Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, along with my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, the Mother-to- child HIV Prevention Act, a bill that seeks to address mother-to-child transmission of HIV in developing regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. According to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), nearly 4.5 million children below the age of 15 years have been infected with HIV since the AIDS epidemic began. More than 3 million have already died of AIDS. Children are becoming infected at the rate of nearly one child every minute, and the overwhelming majority of these children acquired the infection from their mothers. In July 1999, the National Institutes of Health released a report on the effectiveness of a drug called nevirapine (NVP) in preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV. NVP is given just once to the mother during labor and once to the baby within three days after birth. It costs $4 per tablet. The discovery of this relatively simple and inexpensive drug regimen--along with others like it--has created an unprecedented opportunity for international cooperation in the fight against the vertical transmission of HIV. USAID is currently engaged in four of the eleven vertical transmission pilot projects in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These studies will be completed within the year, at which point the intervention programs can undergo a significant increase in scale. But additional funding is needed. The cost-effectiveness of these programs is clear. New antiretroviral drug strategies can be a force for social change, providing the opportunity and impetus needed to address long-standing problems in the health care system and the profound stigma associated with HIV- infection and the AIDS disease. Naturally, primary prevention strategies should remain the top priority in the fight against AIDS, which is why I am requesting these funds in addition to our current efforts. This legislation would give the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) an additional $25 million every year--for the next five years--to address the growing international dilemma of child victims of the AIDS epidemic. Mr. President, this bill has the potential to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of children whose lives are marred by this disease. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I urge its swift passage into law.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, along with my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, the Mother-to- child HIV Prevention Act, a bill that seeks to address mother-to-child transmission of HIV in developing regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. According to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), nearly 4.5 million children below the age of 15 years have been infected with HIV since the AIDS epidemic began. More than 3 million have already died of AIDS. Children are becoming infected at the rate of nearly one child every minute, and the overwhelming majority of these children acquired the infection from their mothers. In July 1999, the National Institutes of Health released a report on the effectiveness of a drug called nevirapine (NVP) in preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV. NVP is given just once to the mother during labor and once to the baby within three days after birth. It costs $4 per tablet. The discovery of this relatively simple and inexpensive drug regimen--along with others like it--has created an unprecedented opportunity for international cooperation in the fight against the vertical transmission of HIV. USAID is currently engaged in four of the eleven vertical transmission pilot projects in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These studies will be completed within the year, at which point the intervention programs can undergo a significant increase in scale. But additional funding is needed. The cost-effectiveness of these programs is clear. New antiretroviral drug strategies can be a force for social change, providing the opportunity and impetus needed to address long-standing problems in the health care system and the profound stigma associated with HIV- infection and the AIDS disease. Naturally, primary prevention strategies should remain the top priority in the fight against AIDS, which is why I am requesting these funds in addition to our current efforts. This legislation would give the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) an additional $25 million every year--for the next five years--to address the growing international dilemma of child victims of the AIDS epidemic. Mr. President, this bill has the potential to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of children whose lives are marred by this disease. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I urge its swift passage into law.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as I did 4 years ago, I wish to record my emphatic and enthusiastic support for the nomination of the honorable Alan Greenspan to a fourth term as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. He is a national treasure. He has served our Nation with principle and wisdom, and I shall attempt to show in these brief remarks, unprecedented success. Let me cite four principal reasons--updated from four years ago--why he should again be confirmed by the Senate. The economy is now in its 107th month of an expansion--the longest in American history--which shows no sign of ending. The unemployment rate for December was 4.1 percent and has been below 5 percent for almost three years. Not too long ago, economists estimated that the NAIRU, as the acronym was for the nonaccelerating inflation rate of unemployment--what we might call full employment--was about 6 percent. Next, inflation is in check. Measured by the CPI--which economists believe overstates inflation--consumer prices have increased by less than 3 percent per year for the past three years. Finally, the misery index--the sum of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate--is about 7 percent, the lowest level in 30 years. These outcomes are a tribute to Alan Greenspan's stewardship of our Nation's monetary policy for the past 13 years. But his wisdom and influence extend far beyond mere stewardship of monetary policy. Last Wednesday, at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs he had this to say in response to a question about the use of budget surpluses from Senator Phil Gramm, the Committee's Chairman, Dr. Greenspan said: . . . my first priority would be to allow as much of the surplus to flow through into a reduction in debt to the public. . . . From an economic point of view, that would be, by far, the best means of employing it. And last month, in remarks before the Economic Club of New York, Chairman Greenspan demonstrated why he has been so successful. He understands--as perhaps few others in high level economic policy positions--how the economy works. One can only marvel at the clarity and insights he brought to bear as he explained to his audience the impact on productivity of just-in-time inventories, and reasons why the wealth effect from the increase in the stock market has sustained the current expansion, while at the same time containing ``the potential seeds of rising inflationary and financial pressures that could undermine the current expansion.'' Ever vigilant to these potential dangers explains why the FED, under Chairman Greenspan, today increased interest rates by one-quarter of a percentage point. Based on his performance, Chairman Greenspan deserves to be reconfirmed. I have no doubt that the Senate will, in a near unanimous vote, concur. I ask unanimous consent that remarks of Chairman Greenspan, at the Economic Club of New York be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concern over the bankruptcy bill that is before the Senate. I do this not because I am an expert on bankruptcy law, but because I have been involved with social policy for almost a half-century and can tell you that this is no way to reform the bankruptcy system. A May 9, 1999, New York Times editorial said that the House bill is ``bankruptcy reform that spares the wealthy . . . and makes life harder for poor and middle-class people who file for bankruptcy.'' Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) said the bill is ``truly tilted toward the creditors.'' The Senate bill is not much better. The effect of the bill is not complicated--the wealthy benefit, the poor suffer. After the President signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996--the so-called welfare reform bill--I stated that ``this act terminates the basic Federal commitment of support for dependent children in hopes of altering the behavior of their mothers.'' That bill broke the Social Contract of the 1930s. We would care for the elderly, the unemployed, the dependent children. Drop the latter; watch the others fall. We broke the social contract then, and will again if this bill passes. We were born a nation of debtors. A large number of early European settlers came here indentured. The British rejection of debtor relief laws in Massachusetts and Virginia was one of the precipitating factors of the Revolutionary War. In justifying its actions, the British Board of Trade noted that 9 out of every 10 creditors resided in Great Britain--the Americans were the debtors. Shays' Rebellion, which followed the War of Independence, was a direct response by farmers to the courts' attempt to imprison fellow farmers for their debts. Daniel Webster understood the tension and possible dangers that could arise between debtor and creditor. Speaking in Congress on the Bankruptcy Act of 1841, the Massachusetts statesman remarked on the post-Revolutionary crisis: The relation between debtor and creditors, always delicate, and always dangerous, whenever it divides society, and draws out the respective parties into different ranks and classes, was in such condition in the years 1787, 1788, and 1789 as to threaten the overthrow of all government; and a revolution was menaced, much more critical and alarming than that through which the country had recently passed. In an attempt to address the relationship between debtor and creditor, the U.S. Constitution was adopted with explicit bankruptcy authority granted to Congress. Congress came up with the Bankruptcy Act of 1800, which was similar to the English law in effect at the time of independence. The 1800 Act was repealed in 1803. One of the unfortunate stories from this period was that of Robert Morris, who had the honor to sign the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederacy, and the U.S. Constitution. After creating the budget for the early American government and heading the Yorktown campaign, he experienced considerable misfortune speculating on land out West, incurring debts that landed him in Philadelphia's Prune Street Jail from 1798 to 1801. Morris was eventually relieved by the Bankruptcy Act of 1800. Following the devastating Panic of 1837, the controversial Bankruptcy Act of 1841 became law. It was repealed 18 months later. The 1841 Act for the first time in British or American law allowed the debtor to file for bankruptcy. Until this time, only creditors could put a debtor into bankruptcy, which made it easier to collect their debts. Although the Supreme Court did not address the 1841 Act before it was repealed in 1843 because of political resistance, its constitutionality was upheld at the circuit level, bringing voluntary bankruptcy by non- merchants within the scope of Congress' bankruptcy power. Under the 1841 Act, 33,739 debtors were adjudicated bankrupt, of whom only 765 were denied a discharge. (If you were to declare bankruptcy in Illinois, your attorney very likely would have been Abraham Lincoln.) The panic of 1857 and the devastation of the Civil War brought enactment of the Bankruptcy Act of 1867, repealed in 1878. The 1867 Act allowed the debtor to retain increased exempt property under state or Federal exemptions and required a 50 percent distribution to creditors and creditor consent as preconditions to a discharge. But, the 1867 Act contained so many grounds for denying discharge that fewer than one- third of the debtors filing under the Act ever received one discharge. These three laws were born and died amid controversy. But taken together, they contained grand innovations that greatly helped ordinary American debtors: Individual debtors were given voluntary access to bankruptcy relief, to broader state exemptions, and to the discharge of their debts with less creditor approval. The Bankruptcy Act of 1898, largely with us today in concept although supplanted by the 1978 Bankruptcy Reform Act and subsequent amendments, consolidated and improved many of these innovations for the benefit of debtors. In 1934 the United States Supreme Court encapsulated the American view toward the discharge of individual debtors through bankruptcy as follows: One of the primary purposes of the Bankruptcy Act is to relieve the honest debtor from the weight of oppressive indebtedness and permit him to start afresh free from the obligations and responsibilities consequent upon business misfortunes. This purpose of the act has been again and again emphasized by the courts as being of public as well as private interest, in that it gives to the honest but unfortunate debtor who surrenders for distribution the property which he owns at the time of bankruptcy, a new opportunity in life and a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of pre-existing debt. America is truly the land of the second chance. To repeat the Supreme Court, our nation believes in a bankruptcy system that ``gives the honest but unfortunate debtor who surrenders for distribution the property which he owns at the time of bankruptcy, a new opportunity in life and a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of pre-existing debt.'' This nation has been blessed with a hard-working, independent, creative, and risk-taking citizenry. We also have embraced a free-market economy that has brought us great wealth and prosperity. But with this economic system comes great risks (and opportunities) for our citizens, and relatively meager safety nets are provided. The fresh start that bankruptcy provides is one of those safety nets. Let's not shred that safety net with this bill. The bill before us contains an arbitrary means test that makes it harder for low to moderate income people to wipe out their debts and start clean, includes provisions favoring the credit card industry, provides inadequate consumer protections, incorporates insufficient privacy safeguards, and will have a disproportionately negative impact on individuals with lower incomes, minorities, and older Americans. This bill punishes the wrong people. We seem hell-bent to punish elderly people who incur unexpected health bills or individuals who unexpectedly lose their jobs. Instead, why don't we address the credit card industry's predatory practices? Credit card issuers mailed out 3.45 billion--not million but billion--solicitation letters last year. Professor Elizabeth Warner of Harvard Law School said that banks make so much money on unpaid credit card balances--thanks to interest rates much higher than those of home mortgages, car loans or other forms of ``secured'' debt--that they deliberately lure people into borrowing beyond their means. Now, they are trying to get Congress to rig rules so their own loan losses will be reduced. This is special interest legislation at its worst. Locke wrote that government has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the people. If we pass this bill, we will be breaching that duty and undermining the fundamental sense that our government is founded on the twin principles of decency and fairness, a unique system that believes in extending a helping hand rather than a boot across the throat.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an important event which occurred yesterday, January 25th--the 50th birthday of The Reverend Alphonse Stephenson. Father Stephenson was recently feted by over a hundred family members and friends and his 50th birthday warrants a few moments of the Senate's attention. Father Alphonse is a native son of New Jersey, but he has shared his varied talents with people of New York City. Priest at the Catholic Actor's Chapel in New York City, musical conductor of ``A Chorus Line'' on Broadway, and founder and conductor of St. Peter's Orchestra by the Sea, are just a few of the ``hats'' worn by Father Alphonse. But Father Alphonse also assists in providing for those less fortunate. The Orchestra of St. Peter's by the Sea, under the baton of Father Alphonse, has raised over two million dollars for various hospitals, such as our own St. Vincent's in New York City; educational facilities, such as Mount Saint Michael in the Bronx; and churches that assist the homeless, such as St. John's near Pennsylvania Station. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, he has created the Cecilia Foundation which allows young school children to experience the classics and even get a chance to conduct. The Cecilia Foundation provides musical instruments to children who would not get such an opportunity without the generosity of Father Alphonse. Somehow, Father Alphonse has also found time to create the ``Festival of the Atlantic,'' a series of free concerts at Point Pleasant Beach and the largest outdoor musical endeavor in the State of New Jersey. Crowds of 10,000 and more are not uncommon. He is also a Major and the Chief Chaplain of the 108th Refueling Wing at McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey with another change in rank soon to occur! An amazing list of accomplishments for one so young. As the Senate begins the 2nd Session of the 106th Congress, I join family and friends in wishing Father Alphonse a healthy and happy 50th Birthday--one wonders what the next 50 years will bring!

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would like to point out a concern I have with a seemingly innocuous, seemingly beneficial, provision contained in the Domenici amendment to S. 625, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999--``Section __68. MODIFICATION OF EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER PROVIDED TRANSIT PASSES.'' The goal of the provision--to expand the use of the Federal transit benefit, a ``qualified transportation fringe'' in the vernacular--is admirable, but I fear that the way in which the provision pursues that goal may, in fact, unintentionally undermine the transit benefit. The employer-provided Federal transit benefit has evolved since its creation within the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 as a $15 per month ``de minimis'' benefit. After fourteen years of gradual change, 1998's Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) codified the benefit as a ``pre-tax'' benefit of up to $65 per month. The cap will increase to $100 in 2002. The ``pre-tax'' aspect was a major reform because it provided an economic incentive--payroll tax savings--for employers to offer the program. Companies would save money by offering a benefit of great utility to their workers while simultaneously removing automobiles from our choked and congested urban streets and highways. It is effective public policy. (As an aside, I should note that a similar pre-tax benefit of $175 per month exists for parking, and so despite all we know about air pollution and the intractable problems of automobile congestion, Congress continues to encourage people to drive. Discouraging perhaps, but we're closing the gap. If one doesn't have thirty years to devote to social policy, one should not get involved!) Quite consciously, and conscientiously, Congress established a bias in the statute toward the use of vouchers--which employers can distribute to employees--over bona fide cash reimbursement arrangements. We permitted employers to use cash reimbursement arrangements only when a voucher program was not ``readily available.'' We reasoned that because the vouchers could only be used for transit, we would eliminate the need for employees to prove that they were using the tax benefit for the intended purpose. Furthermore, by stipulating that voucher programs are the clear preference of Congress, we are compelling transit authorities to offer better services--monthly farecards, unlimited ride passes, smartcards, et al.--to the multitudes of working Americans who must presently endure all manner of frustrations and indignities during their daily work commute. While the new law has only been in effect for less than two years, the program is catching on in our large metropolitan areas and should continue to expand. We have been alerted, however, to a legitimate concern of large multistate employers. Several of these companies have noted that establishing voucher programs can be arduous and unwieldy when the companies must craft separate programs in multiple jurisdictions with different transportation authorities. These difficulties, coupled with an expertise in administering cash reimbursement programs, have convinced the companies that bona fide cash reimbursement programs are more practical. Fair enough. We should, therefore, make it easier for such companies to offer the benefit through cash reimbursement arrangements. While I am committed to that end, I have serious reservations about the repeal of the voucher preference contained in the Domenici amendment. My main objection is that the U.S. Treasury is currently developing substantiation regulations for the administration of this benefit through cash reimbursement arrangements. These regulations will provide companies with a clear understanding of their obligations in the verification of their employees' transit usage, an understanding which does not exist today. Until these regulations are promulgated, voucher programs offer the only true mechanism of verification--vouchers, unlike cash, are useless unless enjoyed for their intended purpose. The Congress should not take an action that might rapidly increase the use of a tax benefit without the existence of accompanying safeguards to ensue the program's integrity. I will work with my colleagues on the Finance Committee, with my revered Chairman, and any Senator interested in this issue, to improve the ease with which companies can offer this important benefit to their employees. It is, after all, in our national interest. But I must strongly oppose efforts to repeal the voucher preference until the Treasury establishes a regulatory framework for cash reimbursement. We have been told to expect proposed regulations from the Treasury within the week. We anxiously await their arrival.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have the pleasure to yield up to 15 minutes to my good and old friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who has been so instrumental in this matter.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I do wish there were more Members present that we might rise in a general applause to the Senator from Delaware, chairman of the Finance Committee. I refer to him as our revered colleague. This legislation could not be here, most of it would not have been conceived, without him. It is a triumph against what has become our procedures that it is here today and will shortly be approved. Millions of Americans who will not know that he has done this will benefit from what he has done, and that, for him, will be sufficient knowledge and reward. I want to say that. I don't want to speak at length because other Senators wish to join in this matter. I simply make two points. One is how very much I appreciate the chairman's mention of the importance of providing employer education assistance for graduate students. Go to any major metropolis in this country, any area where there is a college, and find night schools where young America and not so young come to acquire further skills and greater economic capacity. Nothing could be more clearly in our national interests. It will go on whether we have a tax credit or not, but on the margins, it is important, first, recognizing the need for new skills, recognizing the need for developing new areas. Send our own employees to graduate school. Let them get this further degree while they are on the job, come back, be promoted, earn more, and be more valuable. I spoke with our friend, the House majority leader, Mr. Armey. Of course he is a distinguished economist. He noted the last 5 years he was teaching, he was teaching at night school and teaching people who wanted to be there. They didn't have to be there to play soccer--put it that way. I would secondly like to note, and I know the chairman would agree, absent from our measure today are two matters reported from the Committee on Finance: The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act of 1999 and the Caribbean Basin Initiative. They came out of the Finance Committee as near matter unanimous as can be--under our chairman, things come out of our committee unanimous. We did not suceed given the complexities of these negotiations this time. We will be back. I hope these matters will be addressed. I know on our side of the aisle, if you will, in the House, Representative Rangel, the ranking member in Ways and Means, my counterpart, very much hopes this will happen, and so do I. Mr. President, I would briefly note, for the Record, some important provision in this legislation. With regard to tax extenders, this bill extends the research and experimentation credit for five years and it extends all other provisions through December 31, 2001. Extending these provisions as long as possible was simply the right thing to do--providing certainty to employers and workers. Might I add that some of these provisions are vitally important to working families. If we do not, for instance, pass the alternative minimum tax provision, approximately 1.1 million Americans will lose part or all of the $500 child credit, the HOPE scholarship credit, or other non-refundable credits. We also, rightfully so, extend the Welfare-to-work and the Work opportunity credits. I would also like to clarify two matters with respect to a provision based on S. 213, which I introduced on January 19, 1999--and which is known as the rum cover-over provision. I am very pleased that we were able to increase from $10.50 to $13.25 the amount of excise taxes on rum that is transferred to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Unfortunately, procedural obstacles required a delay in most of the transfer from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001. Instead, up to $20 million will be transferred 15 days after enactment. The remainder of the amount will not, however, be transferred until after September 30, 2000. However, our distinguished Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Roth, and Chairman Archer from the House Ways and Means Committee have made a commitment that, to the extend possible, the delayed payments will be accelerated, or interest on the delayed amounts will be provided for in the Africa and CBI legislation next year. With respect to the second matter, the rum cover-over provision, as passed by this body on October 29, 1999, included an additional transfer of 50 cents from the government of Puerto Rico to the National Historic Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico--the purpose of which is the protection and enhancement of the natural resources of Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, the 50 cent transfer is not included in the legislation before us today. However, it is my understanding that the Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Pedro Rossello, has made the commitment to transfer one-sixth (45 cents), of the increase provided by this legislation, to the Trust. I applaud the Governor for his commitment. I am also very pleased that this legislation would remedy some of the barriers and disincentives that individuals enrolled in Federal disability programs face in returning to work. Many disabled Americans do not return to work because they must lose their health care coverage and because they have inadequate access to employment and rehabilitation services. In 1986, we took our first step to remove obstacles facing disabled Americans who want to work. Our former Finance Committee Chairman and Majority Leader--Senator Dole--introduced the Employment Opportunities for Disabled Americans Act to make permanent a demonstration project that enabled Supplemental Security Income--or ``SSI'' recipients to maintain Medicaid benefits during a transition to work. I was an original co-sponsor of the bill which was enacted on November 11, 1986. Building on that first step and other subsequent initiatives, Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Roth and I introduced this work incentives bill in the Senate on January 28th of this year. The legislation has enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support, passing the Senate 99-0 on June 16th and the House 412-9 on October 19. The bill addresses an issue of paramount concern: how to encourage disabled individuals to return to work. Currently, less than one-half of one percent of individuals receiving disability benefits now leave the rolls and return to work. A survey by the National Organization on Disability found that only 29 percent of all disabled adults are employed full-time or part-time, compared to 79 percent of the non- disabled adult population. The disabled find it difficult to work because if they earn income above a certain level, they lose their disability benefits and their health care coverage. In fact, witnesses testifying before the Finance Committee cited the potential loss of health care coverage as the primary obstacle between the disabled and their ability to work. This legislation tries to remove this barrier by guaranteeing that working individuals with disabilities can maintain their Medicare and Medicaid coverage for a longer period of time. Under current law, Social Security disability beneficiaries, who go back to work and earn a modest income, may only continue their Medicare coverage for four years. This legislation would permit disabled workers to retain their Medicare coverage for an additional four and a half years. Two important Medicaid provisions are included in this bill. The first would permit more lower-income disabled workers to pay premiums and buy into the Medicaid program. The second establishes a demonstration project that would provide Medicaid coverage to persons likely to become disabled without medical treatment. This is good common-sense policy: providing preventive health coverage to working individuals with serious medical conditions before such conditions worsen to a disabling level. This legislation does more than just extend greater health care coverage to the disabled. Through a program called ``Ticket to Work,'' it would make it easier for disabled workers to access coordinated vocational rehabilitation and employment assistance services. It provides grants to States to develop the program infrastructure and to perform the outreach necessary to help disabled individuals to work. The legislation would also ensure that a mere return to work does not automatically trigger eligibility reviews that could result in being removed form the disability rolls. In addition, it would streamline the process for individuals to be reinstated for disability benefits, if they are unable to continue working. Lastly, the bill funds Social Security demonstration projects on how best to encourage disabled individuals to return to work. For example, one innovative project will determine whether a sliding-scale reduction of disability benefits by $1 for every $2 earned would make it easier to go back to work. Such a result seems far more reasonable than the current situation where workers who earn income above a statutory limit lose their disability benefits entirely. The overwhelming support for his legislation is not surprising given its simple and universal goal: providing disabled Americans the opportunity they deserve to work and contribute to the fullest of their ability. For Americans with disabilities, enacting this legislation would take a great step forward in removing the many barriers they face in returning to work. Before I conclude, Mr. President, I did want to mention that regrettably, this bill includes an extraneous provision delaying implementation of a new regulation to improve the Nation's system of allocating human organs for transplant. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for his commitment to this tax extenders and work incentive legislation. I would also like to thank the staffs of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Way and Means and Commerce Committees. Now, let's go home.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Food allergies.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Senate for unanimously passing the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999 (S. 324), as Title II, Subsection B, of the DEFEAT Meth Act of 1999 (S. 486). The Senate's action today marks a milestone in the treatment of opiate dependence. The Drug Addiction Treatment Act increases access to new medications, such as buprenorphine, to treat opiate addiction. I thank my colleagues Senator Levin (whose long-term vision inspired this legislation), Senator Hatch, and Senator Biden for their leadership and dedication in developing this Act, and I look forward to seeing the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999 become law. Determining how to deal with the problem of addiction is not a new topic. Just over a decade ago when we passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, I was assigned by our then-Leader Robert Byrd, with Sam Nunn, to co-chair a working group to develop a proposal for drug control legislation. We worked together with a similar Republican task force. We agreed, at least for a while, to divide funding under our bill between demand reduction activities (60 percent) and supply reduction activities (40 percent). And we created the Director of National Drug Control Policy (section 1002); next, ``There shall be in the Office of National Drug Control Policy a Deputy Director for Demand Reduction and a Deputy Director for Supply Reduction.'' We put demand first. To think that you can ever end the problem by interdicting the supply of drugs, well, it's an illusion. There's no possibility. I have been intimately involved with trying to eradicate the supply of drugs into this country. It fell upon me, as a member of the Nixon Cabinet, to negotiate shutting down the heroin traffic that went from central Turkey to Marseilles to New York--``the French Connection''-- but we knew the minute that happened, another route would spring up. That was a given. The success was short-lived. What we needed was demand reduction, a focus on the user. And we still do. Demand reduction requires science and it requires doctors. I see the science continues to develop, and The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999 will allow doctors and patients to make use of it. Congress and the public continue to fixate on supply interdiction and harsher sentences (without treatment) as the ``solution'' to our drug problems, and adamantly refuse to acknowledge what various experts now know and are telling us: that addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease; that is, the brain undergoes molecular, cellular, and physiological changes which may not be reversible. What we are talking about is not simply a law enforcement problem, to cut the supply; it is a public health problem, and we need to treat it as such. We need to stop filling our jails under the misguided notion that such actions will stop the problem of drug addiction. The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999 is a step in the right direction.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. May we have order.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it may take a little longer. We are in an accommodating mode, thanks to our colleagues.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kyle Kinner, a presidential management intern with the Finance Committee minority staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this conference report.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have the great honor and pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa, who is so active in the Ticket to Work legislation.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my colleague and friend from New York.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I have the great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my friend, Senator Wellstone.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in the spirit of the hour, the Democratic side yields the remainder of its time to the distinguished and ebulliently happy majority leader.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, 2 years ago, as part of the effort to balance the Federal budget, Congress enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997--which we have come to know as the ``BBA.'' Among other provisions, the BBA enacted major changes in the way Medicare pays for medical services. As implementation of these changes proceeds, concerns have been raised that some of them are having unintended consequences that threaten the viability of health care providers--and consequently the overall availability of health care to our constituents. In order to alleviate some of these unintended consequences of the BBA, the appropriations conference report before the Senate today incorporates by reference H.R. 3426, the ``Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999.'' This legislation will restore some $17 billion over 10 years to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, and other Medicare and Medicaid providers. The bill will also facilitate administrative actions that will provide an additional $10 billion of relief to hospital outpatient departments. H.R. 3426 has many important provisions; here are some of the highlights: Teaching hospitals will receive $600 million in additional Indirect Medical Education (IME) payments over fiscal years 2000 and 2001. They will also benefit from other provisions that add money back to hospital outpatient departments, and which scale back cuts in Medicare disproportionate share payments to hospitals serving low-income patients. I will have more to say about teaching hospitals in a moment. Rural hospitals will be assisted by: an exemption from the new payment system for hospital outpatient departments; improvements in the Critical Access Hospital (CAH) program; a 5-year extension of the Medicare Dependent Hospital program; and an update in payments for Sole Community Hospitals (SCHs). Skilled Nursing Facilities--usually referred to as SNFs--would receive $2.1 billion of assistance over 10 years by: increasing payments for certain medically complex patients; permitting SNFs to switch immediately to a more favorable payment system; and excluding certain high cost items from consolidated billing. The caps on payments for rehabilitation therapy would be suspended for two years pending development of a better payment system; and hospice facilities, which are covered under Medicare part A, would receive temporary payment increases in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Other provisions of the bill would: stabilize the formula used to calculate payment for physician services; lift time limits for state use of a fund for delinking of welfare and Medicaid eligibility; slow the phase-down of a Medicaid cost reimbursement to community health centers and rural health clinics; and provide adjustments to the State Children's Health Insurance Program--known as CHIP--which was enacted by the BBA of 1997 graduate medical education I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on one particular aspect of this legislation--funding for graduate medical education. My State of New York is the home to 117 teaching hospitals--almost 10 percent of our Nation's academic medical centers. The cumulative effect of several provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has produced an unintended financial burden on teaching hospitals. First, the BBA enacted a multi-year reduction in payments for the indirect costs associated with medical education, known as IME payments. Second, many teaching hospitals serve a large share of low- income inpatients and have therefore been burdened by the BBA's cuts in disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments. Finally, many teaching hospitals are also subject to the BBA's reductions in hospital outpatient department reimbursements. I am pleased that the legislation we are voting on today, mitigates the fiscal pressures on teaching hospitals by adding back Indirect Medical Education (IME) funds in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Teaching hospitals in New York will receive more than $150 million in additional IME payments over these 2 fiscal years. In addition, the bill's relief to disproportionate share hospitals-- those serving low-income patients--will assist the many teaching hospitals serving those populations. Finally, teaching hospitals across the Nation will benefit from the nearly $10 billion over 10 years in additional payments to hospital outpatient departments. I am concerned, however, about a change made in this bill to Direct Graduate Medical Education (DGME) payments. Medicare DGME payments compensate teaching hospitals for the costs directly related to the graduate training of physicians. Such DGME costs include residents' salaries and fringe benefits, the salaries and benefits of the faculty who supervise the residents, as well as other direct and overhead costs. The current payment methodology for DGME was developed in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). Under COBRA, a hospital-specific per-resident amount was determined based on each individual hospital's 1984 Medicare allowable costs. This per- resident amount took into account the extent to which teaching hospitals already had alternative sponsorship--such as from a university, medical school, or faculty practice plan--and locked payments at that level, so as not to replace outside funding sources. In determining current DGME payments, 1984 costs are updated for inflation and subjected to a formula based on each hospital's number of current residents (which is capped under BBA), and each hospital's proportion of inpatient Medicare beds. Consequently, there is wide variation in DGME payments from hospital to hospital. On average, New York has a higher average per-resident amount ($85,000/per resident) than the rest of the country ($67,000/per resident). However, DGME payments are hospital specific, not region specific; even within New York great variation exists. In New York DGME payments range from $156,000 per-resident to $38,000 per-resident. There are a number of factors which account for the variation in the hospital specific payments: the level of outside support from non- hospital sources; the relationship to the medical school; and state or local government appropriations. In addition, residents' salaries, which are determined by geographic cost of living factors, further explains the variation. The version of this legislation that passed the House of Representatives included DGME language that would change the hospital specific per-resident formula to a payment based on a wage-adjusted national average. I am pleased to say that during negotiations on these provisions, I and the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Ways & Means Committee, Representative Rangel, with Chairman Roth's support were able to significantly narrow the scope of the House provision, thereby protecting many teaching hospitals in New York and elsewhere from abrupt changes in DGME payments. The scaling back of the House provision will provide time to address the complicated DGME system in a comprehensive and fair manner. The negotiations necessary to reach agreement on both the IME and DGME adjustments in this legislation clearly demonstrate the need for fundamental change in the way that medical education is financed in this country. What is needed is not year-to-year adjustments in Medicare funding but an explicit and dedicated source of funding for these institutions--a Medical Education Trust Fund as I have proposed this year and in the past. The legislation that I introduced would require that the public sector, through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and the private sector, through an assessment on health insurance premiums, contribute broad-based and fair financial support. Changing the funding source for graduate medical education from primarily Medicare funds to multiple payers would protect graduate medical education for the long term. Teaching hospitals are national treasures; they are the very best in the world. Yet today they find themselves in a precarious financial situation as market forces reshape the health care delivery system in the United States. The all-payer trust fund I have proposed would ensure that America continues to lead the world in the quality of its health care system.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, it is. Otherwise, the Channel 17 LPTV station in New York City will be permanently deprived of a Class A license, notwithstanding the fact that it exemplifies exactly the type of low power station that should have the opportunity to achieve Class A status. WEBR(LP) has a demonstrated strong commitment to the local Korean community in New York, providing locally originated programming 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This station's worthwhile service to the community has been a benefit to the public good, and this legislation should not thwart such service from continuing. the scope of compulsory licenses for television broadcast signals

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to note the passing of Akio Morita, the brilliant Japanese business leader who did so much to rebuild his country after World War II. I ask that his obituary that appeared in the October 4 New York Times be printed in the Record. The obituary follows:

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, some 4 months ago I was proud to cosponsor this legislation when it was introduced by the late Senator John Chafee. I am prouder today that we are passing it. I am saddened, though, that he is not here with us to see it happen. This legislation is typical of the work of Senator Chafee. It helps disadvantaged, often forgotten, children--those who are victims of abuse and neglect and have to be taken into foster care. It is practical. The bill is targeted and will help expand small-scale efforts already on the ground. And it is bipartisan, representing a consensus on how to move forward now. In particular, this bill will help a group of our children in dire circumstances--foster children who leave foster care because they ``age out,'' not because they are reunified with their birth families or are adopted. About 20,000 children a year ``age out'' of the foster care system. They reach 18 and we, in large part, abandon them to the world. Many make their way successfully. But far too many, alas, do not, and these children are more likely to become homeless or end up on public assistance. More than a decade ago, we recognized that these children needed additional help in preparing for life on their own. I am proud to have helped create the Independent Living program, which provided Federal support for efforts that prepare teenagers for the transition from foster care to independence. The bill will double funding for the Independent Living program and increase the use of the funds to assist former foster care children until they reach 21, including, for the first time, help with room and board. As any parent knows, many 19- and 20-year-olds remain in need of family support from time to time. For children who have ``aged out'' of foster care by turning 18, the government is, in effect, their parent and we should do more to help them become independent and self-sufficient, just as other parents do. This legislation has widespread support, including from the administration and key members of both parties. I would like to particularly thank the First Lady for her leadership in working on behalf of these children. Senator Rockefeller and Chairman Roth have been important as well. But, above all, I thank the late Senator Chafee.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, for the past twelve and one-half years, I have served as the Democratic co-chairman of the Northeast- Midwest Senate Coalition. John Heinz was the Republican co-chairman until his tragic death in 1991; since then, I have been pleased to work with the junior Senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords. We and other Coalition Members have worked closely with the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the premier non-partisan, not-for-profit regional policy research center. A superb board of directors guides the Institute. I rise this afternoon to commend three New Yorkers who are ending their terms on the Northeast-Midwest Institute's Board of Directors. They have provided distinguished service and have helped to advance the region's economic vitality and environmental quality. Former Representative Frank Horton has been involved with the Northeast-Midwest organizations for almost 25 years. Indeed, he was one of the founders of the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition, our House counterpart, and served as its Republican co-chairman until he retired from the House in 1992. Frank had a distinguished career spanning 30 years, representing Rochester and serving for many years as ranking member on the Government Operations Committee. We--I speak now on behalf of the New York Congressional delegation--revered Frank and were grateful for his counsel. He was our dean. Frank recently has been with the DC-based law firm of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti. Gerald Benjamin, another Northeast-Midwest Institute Board Member whose six-year term is ending, is dean of Liberal Arts & Sciences at the State University of New York at New Paltz. Jerry is a respected scholar, who has focused on Federalism--a subject near and dear to my heart--and public policy development. He has been active in New York politics, having served as county legislator and chairman in Ulster County. Jerry also was appointed as a member of the New York State Equalization and Assessment Panel and the Lower Hudson Study Commission on School District Reorganization and Sharing. Thomas Mooney is president of the Greater Rochester Metro Chamber of Commerce. Tom has pulled together the business community and expanded that organization substantially. He has been a leader in numerous civic affairs, helping to coordinate public-private partnerships that have enhanced Rochester's industrial infrastructure. Tom also served as city manager of Rochester and deputy county manager of the County of Monroe. He also serves on the Genesee Hospital Board of Trustees and the Rochester Philharmonic Board of Overseers. Mr. President, these gentlemen have served on the Institute's Board of Directors six years or more without fanfare or remuneration. They are busy men, with plenty of other responsibilities. But they have served, and served with distinction. House and Senate Coalition Members and people from across the Northeast-Midwest region owe them a debt of gratitude for a job well done. I wish them well in their new endeavors.