The consequences of this pollution are significant. In the Northeast we experience frequent and widespread violations of national health standards for ozone. Long-term exposure to ozone may increase the incidence of respiratory disease and premature aging of the lungs. Acid deposition, whose source may be plants far outside of the Northeast, degrades public health and damages aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Mercury, which is highly poisonous, accumulates in aquatic species. Finally, carbon dioxide pollution continues to accumulate in the atmosphere and increase the potential for destructive and irreversible climate change. The Clean Energy Act of 1999 would put in place important public health and environmental policies. Most importantly, it would level the playing field by requiring old, heavily-polluting power plants that are now exempt from health and environmental standards, to clean up. This is important for New England, because while many of these plants are located in the Midwest, their pollution is carried through weather patterns to our air, forests, lakes, streams and lungs. We should close this loophole. Many energy companies have achieved environmental improvements, and those achievements should not be minimized, but the fact remains that electricity generation from old, heavily-polluting power plants increased 15.8 percent from 1992 to 1998, nationwide. I want to add that I have heard from the citizens of Massachusetts who live around old coal and oil plants that pollute far more than newer plants. They feel strongly that all plants should comply with environmental standards and employ the best environmental technology, and that no family should be forced to live in the shadows of a plant that may cause environmental harm. In addition to having tougher standards and closing loopholes in current law, the Act would require the Environmental Protection Agency to review any plant that emits excessive pollution through pollution permit trading to determine whether it is causing adverse local environmental and health impacts. As a result, the bill allows for robust trading so that we can capture all of its economic and broader environmental benefits, but only when it does not harm local communities. Finally, other provisions of the Act will benefit the environment and make the U.S. a leader in clean energy technologies. For example, it would require that a percentage of the Nation's power is generated by solar, wind and other renewable sources. For years we have given heavily-polluting plants a free ride. Now it is time to reverse course and create a market force to bolster our renewable energy technologies so that we will have a growing clean power industry as we start the 21st Century. I thank Senator Jeffords for introducing the Clean Energy Act of 1999, and I am pleased to join Senators Lieberman, Moynihan, Schumer, Kennedy, Dodd, and Lautenberg as an original cosponsor. I hope this legislation will help shape the Senate debate over utility restructuring and ensure that provisions to protect the environment and the public health will be part of the final legislation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes today in support of the Act to Save America's Forests. Over the past 200 years, 95 percent of America's forests have been logged. The Act to Save America's Forests is an effort to save the remaining 5 percent of these original forests. The legislation is based on our best science and recognizes that we can preserve our national forests for future generations and still harvest the renewable resource of timber. It is supported by over 600 scientists, who wrote to Congress that the act will ``give our nation's precious forest ecosystems the best chance for survival and recovery into the 21st century and beyond.'' The truth is, this bill represents a prudent approach. It has been criticized by those who want to ban all logging on national lands and by those who feel that our current forest policy is too restrictive. I am optimistic that it will bring opposing sides together around common progress. The Act to Save America's Forests will protect some of the most treasured wild lands in America. Millions of Americans visit our national forests every year, generating more than $100 billion for local economies. In our forests, families hike, fish, boat, mountain climb, bird watch ad even dog sled. And, they act as watersheds and are home to rare species. In Oregon, our national forests have trees over 1,000 years old. The Sequoia National Forest in California is home to the world's oldest trees. These are true natural--and national--treasures. In New England, we have the Green Mountain and White Mountain National Forests. Only 100 miles from Boston, they are home to Mt. Washington, the Old Main of the Mountain and the Appalachian Trail. These are favorite spots for our citizens to back-pack, ski, canoe, kayak and witness the fall foliage. The remaining unbroken forests in the Green Mountain draw wildlife from great distances, such as migratory song birds from central and South America. The Lamb Brook, Glastenbury and Robert Frost Mountain forests, which are threatened with clearcut logging, are critical habitat for New England's black bear population, who needs these remote areas of solitude to breed and forage. The Act to Save America's Forests would permanently protect these forests and their biodiversity from logging or roadbuilding. Today, there are 490 million acres of harvestable timberlands in the United States. Only approximately 20 percent of this harvestable timberland, some 98 million acres, are owned by the Federal Government and would be impacted by the Act to Save America's Forests. The remaining 80 percent of the harvestable timberland is on private land, and would not be regulated by the Act to Save America's Forests. The major provisions of the Act to Save America's Forests will ban logging and road building of any kind in 13 million acres of ``core'' national forest. Core forests include ancient forest and biologically significant and roadless areas. Only environmentally compatible, sustainable logging would be permitted outside of the protected core forest areas. Clearcutting and even age logging would be banned on all federal lands. The Act will protect watersheds and fisheries by prohibiting logging within 300-foot buffer areas along streams and lakes. It directs the Federal agencies to protect and restore native biological diversity. Finally, it establishes a panel of scientists to provide guidance on Federal forest management. I want to thank Senator Torricelli for introducing this legislation and Representative Anna Eshoo for offering similar legislation in the House of Representatives. I strongly support this effort to balance our need to preserve and restore our national forests while allowing for the harvest of the renewable resource these forests provide.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have the best specialists, the best delivery system in the world. We have people who come here from all over the world to share in the remarkable expertise and capacities of our specialists in this country. Yet the fact is, under the Republican plan millions of our own citizens would be denied the right of access to specialists. The stories of individuals are remarkable. I know every single one of us has received letters from anguished parents who run into the most extraordinary barriers of resistance from an HMO that is simply concerned with its bottom line and not concerned with the proper delivery of health to the individual they represent. I will speak for just a few minutes today about one of the issues I believe cuts to the heart of this debate over managed care reform in the Senate today, and that is the broader question of what kind of access we are going to guarantee to specialists. Mr. President, in the United States, we are fortunate to have world-renowned health care facilities and some of the best doctors and researchers in the world. Each year thousands of people from around the world travel to this country because we have the best specialists in the world. But at the same time, every year, thousands of letters pour into my office from constituents in managed care plans who can't see the specialists their own doctors know have the expertise to meet their medical needs-- because their HMOs won't permit it. Mr. President, there's something disturbing in the dichotomy we are facing: all the world knows our doctors are the best trained, our specialists the best educated and the most highly skilled--but our citizens aren't permitted to see them when they need them most. What can we say about that system which defies the limits of common sense and every notion of human compassion? I believe we should all be able to say that it demands reform--today. When the American people say they support managed care reform, they are rejecting the one-size-fits all brand of health care practiced by many HMOs. Let me assure you, as well, that one of the most critical elements of any Patients' Bill of Rights must be access to quality speciality care--literally, the difference between life and death for thousands upon thousands of Americans each year. Too many of the tragic cases that we hear about in the United States are the result of delay and denial of access to cardiologists, oncologists, surgeons, pediatric specialists and the doctors who have the specialized knowledge absolutely critical in so many cases today. I will never forget the story of Morgan smith--four years old, diagnosed with brain cancer, facing a life-threatening tumor. Imagine the horror of her parents, hearing that grim diagnosis. And you can understand her parents' reaction when pediatric oncologists at Hasbro Children's Hospital in Providence told them that Morgan needed to go to New England Regional Medical Center in Boston for a special chemotherapy treatment--her mother said ``I need to do whatever it's going to take to save my daughter's life, and I'm going to listen to our doctor.'' But can you imagine how Morgan's mother felt when she got a letter in the mail from her HMO denying payment for a specialist--demanding that she get a second opinion? Meanwhile, Mrs. Smith took Morgan to Boston for her treatments, unsure about how she would pay for it, but knowing that she couldn't afford to risk Morgan's health while she fought the insurance company. Despite a second opinion that Morgan needed the expertise of specialists in Boston, the HMO still refused to pay for the treatment. Mrs. Smith had to wage her own battle against the HMO by starting a letter-writing campaign, along with Morgan's doctors. Fortunately, Morgan's story, unlike too many others, has a happy ending. Close to a month after Morgan had started her treatment, the insurance company finally agreed to cover the procedure that all the medical professionals agreed was necessary. But I would remind you that had Morgan's parents followed the HMO's mandate, their daughter may not have received the treatment that saved her life and it was at the very least, delayed. Morgan's parents have since changed insurance companies, but their health plan contract will be rewritten in August and the family is very nervous about possible changes that may affect Morgan's health care. Morgan will be six years old this November and she is attending kindergarten. We need to take the right steps today to guarantee that Morgan and children like her never face another HMO nightmare like the one that could have cost her and her family her life. We need to take the necessary steps to prevent the kind of bureaucratic nightmare that almost killed Sarah Pederson. Sarah Pederson's parents lives were changed overnight when their healthy, beautiful seven month old baby was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor--a condition which had to be monitored carefully by a specialist. But the Pedersons' HMO--in spite of the recommendation of their pediatrician--would not allow Sara to see a pediatric neuro-oncologist. A seven month old baby with a brain tumor, a brain tumor so complicated that the Pedersons' pediatrician knew only of a few pediatric neuro- oncologists capable of treating it, and the HMO said ``no''--they insisted that this child be sent to an adult neuro-oncologist. Why? No explanation was given other than ``this is our policy.'' And it goes on and on. The HMO refused to approve the chemo-therapy regimen prescribed by their specialist--until it was approved by another one of their specialists. And what happened during that month of delay? The tumor grew. And in the end, what saved Sarah Pederson? Did the HMO relent and allow the doctors and the family to make decisions in the best interests of this child? No. The Pedersons only found relief when they left their HMO--and mortgaged their home to join a fee for service program. I challenge any one to look the Pedersons in the eye and tell them we don't need managed care reform to guarantee appropriate access to specialists. Mr. President, I can tell you that--thanks to parents who didn't give up, who put their own financial security on the line, who fought and fought the red tape--Morgan Smith and Sarah Pederson survived. They survived in spite of their HMO's. Jack Jennings wasn't so lucky. Jack was from Andover, Massachusetts. He was diagnosed with mild emphysema, and later on with a pneumothorax, which can lead to a collapsed lung. His doctor believed a lung reduction procedure could not just improve his quality of life, but actually save his life--but this primary care doctor knew it would take a specialist to perform that operation. Jack was referred to see Dr. Sugarbaker, a top physician in Boston. The HMO rejected the referral. Jack's doctor wrote a lengthy appeal. The HMO rejected it. Months went by. Jack appealed again and again--literally taking a break from his oxygen machine to speak on the phone with the HMO claims adjuster. Finally, a letter arrived at the Jennings household, the referral for a specialist approved, a date for surgery set. But here's the tragedy: Jack Jennings had died before the letter reached his house, before the surgery was approved. And the letter from the HMO was right there in a pile of mail, surrounded by condolence cards. Mr. President, how can we say with a straight face that HMO's aren't running roughshod over patients in dire need of specialty care. How can we say that this isn't a gross abuse of fundamental patients' rights? Our access to specialists amendment helps to ensure that patients will be able to secure the health care they need, no matter what the circumstance. All patients with special conditions absolutely must have access to providers who have the expertise to treat their problems. Our amendment delivers on these common sense propositions: ensuring access to specialists by allowing patients in an HMO network of physicians to find specialty care outside that network at no extra cost if there is no qualified specialist available in the network and allowing patients who are seriously ill or require continued care to have their specialists coordinate their care without being required to ask permission again and again from a primary care provider. The Republican bill does not ensure access to speciality care; it lacks basic protections to ensure that patients can see doctors qualified to treat their condition. For example, if a child with cancer needed access to a pediatric oncologist, there is no guarantee in the Republican bill that she will have access to that specialist. Not only that, but the Republican bill does not allow patients with diseases or disabilities requiring continuing care by a specialist to designate their specialist as their primary care doctor who can coordinate their care. Under the Republican bill, patients could be charged more for out-of-network specialty care--even if the plan is at fault for not having access to appropriate specialists. The Republican bill would not allow patients to appeal a denial of access to appropriate specialists. If the Republicans pass the legislation that they want to pass, children and adults with diseases such as cancer or severe arthritis will continue to face insurance company red tape when they go for routine visits to the oncologist or rheumatologist. Mr. President, our opponents will say their bill includes access to specialty care but the fact is that their bill leaves out the key elements needed to ensure access to specialty care. Their bill may have the title Patients' Bill of Rights, but it sure doesn't have the substance. At a time when millions upon millions of Americans are feeling the squeeze from their HMO's, when millions of Americans are suffering needlessly because decisions are being made by bureaucrats rather than doctors, the style without the substance won't do a single thing to make health care better--it won't save Morgan Smith's family from another battle with an HMO when her family's energy should be dedicated to a fight against cancer, it won't do a single thing to prevent the all-too-real suffering that has become standard practice in the maze of red tape that is managed care health care in the United State today. Mr. President, we can do better than the Republican propsoal--we can actually guarantee access to a specialist. And that is a responsibility every one of us ought to work towards fulfilling.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is clear that every American has the right to have a specialist, and we need to pass this amendment in appreciation of that fundamental need and right of our citizens.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I believe I asked a question.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a dialog?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield before starting?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is, indeed, the most important vote with respect to this issue. I congratulate my colleague from Massachusetts for his extraordinary leadership in putting this issue before the American people. It is extraordinary to me; in the years I have been in the Senate, I think this is perhaps the single most contradictory, craven moment, in some regards, before the Senate. To come to the Senate and suggest you are going to have a Patients' Bill of Rights that in State after State after State leaves out 77, 80 percent, 89 percent of the American people is a contradiction on its face that denies any kind of reasonableness. I think most people in America will understand that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent more time and energy protecting the right to bear arms than the right for citizens to get decent medical care. What will happen in this legislation if the Republican charade passes--and they have the votes--is, once again, the American people will be left behind and business--and business only, the bottom line-- will be the victor. They are going to suggest there are costs, there is administrative overhead. We are going to go through the whole ``Harry and Louise'' thing again. Literally millions of dollars are being spent to scare Americans and confuse them. When it is convenient for the Republicans, they love the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office provides the best figures, the most neutral and independent assessment of expenditures. But here, the Congressional Budget Office comes out and says the real costs of this are only 3 to 13 cents per month per beneficiary. There isn't an American I know who wouldn't pay 3 to 13 cents to have the decent kind of coverage and the protections they need in order to guarantee that coverage in a health care system that has run amok.

Mr. KERRY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from Massachusetts, who I think has hit the nail on the head when he talks about what the insurance companies will allow or not allow, for the average American listening to this, the immediate question is--it seems incomprehensible--how can we not be covered if that is the purpose of the bill? The Republicans are going to hide behind a number of false arguments. I wonder if my colleague would share with us what the reality is of the cost, because the Republicans are going to hide behind the notion that somehow what the Democrats want to do, which is cover more Americans, is too costly, and they will bring out the old Harry and Louise chart again and try to confuse Americans about what will happen. Will my colleague share with us and with the American people what the real costs are of what the Democrats are talking about doing?

Mr. KERRY. How can you describe the rationale for the Republicans coming to the floor and saying that, in fact, they are offering Americans a Patients' Bill of Rights?

Mr. KERRY. One further question, if I may. We have talked about some other States. In the State the Senator and I represent, Massachusetts, it is my understanding that 77 percent of the privately insured would not be protected under the Republican plan.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to spend a few moments today to talk about one of the great questions to which I believe the Senate has yet to take a stand. That is the question of reform of our public school system. And Mr. President, I would suggest that today the responsibility to be creative, to be resourceful, and to empower our schools resides right here in the United States Senate. I am grateful that President Clinton has recently taken a position a number of us have advocated in this age of budget surpluses. Now it's time for all of us to acknowledge that some proportion of these projected budget surpluses should be set aside for education reform-- set aside in a lockbox. And, Mr. President, I would suggest that we should all be able to agree that any budget we conclude this year--if it is a budget that reflects the American people's most urgent need-- must include more funding for school reform. Let's be honest--as a society, there is no decision of greater importance to the long term health, stability, and competitiveness of this nation than the way we decide to educate our children. We look to public schools today to educate our children to lead in an information age and a global economy where borders have vanished--and the wealth of nations will be determined by the wisdom of their workers--by their level of training, the depth of their knowledge, and their ability to compete with workers around the world. Mr. President, two hundred years ago Thomas Jefferson told us that our public schools would be ``the pillars of the republic''--he was right then, he is right now--but today there is a caveat: those public schools must also be--more than ever--the pillars of our economy and the pillars of our communities. And I would respectfully suggest to you that there has not been a more urgent time than the present to reevaluate the way America's greatest democratic experiment is working--the experiment of our nation's public schools. Those pillars of the republic have never before had to support so heavy a burden as they do today. In our world of telecommuting; the Internet; hundreds and soon thousands of television channels; sixty, seventy and eighty hour work weeks--there are fewer and fewer places where Americans come together in person to share in that common civic culture, fewer ways in which we unite as citizens. And more reasons, I believe, why this nation must have a great public school system. And what can we say of the system before us today? I think we must say that--although there are thousands of public schools in this country doing a magnificent job of educating our children to a world class level--too many of our schools are struggling and too many kids are being left behind. I believe we have a responsibility to be the true friends of public education--and the best friends are critical friends, and it is time that we seek the truth and offer our help to a system that is not doing enough for a large proportion of the 50 million children in our public schools today--children whose reading scores show that of 2.6 million graduating high school students, one-third are below basic reading level, one-third are at basic, only one-third are proficient and only 100,000 are at a world class reading level; children who edge out only South Africa and Cyprus on international tests in science and math, with 29 percent of all college freshmen requiring remedial classes in basic skills. This year we have already passed the Ed-Flex Bill, a step forward in giving our schools the flexibility and the accountability they need to enact reform, making it a matter of law that we won't tie their hands with red tape when Governors and Mayors and local school districts are doing all they can to educate our kids, but also emphasizing that with added flexibility comes a responsibility to raise student achievement. But EdFlex was just one step to balance accountability and flexibility--to continue the process of real education reform--and that is why my colleague, the Senator from Oregon, Gordon Smith, and I have come together, in a bipartisan way--through the Kerry-Smith approach to education reform we've introduced with Ted Kennedy, Max Cleland, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Richard Bryan, as well as John Chafee, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine. Ours is an approach which will make a difference in our schools and which can bring together leaders from across the political spectrum around good ideas which unite us. For too long in this country the education debate has been stuck both nationally and locally. Leaders have been unable or unwilling to answer the challenge, trapped in a debate that is little more than an echo of old and irrelevant positions with promising solutions stymied by ideology and interest groups--both on the right and on the left. Nowhere more than in the venerable United States Senate, where we pride ourselves on our ability to work together across partisan lines, have we--in so many debates--been stuck in a place where Democrats and Republicans seem to talk past each other. Democrats are perceived to be always ready to throw money at the problem but never for sufficient accountability or creativity; Republicans are perceived as always ready to give a voucher to go somewhere else but rarely supportive of investing sufficient resources to make the public schools work. Well, I think it is in this Congress, this year, that we can finally disengage ourselves from the political combat, and acknowledge that with so much on the line, such high stakes in our schools, you can't just talk past each other and call it reform. We all need to do our part to find a new answer, and Mr. President I would respectfully suggest that in the bipartisan support you see for this approach, there is a different road we can meet on to make it happen. Together we are introducing the kind of comprehensive education reform legislation that I believe will provide us a chance to come together not as Democrats and Republicans, but as the true friends of parents, children, teachers, and principals--to come together as citizens--and help our schools reclaim the promise of public education in this country. We need to ask one question: ``What provides our children with the best education?'' And whether the answer is conservative, liberal or simply practical, we need to commit ourselves to that course. Our bill is built on the notion of providing grants for schools with real accountability to pursue comprehensive reform and adopt the proven best practices of any other school--Voluntary State Reform Incentive Grants so school districts that choose to finance and implement comprehensive reform based on proven high-performance models can bring forth change. We will target investments at school districts with high numbers of at-risk students and leverage local dollars through matching grants. This component of the legislation will give schools the chance to quickly and easily put in place the best of what works in any other school--private, parochial or public--with decentralized control, site- based management, parental engagement, and high levels of volunteerism--while at the same time meeting high standards of student achievement and public accountability. I believe public schools need to have the chance to make changes not tomorrow, not five years from now, not after another study--but now--today. So if schools will embrace this new framework--every school adopting the best practices of high achieving schools, building accountability into the system--what then are the key ingredients of excellence that every school needs to succeed? Well, I think we can start by guaranteeing that every one of our nation's 80,000 principals have the capacity to lead--the talents and the know-how to do the job; effective leadership skills; the vision to create an effective team--to recruit, hire, and transfer teachers and engage parents. Without those abilities, the title of principal and the freedom to lead means little. We are proposing an ``Excellent Principals Challenge Grant'' which would provide funds to local school districts to train principals in sound management skills and effective classroom practices. This bill helps our schools make being a principal the great calling of our time. But as we set our sights on recruiting a new generation of effective principals, we must acknowledge what today's best principals know: principals can only produce results as good as the teachers with whom they must work. To get the best results, we need the best teachers. And we must act immediately to guarantee that we get the best as the United States hires 2 million new teachers in the next ten years, 60% of them in the next five years. In the Kerry-Smith Bill we will empower our states and school districts to find new ways to hire and train outstanding teachers: through a focus on teacher quality and training-- in Title V of this bill--we can use financial incentives to attract a larger group of qualified people into the teaching profession and we can provide real ongoing education and continued training for our nation's teachers. This legislation will allow states to reconfigure their certification policies and their teaching standards to address the reality that our standards for teachers are not high enough--and at the same time, they are too rigid in setting out irrelevant requirements that don't make teaching better; they make it harder for some who choose to teach. We know we need to streamline teacher certification rules in this country to recruit the best college graduates to teach in the United States. Today we hire almost exclusively education majors to teach, and liberal arts graduates are only welcomed in our country's top private schools. Our legislation will allow states to rewrite the rules so principals have a far greater flexibility to hire liberal arts graduates as teachers, graduates who can meet high standards; while at the same time allowing hundreds of thousands more teachers to achieve a more broad based meaningful certification--the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification with its rigorous test of subject matter knowledge and teaching ability. This legislation will build a new teacher recruitment system for our public schools--providing college scholarships for our highest achieving high school graduates if they agree to come back and teach in our public schools. We will demand a great deal from our principals and our teachers-- holding them accountable for student achievement--but Mr. President we also hope to build a new consensus in America that recognizes that you can't hold someone accountable if they don't have the tools to succeed. Our bill helps to close the resource gap in public education: helping to eliminate the crime that turns too many hallways and classrooms into arenas of violence by giving school districts incentives to write discipline codes and create ``Second Chance'' schools with a range of alternatives for chronically disruptive and violent students-- everything from short-term in-school crisis centers, to medium duration in-school suspension rooms, to high quality off-campus alternatives, providing the resources that can, in tandem with values and character education, prevent senseless tragedy before it happens; the resources to help every child come to school ready to learn by funding successful, local early childhood development efforts; and making schools the hubs of our communities once more by providing support for after school programs where students receive tutoring, mentoring, and values-based education--the kind of programs that are open to entire communities, making public schools truly public. And our legislation will help us bring a new kind accountability to public education by injecting choice and competition into a public school system badly in need of both. We are not a country that believes in monopolies. We are a country that believes competition raises quality. And we ought to merge the best of those ideas by ending a system that restricts each child to an administrator's choice and not a parent's choice where possible. It is time we adopt a competitive system of public school choice with grants awarded to schools that meet parents' test of quality and assistance to schools that must catch up rapidly. That is why our bill creates an incentive for schools all across the nation to adopt public school choice to the extent logistically feasible. We are not just asking Democrats and Republicans to meet in a compromise, a grand bargain to reform public education. We are offering legislation that helps us do it, that forces not just a debate, but a vote--yes or no, up or down, change or more of the same. Together we can embrace new rights and responsibilities on both sides of the ideological divide and admit that the answer to the crisis of public education is not found in one concept alone--in private school vouchers or bricks and mortar alone. We can find answers for our children by breaking with the instinct for the symbolic, and especially the notion that a speech here and there will make education better in this country. It can't and it won't. But our hard work together in the coming year--Democrats and Republicans together--can make a difference. Education reform can work in a bi-partisan way. There is no shortage of good ideas or leadership here in the Senate--the experience of Gordon Smith who spent years in the Oregon legislature working to balance resources and accountability to raise the quality of public education; with tireless leadership from former Governors like Evan Bayh and John Chafee; bi-partisan creativity from Patty Murray and Olympia Snowe; and the leadership and passion, of course, of the senior Senator from my state, Senator Kennedy, who has led the fight on education in this Senate, and who has provided this body with over 30 years of unrivaled leadership and support for education. We look forward to working with all of our colleagues this year to pass this legislation, in this important year as we undergo the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to find common ground in ideas that we can all support-- bold legislation that sends the message to parents and children struggling to find schools that work, and to teachers and principals struggling in schools simultaneously bloated with bureaucracy and starved for resources--to prove to them not just that we hear their cries for help, but that we will respond not with sound bites and salvos, but with real answers. And Mr. President, I would suggest that in this time when the United States, the richest nation on the face of the earth, leading a global economy, pushing our stock market well over 10,000, with budget surpluses we all herald at every turn, I would suggest that at this time we need to make the commitment--together, Democrats and Republicans--to give every school the chance to give every child in our country a world class education. That is an investment we can not afford to pass up--and Mr. President this is the time to do it. I look forward to working with all colleagues, Mr. President, in fashioning a budget that takes serious the American people's call for real and comprehensive education reform.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is no shortage of ideological ferment over the issue of taxes--from IRS Reform to discussion after discussion of tax cuts, we have gone back and forth over these questions and we've worked, as much as possible, to find a bipartisan consensus. Today I am joined by my colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus to introduce legislation about which I would think every member of this body would be able to agree--legislation that makes tax filing simpler and easier for the small businesses that constitute 98 percent of all businesses in America, employ nearly 60 percent of the workforce, and which, having created close to two-thirds of America's net new jobs since the 1970s, continue to serve as the wellspring for our Nation's technological innovation and productivity growth. Mr. President, America's small businesses are today drowning in tax paperwork. The nation's 6.7 million employers are responsible for filing federal and state employment taxes and wage reports, as well as unemployment insurance reports. Under current law, employers file tax and unemployment insurance reports with federal and state agencies throughout the year, reports which obligate employers to understand and comply with diverse and often conflicting state and federal laws. Just to keep up with these requirements, employers must maintain separate wage records for federal income tax withholding, state income tax withholding, FICA, FUTA, and SUI. In many cases, employers must report this information to government agencies at different times and in different forms. The reporting burden is only compounded when employers do business in more than one state, many of which do not have the same legal or procedural requirements. Just consider the financial burden-- essentially a tax on taxes--associated with employer tax, wage, and unemployment insurance reporting is estimated at $16.2 billion for Fiscal Year 1999. The federal portion of this employer burden is $9.8 billion, the state portion relatively little less at $6.4 billion. Given what we know about the role small businesses play as the engine of our economy, and given all the expectations we share in terms of the potential for these businesses to push the boundaries of economic growth out even further in the new economy, I think we would all agree that we ought to do something to relieve some of the tax filing burdens on these employers, to give them more time and, I think it follows, more capital to focus on job creation in our workforce, not, respectfully, job creation over at the IRS and in the accounting industry. Let me just read to you what David A. Lifson, speaking on behalf of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, said in his testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, Oversight Subcommittee on ``The Impact of Complexity of the Tax Code on Individual Taxpayers and Small Businesses'' May 25, 1999: ``Significant problems arise from the increasing complexity of the tax law. For example: a growing number of taxpayers perceive the tax law to be unfair; it becomes increasingly more difficult for the Internal Revenue Service to administer the tax law; the cost of compliance for all taxpayers is increasing (of particular concern are the many taxpayers with unsophisticated financial affairs who are forced to seek professional tax return preparation assistance); and, complexity interferes with economic decision making. The end result is erosion of voluntary compliance. By and large, our citizens obey the law, but it is only human to disobey a law if you do not or can not understand the rules. In a recent Associated Press (AP) poll, 66 percent of the respondents said that the federal tax system is too complicated. Three years ago, just under one-half of respondents in a similar AP poll said that the tax system was too complicated. The poll also showed that more than half of those surveyed, 56 percent, now pay someone else to prepare their tax returns. This is a serious indictment of our tax system. When over half our individual taxpayers have so little comprehension of (or faith in) their tax system that they have to hire another party to prepare their returns, something is not right.'' Now, Mr. President, I applaud David Lifson's candor in speaking out for tax simplification. The truth is, when the one industry-- accounting--which depends financially on the very complexity and unwieldiness of our tax filing process and the tax code itself, is saying--honestly--that the system is too complex, we know-- unequivocally--that we need to do something to make the tax filing process work for taxpayers. The burden of tax code complexity is taking a heavy toll. At an April hearing before the Senate Small Business Committee, the General Accounting Office identified more than 200 different federal tax code requirements that potentially apply to small businesses. Today, when a business hires an employee, the business becomes responsible for collecting and paying three federal taxes (income tax withholding, FICA, and FUTA). It also becomes liable for state and local employment taxes: in most states, these include a state income tax and a state unemployment tax. For businesses, each tax presents its own set of rules and regulations. For the small business owner just starting up, these employment tax rules make compliance difficult and confusing--and in too many instances the cumbersome nature of the tax filing process is a disincentive in itself for small businesses to grow. We need to reverse that course, and, Mr. President, we can do just that today--we can simplify the tax filing process for employers by allowing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and State agencies to combine, on one form, both State and Federal employment tax returns. As we all know, traditionally, federal tax forms are filed with the federal government and state tax forms are filed with individual states. This necessitates duplication of items common to both returns. Several States have been working creatively with the IRS to implement combined State and Federal reporting of employment taxes, on one form, as a way of reducing the administrative burden on taxpayers. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 authorized a demonstration project to assess the feasibility and desirability of expanding combined reporting. The pilot project was: (1) limited to the State of Montana, (2) limited to employment tax reporting, (3) limited to disclosure of the name, address, taxpayer identification number, and signature of the taxpayer, and (4) limited to a period of five years. On March 29, 1999, the IRS announced the successful testing of the Single-Point Filing Initiative. Several States are currently considering agreements with the IRS to initiate joint-filing of employment taxes. Those States include Maine, Oklahoma, Iowa, South Carolina, Ohio, and Massachusetts. My colleague Senator Baucus knows just how popular this experiment has been in Montana. He'll tell you that by permitting the IRS to share a limited amount of basic taxpayer identity information--information which States already collect separately at an added expense to themselves and the taxpayer, the Single-Point Tax Filing Act we are introducing today will allow the IRS to expand joint-filing beyond its current pilot project. Implementation of combined State-Federal employment tax reporting--a good idea, a common-sense idea long in the making--has been hindered because the tax code applies restrictions on disclosure of information common to both the State and Federal portions of the combined form. Our bill will waive those restrictions, and allow us to take a common-sense step forward for small businesses in the United States, a step forward for single-point tax filing. Mr. President, this is one of the obligations the American people-- regardless of party or politics, expect us to take seriously--to protect them as taxpayers. And I believe that this is one tax provision, one measure of simplification, on which we can all agree-- and we can make it law at no additional cost to taxpayers. I am pleased to introduce the Single Point Tax Filing legislation today, I thank the distinguished members of the Finance Committee Charles Grassley and Max Baucus who join me today in offering this legislation, and I ask for your support of this important measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is no shortage of ideological ferment over the issue of taxes--from IRS Reform to discussion after discussion of tax cuts, we have gone back and forth over these questions and we've worked, as much as possible, to find a bipartisan consensus. Today I am joined by my colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus to introduce legislation about which I would think every member of this body would be able to agree--legislation that makes tax filing simpler and easier for the small businesses that constitute 98 percent of all businesses in America, employ nearly 60 percent of the workforce, and which, having created close to two-thirds of America's net new jobs since the 1970s, continue to serve as the wellspring for our Nation's technological innovation and productivity growth. Mr. President, America's small businesses are today drowning in tax paperwork. The nation's 6.7 million employers are responsible for filing federal and state employment taxes and wage reports, as well as unemployment insurance reports. Under current law, employers file tax and unemployment insurance reports with federal and state agencies throughout the year, reports which obligate employers to understand and comply with diverse and often conflicting state and federal laws. Just to keep up with these requirements, employers must maintain separate wage records for federal income tax withholding, state income tax withholding, FICA, FUTA, and SUI. In many cases, employers must report this information to government agencies at different times and in different forms. The reporting burden is only compounded when employers do business in more than one state, many of which do not have the same legal or procedural requirements. Just consider the financial burden-- essentially a tax on taxes--associated with employer tax, wage, and unemployment insurance reporting is estimated at $16.2 billion for Fiscal Year 1999. The federal portion of this employer burden is $9.8 billion, the state portion relatively little less at $6.4 billion. Given what we know about the role small businesses play as the engine of our economy, and given all the expectations we share in terms of the potential for these businesses to push the boundaries of economic growth out even further in the new economy, I think we would all agree that we ought to do something to relieve some of the tax filing burdens on these employers, to give them more time and, I think it follows, more capital to focus on job creation in our workforce, not, respectfully, job creation over at the IRS and in the accounting industry. Let me just read to you what David A. Lifson, speaking on behalf of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, said in his testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, Oversight Subcommittee on ``The Impact of Complexity of the Tax Code on Individual Taxpayers and Small Businesses'' May 25, 1999: ``Significant problems arise from the increasing complexity of the tax law. For example: a growing number of taxpayers perceive the tax law to be unfair; it becomes increasingly more difficult for the Internal Revenue Service to administer the tax law; the cost of compliance for all taxpayers is increasing (of particular concern are the many taxpayers with unsophisticated financial affairs who are forced to seek professional tax return preparation assistance); and, complexity interferes with economic decision making. The end result is erosion of voluntary compliance. By and large, our citizens obey the law, but it is only human to disobey a law if you do not or can not understand the rules. In a recent Associated Press (AP) poll, 66 percent of the respondents said that the federal tax system is too complicated. Three years ago, just under one-half of respondents in a similar AP poll said that the tax system was too complicated. The poll also showed that more than half of those surveyed, 56 percent, now pay someone else to prepare their tax returns. This is a serious indictment of our tax system. When over half our individual taxpayers have so little comprehension of (or faith in) their tax system that they have to hire another party to prepare their returns, something is not right.'' Now, Mr. President, I applaud David Lifson's candor in speaking out for tax simplification. The truth is, when the one industry-- accounting--which depends financially on the very complexity and unwieldiness of our tax filing process and the tax code itself, is saying--honestly--that the system is too complex, we know-- unequivocally--that we need to do something to make the tax filing process work for taxpayers. The burden of tax code complexity is taking a heavy toll. At an April hearing before the Senate Small Business Committee, the General Accounting Office identified more than 200 different federal tax code requirements that potentially apply to small businesses. Today, when a business hires an employee, the business becomes responsible for collecting and paying three federal taxes (income tax withholding, FICA, and FUTA). It also becomes liable for state and local employment taxes: in most states, these include a state income tax and a state unemployment tax. For businesses, each tax presents its own set of rules and regulations. For the small business owner just starting up, these employment tax rules make compliance difficult and confusing--and in too many instances the cumbersome nature of the tax filing process is a disincentive in itself for small businesses to grow. We need to reverse that course, and, Mr. President, we can do just that today--we can simplify the tax filing process for employers by allowing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and State agencies to combine, on one form, both State and Federal employment tax returns. As we all know, traditionally, federal tax forms are filed with the federal government and state tax forms are filed with individual states. This necessitates duplication of items common to both returns. Several States have been working creatively with the IRS to implement combined State and Federal reporting of employment taxes, on one form, as a way of reducing the administrative burden on taxpayers. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 authorized a demonstration project to assess the feasibility and desirability of expanding combined reporting. The pilot project was: (1) limited to the State of Montana, (2) limited to employment tax reporting, (3) limited to disclosure of the name, address, taxpayer identification number, and signature of the taxpayer, and (4) limited to a period of five years. On March 29, 1999, the IRS announced the successful testing of the Single-Point Filing Initiative. Several States are currently considering agreements with the IRS to initiate joint-filing of employment taxes. Those States include Maine, Oklahoma, Iowa, South Carolina, Ohio, and Massachusetts. My colleague Senator Baucus knows just how popular this experiment has been in Montana. He'll tell you that by permitting the IRS to share a limited amount of basic taxpayer identity information--information which States already collect separately at an added expense to themselves and the taxpayer, the Single-Point Tax Filing Act we are introducing today will allow the IRS to expand joint-filing beyond its current pilot project. Implementation of combined State-Federal employment tax reporting--a good idea, a common-sense idea long in the making--has been hindered because the tax code applies restrictions on disclosure of information common to both the State and Federal portions of the combined form. Our bill will waive those restrictions, and allow us to take a common-sense step forward for small businesses in the United States, a step forward for single-point tax filing. Mr. President, this is one of the obligations the American people-- regardless of party or politics, expect us to take seriously--to protect them as taxpayers. And I believe that this is one tax provision, one measure of simplification, on which we can all agree-- and we can make it law at no additional cost to taxpayers. I am pleased to introduce the Single Point Tax Filing legislation today, I thank the distinguished members of the Finance Committee Charles Grassley and Max Baucus who join me today in offering this legislation, and I ask for your support of this important measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator like an answer to the question?

Mr. KERRY. I just make the point to the Senator that, having spoken with a lot of people who have gone down there and made some of those trips, the families aren't restricted in that way. They meet with relations. They tell people what is going on in the United States. They talk about their feelings about Fidel Castro. What is amazing about this debate, what is absolutely stupefying, is that what the Senators seem to be defending is completely contrary now to the experience since 1959. We went through the whole 1960s, went through the Bay of Pigs, went through the 1970s. We went through the height of the Reagan opposition to the Iron Curtain and through all of the changes in Russia, the former Soviet Union, the former east bloc countries. We have seen the dynamics of that change. The one place where our policy remains the same as it has throughout all of those years is the place where there has been the least change. One of the reasons they had the power to shoot down those four planes is that there is no movement in the relationship, because they are as isolated. If you look at the experience of Cubans, restricted, who go back to Cuba to visit their families, limited by the United States of America to one visit a year with their own family, you find that they are the ones saying to us today, we would like to have the right to travel to visit our families as frequently as we can. I am confident that the same kinds of changes that swept over the rest of the world will sweep over that tiny island.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. KERRY. Fine. Amendment No. 1165

Mr. KERRY. If I can ask, will there be time to speak to that amendment?

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, could I ask a question? I inquire, I ask the Senator, where we are with respect to the Brownback amendment?