Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak in this debate. This is the fourth time this amendment has come to the floor since I have been present. But the speeches, statements, the addresses by the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Virginia compel me simply to bear witness to them. There are 10 Members in the Senate today, 10 remaining persons, who were in uniform in World War II. I was in the Navy--not heroically; and I was called up again briefly in Korea. I was part of that generation in which service to the Nation was so deeply honored, and lived with horror to see the disrespect shown those who answered the country's service in Vietnam, as they were asked to do. They were commanded to do so and they had taken an oath to obey. What a thrilling thing it is to see, two such exemplars, men of heroism, achievement and spotless honor, come to this floor and speak as they have done. We take one oath which binds us today. Those who have been in the military have taken earlier oaths. Our oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic--not ``foreign or,'' not just ``foreign.'' This was added over the course of the 19th century. Surely, there would be no one, however unintentionally--and I say this as a member of the American Legion--who would propose that to debase the First Amendment to the Constitution meets the criteria of upholding and defending it. Those two men have defended their nation in battle--one in the Navy, one in the Marines. I speak as one who was involved. I was in 20 years, altogether, before being discharged. I have to grant, I was not aware that I was discharged, but it turned up later in the file somewhere. Our oath is solemn, and it is binding, and they--Senators Robb and Kerrey--stand there as witness to what it requires of us. If we cannot do this on this floor, what can we expect Americans to do on battlefields, in the skies, under the seas, and on the land in the years ahead? Please, I say to all Senators, heed them and walk away from this trivializing of our most sacred trust. Defeat this amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I join with my colleagues, Senators Graham and Feinstein, in introducing legislation to ensure that our safety net hospitals continue to be able to care for the poor and the uninsured. The Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) program provides vital funding to safety net hospitals that primarily serve Medicaid and uninsured patients. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 placed declining state-specified ceilings on federal Medicaid DSH spending from 1998- 2002. In 2003, the limits will begin to be adjusted upwards for inflation. The Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Act of 2000 would freeze the state-specific caps at this year's limits (thereby preventing further declines in the limits) and adjust them for inflation beginning in 2002. It is essential to provide much-needed support to our safety net hospitals. The number of uninsured in the United States increases every year, in part because of declining Medicaid enrollment as a result of welfare reform. There are now 44 million Americans without health insurance who have no choice but to turn to the emergency rooms of safety net hospitals for care. Yet, even as demands on safety net hospitals increase, DSH spending per State is being further reduced. The Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Act of 2000 would maintain significant savings achieved by prior reductions but would protect safety net hospitals from further DSH cuts. As a result, hospitals would have access to the financing they need for achieving their social mission. Mr. President, Congress should act now to preserve the financial ability of our safety net hospitals to provide health care to the poor and uninsured/ I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise with enthusiasm to join our chairman in introducing this measure which is word for word as the President sent to us on March 8. In doing so, he put the matter clearly enough. He said: The Agreement will dramatically cut import barriers currently imposed on American products and services. It is enforceable and will lock in and expand access to virtually all sectors of China's economy. The Agreement meets the high standards we set in all areas, from creating export opportunities for our businesses, farmers, and working people, to strengthening our guarantees of fair trade. I point out, sir, that the negotiations that have led us to this point have taken 13 years. They began prior to the creation of the World Trade Organization, under its predecessor, the GATT. It has been hard slogging, painful, detailed work, but it has come to a conclusion. China wants into the WTO, the World Trade Organization. The price is to give us access to her markets. She has access to ours; hence, the imbalance of our trade, which is enormous just now. I say, sir--and I think it would be agreed to--this will be very likely the most important legislative decision we have made in a decade or will make for a decade. At issue is the opening of American and world markets, which followed the calamitous conditions brought about by the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. The opening began by Cordell Hull, in the form of the reciprocal trade agreements. Every President since has expanded and continued this process. You see it all around you in unprecedented prosperity in those countries which first participated. Now China wishes to do so. The condition is that we share in the Chinese market. It could not be more simple. We are not giving them anything they do not now have. They are giving us the treatment that is required by a member of the World Trade Organization. Just this morning, the Wall Street Journal reported, in a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, that a solid majority of Democrats--almost 2 to 1--is in favor of this legislation. I am hesitant to tell my revered chairman that Republicans do not do as well. But on balance, the American people sense this. They have had the experience of it for three generations now. Let's do it. We had a fine hearing today. We had wonderful testimony from respected scholars on the subject--Merle Goldman from the Fairbanks institution--well, from Boston University--Nelson Graham, East Gates Ministries International, who is the son of the Rev. Billy Graham, and Michael A. Santoro, a professor from Rutgers. The case is so clear, it should not be obscured or delayed. It is up to us. I think there is going to be another hearing, at least. I believe it is the intention of the chairman to have a legislative markup and, as we say, actually reporting out a bill in about a month's time.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. At least within a month.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Exactly so. It should. I do not think we can name it for you, but it certainly will be one of the great measures you have achieved in a long career, not yet concluded. I would observe that it took some prodding to get the legislation sent up to us. In his State of the Union Address on January 27, 2000, the President called upon Congress to pass legislation authorizing PNTR for China ``as soon as possible this year.'' It took almost two months to get the Administration to produce a draft of the legislation, which the President formally transmitted to Congress on March 8. But we have it now, and the President is fully committed to this, and we ought to move swiftly. I want to clarify one important point: passage of this legislation will not determine whether China enters the WTO. China will enter the WTO regardless of Congress' action with respect to PNTR. But until we grant China PNTR, we cannot enter in to a full WTO relationship with China, which means that we cannot reap the full benefits of the trade agreement. This is because the WTO--under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights-- requires that WTO members grant each other immediate and unconditional normal trading relations status. We do not do so now with respect to China. China's trade status is conditioned on an annual review of China's compliance with the so-called Jackson-Vanik freedom-of-emigration provisions of the Trade Act of 1974. The President makes a determination by the third of June each year, which is then subject to review by the Congress. Because of this conditionality, the trade treatment that we currently accord China is insufficient under WTO rules. Until we grant China PNTR, we must invoke the WTO's so-called ``non-application'' provision--that is, Article XIII of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization--meaning that WTO benefits will not apply. Simply put, we must grant China permanent normal trade relations status in order to reap the benefits that the United States, its workers and its companies will gain from China's entry into the WTO. And we ought to do so promptly.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise with enthusiasm to join our chairman in introducing this measure which is word for word as the President sent to us on March 8. In doing so, he put the matter clearly enough. He said: The Agreement will dramatically cut import barriers currently imposed on American products and services. It is enforceable and will lock in and expand access to virtually all sectors of China's economy. The Agreement meets the high standards we set in all areas, from creating export opportunities for our businesses, farmers, and working people, to strengthening our guarantees of fair trade. I point out, sir, that the negotiations that have led us to this point have taken 13 years. They began prior to the creation of the World Trade Organization, under its predecessor, the GATT. It has been hard slogging, painful, detailed work, but it has come to a conclusion. China wants into the WTO, the World Trade Organization. The price is to give us access to her markets. She has access to ours; hence, the imbalance of our trade, which is enormous just now. I say, sir--and I think it would be agreed to--this will be very likely the most important legislative decision we have made in a decade or will make for a decade. At issue is the opening of American and world markets, which followed the calamitous conditions brought about by the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. The opening began by Cordell Hull, in the form of the reciprocal trade agreements. Every President since has expanded and continued this process. You see it all around you in unprecedented prosperity in those countries which first participated. Now China wishes to do so. The condition is that we share in the Chinese market. It could not be more simple. We are not giving them anything they do not now have. They are giving us the treatment that is required by a member of the World Trade Organization. Just this morning, the Wall Street Journal reported, in a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, that a solid majority of Democrats--almost 2 to 1--is in favor of this legislation. I am hesitant to tell my revered chairman that Republicans do not do as well. But on balance, the American people sense this. They have had the experience of it for three generations now. Let's do it. We had a fine hearing today. We had wonderful testimony from respected scholars on the subject--Merle Goldman from the Fairbanks institution--well, from Boston University--Nelson Graham, East Gates Ministries International, who is the son of the Rev. Billy Graham, and Michael A. Santoro, a professor from Rutgers. The case is so clear, it should not be obscured or delayed. It is up to us. I think there is going to be another hearing, at least. I believe it is the intention of the chairman to have a legislative markup and, as we say, actually reporting out a bill in about a month's time.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. At least within a month.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Exactly so. It should. I do not think we can name it for you, but it certainly will be one of the great measures you have achieved in a long career, not yet concluded. I would observe that it took some prodding to get the legislation sent up to us. In his State of the Union Address on January 27, 2000, the President called upon Congress to pass legislation authorizing PNTR for China ``as soon as possible this year.'' It took almost two months to get the Administration to produce a draft of the legislation, which the President formally transmitted to Congress on March 8. But we have it now, and the President is fully committed to this, and we ought to move swiftly. I want to clarify one important point: passage of this legislation will not determine whether China enters the WTO. China will enter the WTO regardless of Congress' action with respect to PNTR. But until we grant China PNTR, we cannot enter in to a full WTO relationship with China, which means that we cannot reap the full benefits of the trade agreement. This is because the WTO--under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights-- requires that WTO members grant each other immediate and unconditional normal trading relations status. We do not do so now with respect to China. China's trade status is conditioned on an annual review of China's compliance with the so-called Jackson-Vanik freedom-of-emigration provisions of the Trade Act of 1974. The President makes a determination by the third of June each year, which is then subject to review by the Congress. Because of this conditionality, the trade treatment that we currently accord China is insufficient under WTO rules. Until we grant China PNTR, we must invoke the WTO's so-called ``non-application'' provision--that is, Article XIII of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization--meaning that WTO benefits will not apply. Simply put, we must grant China permanent normal trade relations status in order to reap the benefits that the United States, its workers and its companies will gain from China's entry into the WTO. And we ought to do so promptly.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

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

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2284, introduced earlier today by Senator Daschle, and others, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the always generous clerk. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request on behalf of the other side.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. If the distinguished Chair understands that, he understands more than I do. But the matter is now concluded. Once again, I suggest the absence of a quorum. And thank Heaven for Mr. Dove.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it has been agreed that I will begin these brief remarks in order that our chairman might conclude the debate and proceed to the vote which I think has every prospect of being prodigious in its majority. We have heard the compelling arguments to eliminate the so-called earnings penalty for persons 65 years and older. There is a short-term cost that is followed by a long-term payback, if you like, such that in a 20- to 30-year period the Social Security trust funds will not in any way be affected. The present practice is to decrease benefits to persons who continue working after their technical retirement age is reached, and then to compensate them after they reach age 70 or stop working. It is a complicated calculation. It is a cause of much distress, if you like, within the Social Security Administration--about $100 million a year just in sorting out the claims. It is not understood. There is the elemental fact that, although at 65 if you continue to work you know you will get back your benefits, that is in actuarial terms. For the cohort of several million persons, it will all be evened out. You may not be. So why not get rid of this archaic complexity? It is a remnant of Depression legislation of the 1930s. In that regard, however, we do have the question attending the long- term deficit of the Social Security system. Yesterday our friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, spoke eloquently about that matter, having raised it during his primary campaign on his side of the aisle. Senator Kerrey spoke with equal eloquence. Senator McCain was kind enough to note legislation that Senator Kerrey and I have introduced in this matter. In very short order, I would simply like to recapitulate the four simple steps which put Social Security on an actuarially sound basis for the next 75 years. They are: No. 1, provide for an accurate cost-of-living adjustment. In 1996, the Boskin Commission originally estimated that the CPI overstates changes in the cost-of-living by 1.1 percentage points; now they say it is 0.8 of a percentage point. No. 2, normal taxation of benefits. No. 3, extend coverage to all newly hired State and local workers. I might interject, if ever there was a holdover from the 1930s, it was this. It was not clear at that time whether the Federal Government could tax a State entity, so they were left untaxed. A great many workers in civil service positions pay no taxes on their principal jobs, but qualify for benefits from ``side'' jobs, and it is just not fair. We are not taking away anything, but just covering newly hired workers like everyone else. No. 4, increase the length of the computation period from 35 to 38 years. We now have a 75-year, long-term actuarial deficit of 2.07 percent. This would bring that down by 2.05 percent, leaving an inconsequential .02 percent over the 75-year period. These are data based on actuarial calculations and they are clearly within our capacity. Let us hope one day we do it before it becomes too late. That time will come sooner than you may think. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the table be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I look forward to the statement of our revered chairman, who is going to have a historic triumph this morning.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we yield back any remaining time.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous order be postponed for 3 minutes.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this is a moment of high achievement. Is there anybody about who can remember when a substantive piece of legislation affecting millions of Americans and dealing with the Social Security Act would pass this Chamber 100-0? I can't in my 24 years. In my 24 years, I have not seen the like. I congratulate the chairman who had the wisdom to bring up the matter, hold it at the desk, and do it this way. When the President gets back, I am sure the first thing he will do is sign it, or we can put it on a plane and send it to meet him halfway in Geneva. But congratulations.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I could detain the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for just a moment to say how very much I agree, and I am sure this side agrees, with the points he has made, as the chairman has indicated. In August of 1994, legislation reestablished the Social Security Administration as an independent agency. It had all but got lost in the Department of Health and Human Services. In the Congressional Directory there were more than 200 names between the name of the Secretary and the name of the Social Security Commissioner. It was very much an agency far down and with no real independence. It is now an independent agency. It has a trustees' report that comes out every year--the trustees being the Secretaries of the Treasury, of Labor, of Health and Human Services, the Commissioner of Social Security and two public trustees. It has the Social Security Advisory Board. Now, after many years, we are sending out each year to every citizen over 25 a statement of how much they have paid into the system and what they could expect to receive as a benefit at the age of retirement and such like--information nobody ever had before. You could get it, but you had to know where to look for it. The kind of openness Senator Gregg speaks of continues this disposition. I hope we will reinforce it. I certainly think we could have language in our report commenting in this regard. I congratulate the Senator for what he has said.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. A fair point.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is a special joy for this Senator, in his last months of his last term, to rise on this subject in perfect unity with the chairman. I will make remarks out of habit and custom perhaps, but I could not say anything better than has been said. I endorse it completely. The House has done us a service in sending us a bill which we have been working on for years. Just 4 years ago, we increased the earnings limit to where it would be $30,000 by the year 2002. But now this gets rid of it. It is an anachronism. As the chairman said, when we enacted Social Security, unemployment was 25 percent. Sir, it is now 4 percent. The range of skills in our economy was wholly different then. Coal mines were no place for 70-year-olds; computer terminals are. It is as simple as that. An absolutely important, central point to make is, the repeal of the earnings test has no long-run cost. All of the foregone benefits of continued work were made up later when retirement came, or at age 70. As the chairman has accurately said, calculating that makeup can be fantastically complex and has been costly. It is the one complaint citizens have with Social Security. They believe they are not getting what is theirs. The adjudication and so forth is a needless waste and an expensive one. With this legislation, the problem will be behind us. Repealing the earnings test, for those reaching normal retirement, will increase outlays by $19.4 billion over 6 years and $20.3 billion over 11 years, but this is simply the up-front costs of a long-term absolute even outcome. Extra benefits will not be paid because over time it will be, as you can say, a wash. The advantages are so much greater to pass this now when we have some comfort in our budgetary surplus in the Social Security trust fund. It is the right thing to do. I say, and I think so would my revered chairman, that we would prefer to abolish all earnings tests for all retired workers. Right now, people can retire at age 62 and receive benefits, and there is a corresponding diminishment thereafter. We could get rid of all that very readily. But it is not before us today. Sufficient unto this day is the work we will have done. I will leave it there, sir. I have some comments, but I will not go much further. There are those who say: If you let people retire early at a lower level of benefit, they will do so. Then, later on their spouses will be deprived, and so forth. That is an argument I am not sure is appropriate to social insurance. It is a fact that three-quarters of all persons now retire before age 65, which argues, I think--and I don't know why we can't learn more about this; we can if we would try--that Americans are pretty well off. They are in a position to do so, and they opt for it. We must keep in mind we are talking about social insurance. It is not for us to judge the behavior of the citizens who have paid into a system and are being paid back by it. I think the finest summation of this was made by Winston Churchill in 1911. He was then a member of Parliament from the Liberal Party, and it fell to him to manage, as we are managing here, a system of unemployment insurance which we would get to in 1935 as a title in the Social Security Act. It took us another generation. Churchill at that time was met with the argument that if you gave unemployed workers a benefit, an insurance benefit--they would pay into the system, the employer and the workers--that they would spend the money on drink. He said: ``Well, yes, perhaps; it's their money.'' He was not one much given to the ``nanny state,'' as I think the term was in these years. It is not for us to judge how wisely people will exercise their options. They are their options. Today we have freed up the system, making it more comprehensible and saving a lot of administrative effort that is really, again, not productive. I look forward to a good debate. I see my friend from Nebraska on the floor. He has been hugely influential in the discussion and debate about these matters in years past. I know he will be now. I look forward to listening with close attention to his comments. With that, I thank the chairman once again and yield the floor.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield another 15 minutes to the Senator from Arizona. (Laughter.)

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Of course. Please.