William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, for the past two years, the Finance Committee has been working on comprehensive Medicare reform--reform intended both to modernize the Medicare benefit package, which would include the creation of an outpatient prescription drug benefit, and to protect the long-term solvency of the program. The Committee has held 15 hearings on many different aspects of Medicare reform. We have listened to testimony from scores of witnesses. And we appreciate how important, but also how complex an undertaking Medicare reform is, as what we do will affect 40 million Americans who rely on the program. Working closely with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this July I introduced an ambitious Medicare plan that took the best ideas from Republicans and Democrats--a plan that would achieve the modern reforms we all seek. I am committed to adding a comprehensive prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program, coupled with other major reforms that are badly needed. The plan that I have been working on includes not only comprehensive drug coverage added to the basic Medicare benefit package, but improvements to hospital and other benefits, low-income beneficiary protections, access to medical technologies, private sector drug benefit management, improvements to Medicare's long-term solvency and a strengthened Medicare+Choice Program. I have been working for several months to refine my bill and to get the finalized estimates from the Congressional Budget Office that are necessary to advance any major piece of legislation in the Congress. These steps are also essential to make sure that the program is kept affordable for beneficiaries and taxpayers alike. I intend shortly to share the latest information with my colleagues on the Finance Committee. It is my intention to continue to work aggressively with my colleagues on the Finance Committee--as well as with all members of this body--to build on my initiative introduced in July and to move ahead with successful bipartisan reform. I appreciate the strong interest and support our agenda for reform is receiving from both sides of the aisle. However, there are real reasons why we don't yet have agreement on Medicare. Program reform efforts are enormously complex. In no small part because Medicare is such an important part of our social fabric. We must work through extraordinarily diverse views on the proper role of government, how best to achieve affordability for beneficiaries and taxpayers--all while ensuring stability and continuity in the program. In view of the fact that at this time there is no clear consensus on comprehensive reform, and that even if there were, such reform would take two or three years to implement, I am today introducing legislation that will help us see that low-income beneficiaries are not denied prescription drug coverage while we continue to move forward with long-term reform. I call this legislation the Medicare Temporary Drug Assistance Act, and it actually includes two versions--one that meets current budget guidelines and will only require a simple majority for passage, and a second version that is larger, covers more beneficiaries, but exceeds budget guidelines and will thus require a sixty-vote majority. I call this initiative the Medicare Temporary Drug Assistance Act, because that's exactly what it is. This effort is not to be mistaken with the lasting, comprehensive Medicare reform that we will continue to aggressively pursue--a reform effort that will build on our more comprehensive plan offered in July. What this temporary legislation offers is an assurance to low-income seniors that they will be able to receive the help they need while Congress completes the larger task of overhauling the Medicare program. It's an assurance that their immediate needs will not be put on hold as we deliberate and debate the complex intricacies of long-term Medicare reform. In testimony before our committee, the AARP repeatedly reminded us how important it is that we proceed carefully with long-term reform. AARP also told our Committee that a program aiding low-income beneficiaries could be achieved in a shorter time frame. I agree with their assessment and support the goal of providing immediate help to low- income beneficiaries. And this is what my legislation will do--it allows us to continue the intricate work of long-term reform without forcing Americans to dilute their prescription dosages or to choose between prescription drugs and food. It is my hope--as I believe there is sufficient bipartisan consensus on the subject of prescription drug coverage--that we can come together to pass this legislation. Like I've said, the first version of this bill requires only a simple majority. It has been designed to fit within current budget restrictions. Having my preference, Mr. President, I would like to see us pass the broader version that will require sixty votes, as it will offer more extensive coverage. But either way, these bills--once enacted--will implement a temporary, state-based, program to provide low-income Medicare beneficiaries with prescription drug coverage outside the Medicare program. Now, Mr. President, let me clear up a couple of misunderstandings that appear to surround this. First of all, I have heard concerns raised that this legislation depends on the appropriations process for funding. This is wrong; they do not. Just like the State Children Health Insurance Program, funding is mandatory under the Social Security Act. Second, I know that some have tried to attach a welfare stigma to the new program. Let me be clear: prescription drug coverage is not welfare, it is common sense. Frankly, I am surprised that there are those who would imply otherwise, because for years, we have worked to de-stigmatize important programs such as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The legislation I'm introducing is modeled on the State Children's Health Insurance Program--a solution designed to extend drug coverage to lower-income Medicare beneficiaries--beneficiaries with incomes below 150 percent of the poverty, and those with the highest out-of- pocket drug costs. If we have sufficient support to pass the more generous measure, we can cover beneficiaries up to 175 percent of the poverty level. State participation in the new program would be optional, as it is under SCHIP. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 22 states have passed some type of pharmacy assistance law. Senior Pharmacy Assistance Programs currently are in place in 16 states, and another five states have passed laws to create such programs. Many of these states will likely opt to immediately participate in the new program--receiving federal funds to allow them to quickly expand their programs to provide drug benefits to even more Medicare beneficiaries. Eligible beneficiaries living in states that choose not to participate in the new program would receive coverage through a fall- back option administered by the Health Care Financing Administration. HCFA would contract with a pharmacy benefit manager to provide these beneficiaries with a drug benefit comparable to that offered to all Federal employees through the Blue Cross Standard Option plan. Under either scenario, beneficiaries will receive immediate assistance. They will not have to wait, they will not have to wonder, and most importantly they will not have to worry about what happens in Washington. Again, Mr. President, this effort is not to be mistaken with the lasting, comprehensive Medicare reform that we must continue to pursue. It is best seen as a bridge--a bridge that will provide a low-income Medicare beneficiaries with prescription drugs--a bridge that the Washington Post acknowledged just today would be of material value to lower-income individuals while we continue our work on long-term, bipartisan reform. I will continue to work in the Finance Committee toward long-term Medicare reform--reform which will include a comprehensive outpatient prescription drug benefit. If we can't pass such a package this year, we will resume our efforts on the first day of the next session, and we will not stop until we get the job done. But low-income Medicare beneficiaries should not have to wait for comprehensive reform to be enacted in order to receive prescription drug benefits. This legislation will provide prescription drug coverage and peace of mind while Congress continues to work on the larger reform package. Passing it will certainly not obviate the need, nor diminish the pressing objective that we will have to achieve Medicare reform. There is no argument on either side of the aisle that long-term reform is not necessary. But in the interim, we should also take this step. Then when we get the long-term reform initiative passed--when comprehensive reform is enacted--this interim step will automatically be repealed. In that way, it will not replace or compete with reform. But it will provide valuable protection for many. Full enactment of this legislation will ensure that 82 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries will have prescription drug coverage, through the new program and through other sources of coverage. If Congress votes for increased coverage, 85 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries would have prescription drug coverage. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me on this important issue. Our many successes in advancing the Medicare program these last three years have been achieved through cooperation from both sides of the aisle. We have seen what we can do when we move forward on those issues where we have a consensus. Now, let's join together to take this step, as well. Let's implement a principle on which I believe we all agree--helping our neediest Medicare beneficiaries pay for their prescription drugs. Toward achieving this important objective, there is no legitimate reason to delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill I am introducing be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished friend and colleague that it is my understanding the administration is opposed to any amendment.

Mr. ROTH. I don't know that I can answer for the White House why they are opposed. I think, if I might make a short comment, a number of us on both sides of the political aisle, as well as both branches of Government, the executive and the Congress, believe this is an extraordinarily important matter, that it involves our country's economic future as well as security, and that it is important we proceed as expeditiously as possible. I suspect, but I cannot say, there are those who are fearful that we are in the campaign season and, if it goes back to the House, that many will be unable to vote their will for fear they might antagonize some of their important supporters.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to my colleague's amendment regarding clean energy. I have to confess to my good friend and colleague that I do so reluctantly because I know of no one who is more experienced in the procedures of this august body or who is better equipped to lead an argument in which he believes so strongly. I have to say that much of what he wants to accomplish I not only sympathize with but think it is critically important that we address those problems at some future time. First, let me repeat what I stated at the beginning of the week. Any amendments that are added to this legislation would indeed force us into conference on this bill. We are in agreement on that. But given the limits of time, it would be uncertain whether we would have the time to take up and adopt a conference report. Many of us on both sides of the aisle--my distinguished ranking member, Senator Moynihan, as well as myself--strongly believe that this legislation on PNTR is the most important piece of legislation we will consider this year, if not this decade. I know the ordinary process is to have conferences and go back and forth, but it seems to me one of the remarkable aspects of this Congress, and the Senate in particular, is the flexibility in the means of which we can progress on a legislative endeavor. Those of us who believe it is of utmost importance that we open China's doors to American exports and products believe strongly that the best way to accomplish it, under current circumstances, is to try to keep a clean bill. Let me point out for the public at large, particularly in the Senate--perhaps less so in the House--there are many opportunities to raise this type of question. We have a rule of nongermaneness. To me, always one of the great advantages, I say to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, of being a Senator, even a freshman Senator, is you can raise significant legislation and have the opportunity to debate it on the floor, which is not always true of the House of Representatives. But the point I am trying to make is that those of us who support this legislation--I would include the administration--there is a broad consensus among many of us that it is critically important that we move ahead with permanent normal trade relations, and that if we begin down the road of amendments, it could very likely prevent effective action being taken on this piece of legislation. I point out that if we fail to act this year, China will still become a member of the WTO. We are disadvantaging our people, our companies, our workers, our farmers by not providing them the advantage of the significant concessions that Ambassador Barshefsky negotiated with her Chinese counterparts. I would say, those who oppose the bill, of course, are more likely to be willing to take these risks than those of us who believe it is of such critical importance to our country. So given the limits of time, it seems to me it would be uncertain whether we would have the time to take up and adopt a conference report. As such, it seems to me, a vote in favor of an amendment on this bill is a vote to kill it. It is really that simple. That is why I must oppose it. It is ironic that by threatening passage of PNTR, this legislation could have the opposite effect to what was intended. After all, PNTR is essential to giving our companies, our farmers, and our service providers meaningful access to the Chinese market. This, obviously, includes the companies and service providers that are more than ready to sell China environmentally sound products and services, including those that my colleague seeks to promote through this amendment. I strongly agree on the seriousness of the environmental problems in China. I think the distinguished Senator from West Virginia mentioned there are certain cities that, if you have ever visited, really illustrate the magnitude of the problem and understand the importance of improvement being made environmentally. But whether or not we will be in a position to supply our technology, to provide our equipment and services, will depend on how effective we will be on moving ahead with granting PNTR in response to the upcoming accession of China to WTO. Once China becomes a member of the WTO, we will be in a far superior position to provide the kind of assistance that will protect our interests, but that will happen only if we pass this legislation. Passage of PNTR will improve our ability to encourage China to begin to take the measures that are essential if we are going to address the problems of global warming and all the other serious environmental problems. Indeed, I have to emphasize that, in my judgment, nothing will promote exports of these types of goods and services more than PNTR. This is not just because of the market access commitments the Chinese have made. WTO accession will also bring China under the disciplines of the TRIPS agreement, which is the WTO agreement on intellectual property rights. As my distinguished colleague knows, nothing is more critically important, and protected with greater care, than know-how, technology. The United States is a leader, the world leader in developing the most progressive technology, whether it is environmental technology or technology in other areas. And by passing PNTR, we help protect our technology. We gain a system by which we can enforce our rights; through a dispute settlement process that is part of the WTO. As a matter of fact, the Chinese have even agreed to some stricter provisions in protecting our intellectual property rights, which is important, I know, to both of us. We should also not lose sight of the fact that the countries with the best environmental practices are those with the greatest level of economic development. China's WTO accession is the key element for ensuring economic growth in China and bringing them along the path of economic development. It is only with that economic development that we will be able to see long-term and sustainable progress towards environmental protection. Frankly, this is as true in China as it is in any other developing country. It simply is a fact that poor countries cannot afford the types of environmental protections that the wealthier countries enjoy. As much as we may wish this were not the case, it is a fact we cannot ignore. That is why we should not do anything that would threaten PNTR's passage. There are, in my judgment, many important reasons for supporting PNTR, but one of them is that it, together with WTO accession, will be essential an element of creating the conditions in China for improved environmental protection. Again, I am very sympathetic to the objectives and goals of the Byrd amendment, but I also feel compelled to make it clear to all my colleagues that a vote in favor of this amendment is a vote to kill PNTR. For that reason, I must oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it. Let me reiterate that China will become a member of the WTO regardless of the decision of Congress on PNTR. The legislation before us is not about that. What is at issue is whether we want to say yes to China's offer to open its door to our goods. Let me also add that I was very much interested in hearing the comments of Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, discussing on this floor his experience in a visit with the Chinese leadership. In that discussion, he pointed out that not only was the President very open about his support for the concessions that had been made in the negotiations with the United States, but he was looking forward to even greater opening of the Chinese market. Again, I think it is important for everyone to understand that China has access to the American market. This legislation in no way affects that. What is important, this legislation opens up China's market to the United States of goods, products, technology. For that reason, it is critically important that we proceed and act affirmatively on giving permanent normal trade relations. Once we do that, we are taking a giant step forward in permitting the kind of exchanges of environmental technology, of science, of equipment, of supplies that will help China address its serious environmental problem. I appreciate the concern of Senator Byrd about this environmental issue, but the best way, in my judgment, to begin solving and addressing that problem is by making sure China has permanent normal trade relations.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hollings be recognized to offer an amendment, that there be 1 hour equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, and that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to a vote on or in relation to the amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Roth pertaining to the introduction of S. 3017 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Montana.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may utilize. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, and I disagree with my colleague that supporters of normalizing trade have no merit to their argument. The economic benefits of China's accession are unassailable. According to independent economic analysis, China's market access commitments will mean an additional $13 billion in U.S. exports annually. Our current exports to China are $14 billion a year, which means the deal so ably negotiated by Ambassador Barshefsky will effectively double annual U.S. exports to China. Doubling our exports to China holds benefits for every sector of the U.S. economy from agriculture to manufacturing to services. It also provides significant benefits for American workers. The one step that we must take to ensure that American farmers, American workers, and American businesses reap the benefits of an agreement that three Presidents took 13 years to squeeze out of the Chinese. That step is to normalize our trade relations with China. What that means in practical terms is an end to the unproductive annual review of China's trade status. That is what H.R. 4444 does--it eliminates the annual review that has provided no leverage over Chinese behavior. My distinguished colleague's amendment would gut the House bill by once again requiring this unproductive annual review of China's trade status. The amendment would deny the benefits of China's WTO accession to our farmers, to our workers, and to our businesses. Why is that? It is because the annual vote on China's trade status would violate our own obligations under the WTO, as was so effectively pointed out by the Senator from Montana, and allow the Chinese to deny our exporters access to their markets. That access would go, instead, to our European, Japanese, and other competitors. My colleague from South Carolina has said that the Japanese know how to run their trade policy. Let me say that if we deny the benefits of this deal to our exporters, we will have given the Japanese a trade policy gift that I am certain they would never have guessed we would have been foolish enough to forego. And, for what? How will denying our exports to China give us any leverage over Chinese behavior? Why would we suppose that cutting off our exports to China would do anything to influence China's policies, whether on Taiwan, on weapons proliferation, on human rights, or on labor rights? No. What we get in return for foregoing the benefits of this deal is the prospect of returning to the same unproductive annual debate we hold on China's trade status. It should be obvious to all, based on the arguments we have heard today about Chinese behavior, that the annual debate simply has not worked. It is time to take a different approach. The bottom line is that we have precious little to lose in ending the annual renewal process and much, much to gain by enacting PNTR. That is why I oppose the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague and urge this body to oppose it as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. Is there any time remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Carolina for his usual courtesy. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support the motion to proceed to H.R. 4444 and to pass this legislation without amendment. Our vote on normalizing trade relations with China will mark the most significant vote we take in this Congress. Indeed, it will be one of the most important votes we will take during our time in the Senate. At the outset, I want to be clear--because of PNTR's significance and because we have so little time left before the 106th Congress adjourns, I will oppose all amendments to PNTR, regardless of their merit. The House bill takes the one essential step that we must take to ensure that American workers, American farmers and American businesses reap the benefits of China's market access commitments. There is nothing that we can add to this bill that will improve upon its guarantee that our exporters benefit from the agreement it took three Presidents of both parties 13 years to negotiate with the Chinese. I ask my colleagues to join me in adopting this approach because the risks of going to conference on this bill, in this political season, are too great. Bluntly, a vote to amend is a vote to kill this bill and, with it, any chance that U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses will benefit from China's accession to the WTO. The significance of this vote is due both to the economic benefits that will flow from opening China's market to our exports and the broader impact that normalizing our trade will have on our relationship with China. I want to address each of those points in turn. Let me clarify, first, what this debate is about. The vote on PNTR is not a vote about whether China will get into the World Trade Organization, as some have said. I assure you that China will get into the WTO whether we vote to normalize our trade relations with China or not. What this vote is about, as I indicated at the outset, is whether American manufacturers, farmers, service providers, and workers will get the benefits of a deal that American negotiators under three Presidents of both parties fought for 13 years to achieve. Or, will we simply concede the benefits of that deal to their European and Japanese competitors for the Chinese market? As I explained just prior to the August recess, my reason for supporting this legislation is first and foremost because of the benefits that normalizing trade with China will offer my constituents back home in Delaware. China is already an important market for firms, farmers, and workers located in my state. Delaware's exports to China in many product categories nearly doubled between 1993 and 1998. Delaware's trade with China now exceeds $70 million. What China's accession to the WTO means to Delaware is a dramatic further opening of China's markets to goods and services that are critical to Delaware's economy. China, for example, is already the second leading market for American poultry products worldwide. Poultry producers in Delaware and elsewhere have built that market in the face of both quotas and high tariffs. China's accession to the WTO will mean that the tariffs Delaware poultry producers face will be cut in half, from 20 to 10 percent, and quotas that now limit their access to the Chinese market will be eliminated. Normalizing our trade relations with China will also make a huge difference to the chemical and pharmaceutical industries which make up a significant share of my state's manufacturing base. In the chemical sector alone, China has agreed to eliminate quotas on chemical products by 2002 and will cut its tariffs on American chemical exports by more than one-half. Delaware is also home to two automobile manufacturing plants, one Chrysler and one Saturn. Once in the WTO, China will be obliged to cut tariffs on automobiles by up to 70 percent and on auto parts by more than one-half. The agreement also ensures that U.S. automobile manufacturers will be able to sell directly to consumers in China and finance those sales directly as our auto companies do here in the United States. What holds true for Delaware holds true for the country as a whole. Independent economic analysis by Goldman Sachs suggests that the package may mean an increase of as much as $13 billion annually in U.S. exports to China. That's right--$13 billion annually. What that figure reflects is that China's accession to the WTO will benefit every sector of the U.S. economy from agriculture to manufacturing to services. Agriculture tariffs will be cut by more than half on priority products life beef, pork, and poultry. China will also eliminate many of the barriers to sales of bulk commodities such as wheat, corn, and rice. Industrial tariffs would be slashed across the board by more than one-half--from an average rate of 24 percent to 9 percent. Equally important, American exporters will be able to sell directly to Chinese consumers and avoid the restrictions imposed on their sales by the state-owned enterprises they must currently use to distribute their products in China. The deal will create broad new access for Americans services like telecommunications, banking and insurance. In particular, I want to stress that China not only agreed to open its market to new ventures in the banking and insurance areas but agreed to grandfather the existing hard-won market access that American financial service firms have already achieved. I expect those obligations to be met fully by the Chinese. The agreement also provides unprecedented safeguards to American manufacturers here at home. The agreement reached this past November permits the United States to invoke a country-specific safeguard against imports from China that may disrupt our markets. In addition, the agreement allows the United States to apply special rules regarding unfair pricing practices by Chinese firms for 15 years after the agreement goes into force. The agreement even addresses a concern that has been raised by many concerned with the efforts of China to convert U.S. technology to military uses. The WTO agreement specifically obliges China to end the practice of demanding that American firms cough up their manufacturing technology as a condition of exporting to or investing in the Chinese market. Significantly, the agreement and China's accession to the WTO gives the United States rights against Chinese trade practices that we do not currently enjoy. It also ensures that the United States has a forum in which it will benefit from the support of the rest of China's WTO trading partners should disputes over China's obligations arise. In the Finance Committee we devoted many hours to consultations with the President and his representatives as the negotiations proceeded. We devoted an equal number of hours to a review of the agreement finally reached this past November. I believe I can speak for my colleagues on the committee in saying that there was overwhelming support for the agreement so ably negotiated by Ambassador Barshefsky. That support is warranted not only by the terms of the agreement but by the testimony we heard and the support expressed from a broad and diverse spectrum of U.S. interests. The agreement was supported not only by U.S. businesses, American farmers, and groups representing virtually every sector of the U.S. economy. The agreement garnered the support of Presidents from Gerald Ford to George Bush, former Secretaries of State and Treasury, and an impressive array of national security specialists from Richard Perle to General Colin Powell all of whom underscored the importance of China's accession to the WTO and normalizing our trade relations with China as good not only in economic terms but in strategic terms as well. The testimony before the Finance Committee left little doubt that China's reemergence as a world power presents challenges to the world community and to U.S. interests. But, the testimony before the committee was unequivocal on one point--that our interests are best served by drawing China into that community of nations, rather than isolating China from that community through restrictions on trade. General Powell said it best in his public statement on PNTR, indicating that-- * * * from every standpoint--from the strategic standpoint, from the standpoint of our national interests, from the standpoint of our trading and economic interests--it serves all of our purposes to grant permanent normal trading relations to China. Opponents of this legislation have often tried to downplay the importance of normalizing our trade relations with China. They argued that we are entitled to the benefit of the WTO agreement based on our bilateral trade arrangements with China dating back to 1979. They argue that we will suffer no competitive disadvantage if we fail to take the steps necessary on our end to comply with our own WTO obligations. I want to lay that argument to rest. That argument was contradicted by Ambassador Barshefsky, by our own legal counsel, and by every trade expert consulted by the Finance Committee. However, just to make sure, my distinguished colleague and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan and I, together with the chairman and ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, specifically put that question to the General Accounting Office. The GAO has had a team following the WTO negotiations with the Chinese closely for several years. We asked them for their assessment of the terms of the agreement and whether we could rely on our 1979 agreement to obtain the benefits of China's accession to the WTO. The GAO, in testimony before the committee and in a report it released prior to House passage of PNTR, concluded that the 1979 bilateral arrangement would not guarantee the rights three Presidents of both parties spent 13 years negotiating with the Chinese. According to the GAO, the essential step in obtaining the benefits of China's accession to the WTO was the passage of PNTR. Indeed, the GAO emphasized that failure to approve PNTR would ``put U.S. business interests at a considerable competitive disadvantage'' in the Chinese market. In other words, the single step we must take to obtain the benefits of the Chinese agreement to open their markets is the passage of H.R. 4444. In light of that fact, let me turn briefly to an explanation of the legislation before us. The bill authorizes the President to normalize our trade relations with China when China has completed the WTO accession process provided that the terms of China's accession are equivalent to those negotiated this past November. That action will assure that American firms, farmers, and workers will receive the benefit of the bargain Ambassador Barshefsky struck with China. But, the House bill does considerably more to ensure that we get the benefit of our bargain and more to address many of the concerns that opponents of this legislation have raised regarding China's human rights practices and more to encourage the development of political pluralism in China. On the trade front, the House bill provides for the aggressive monitoring of China's compliance with its WTO obligations and the enforcement of U.S. rights under the WTO agreement. The bill would offer particular help to small- and medium-size businesses, and to workers, in making use of the remedies available under U.S. law to address any violations of U.S. WTO rights or to address any unfair Chinese trade practices. In addition, the House bill implements the special safeguard mechanism that was a part of the November agreement. In effect, the bill provides the counterpart in domestic law to the provisions of the bilateral agreement that offer import-sensitive industries in the United States protection in any dramatic surge in imports from China that disrupt U.S. markets. The bill also addresses a concern that I am sure all of us share with respect to Taiwan's economic future. Taiwan has applied for admission to the World Trade Organization and its accession process is essentially complete. The House bill expresses the sense of Congress that the WTO should approve Taiwan's accession to the WTO at the same time that it approves China's. As a matter of WTO rules, there is no need to debate Taiwan's designation or its relationship to China. The WTO rules permit the accession of Taiwan regardless of its designation. China has long provided assurances that it would not stand in the way of Taiwan's accession at the same time China itself enters the WTO, and I expect China to live up to those assurances, just as the House bill makes clear. Apart from securing the trade benefits of China's accession to the WTO, the House bill represents an important step forward on the issues of human rights, internationally-agreed labor standards, and religious freedom. In an innovative approach, the bill would create a commission made up of members of both the Congress and the executive branch, modeled on the successful domestic counterpart to the Helsinki Commission on human rights, to monitor Chinese practices in those areas, as well as the development of the rule of law and democracy. One of the significant advantages of the approach adopted by the House bill is that it ensures a constructive, ongoing review of China's practices throughout the year, rather than what has become an unproductive once-a-year effort tied to a congressional vote. More fundamentally, the commission will ensure that the United States' concerns and our message to the Chinese leadership regarding Chinese human rights practices is undiluted by a debate over whether to renew China's trade status. There are some who have suggested that the bill should have gone farther. They suggest that the bill should have empowered the proposed commission to address national security concerns as well. Those concerns, however, have been mooted by the recent action taken by the Senate in the context of the Defense authorization bill. I congratulate my distinguished colleagues, Senators Warner, Levin, and Byrd, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the committee's ranking member, and one of the most senior members of that panel, for proposing the creation of a separate commission to look at precisely those issues of national security and the link between those issues and our expanding trade relationship with China. In sum, the House bill preserves what we in the Finance Committee sought to do in the bill we reported out, which was to ensure that American firms, farmers, and workers gain the benefits of the agreement reached this past November, and take additional steps to secure those trade benefits and offers a new approach to addressing U.S. concerns regarding human rights practices in China. I believe that H.R. 4444 not only merits our support, but that it strikes a careful and appropriate balance of the interests we have in our broader relationship with China. For that reason, I intend not only to support the legislation as drafted, but, as I said at the outset, I will oppose any amendment to the House bill no matter how meritorious the amendment might be standing on its own. That brings me to my final point. There are a number of my colleagues that see this vote as an opportunity to link other issues to our trading relationship with China. I am certain that we will have the opportunity to debate amendments on everything from the release of political prisoners to China's implementation of a one-child policy to its recurring threats against Taiwan to issuers of weapons proliferation. I respect my colleagues' point of view and recognize that these are serious issues that should remain a part of the broader dialog with China on our bilateral relations. What I fundamentally disagree with is the approach of linking progress in those areas to our trade with China. I do so for three reasons. First, the approach of linking progress to our trading relations with China has proved to be a failure. We have tried the approach of linking progress in other areas, such as human rights, to trade and it simply has not worked. It is time to try a different approach. Second, the threat of economic sanctions would only work if the target country believes that there is something fundamental at risk. Here, I want us to think through the logic of voting ``no'' on PNTR. The net effect of a ``no'' vote on PNTR would be to cut off U.S. exports to China. China already has access to our market. We do not enjoy reciprocal access to China's market. That is what the WTO agreement provides. In voting ``no'' on PNTR, we would only be voting to deny ourselves the benefits of the WTO agreement to American firms, farmers, and workers. Denying ourselves the benefit of the WTO agreement is simply no threat to the Chinese. They will simply obtain the goods, services, and technology they want from other WTO members. In other words, even if you accepted the logic of economic sanctions, voting ``no'' on PNTR does not serve the objective of modifying China's behavior or the views of its leadership. Finally, there are some who decry the pursuit of profit when issues of human rights and human freedoms are at stake. While I share their concerns for human rights conditions in China, I feel compelled to say that they are wrong and their criticisms are misplaced. In the end, human freedom is indivisible. It is not neatly divided between political freedom and economic freedom, as some suggest. Economic freedom is freedom, pure and unadulterated. The reason is that, absent economic freedom, no person has the wherewithal to defend their political rights. What that means in practical terms in the context of modern China is that we should do whatever we can to empower the Chinese people to pursue their own course toward freedom. One essential step toward that goal is to ensure that the Chinese people are free to pursue their own economic destiny free from the heavy hand of the state. That is because the roots of political pluralism lie in economic interests that differ from those of the Chinese Communist Government and those of the Chinese leadership. The noted Chinese human rights activist Fu Sheni, active in defense of Chinese human rights and political freedoms since the 1979 Democracy Wall Movement, has made this point more eloquently than I can. In a public statement on PNTR, Fu emphasized that: The annual argument over NTR renewal exerts no genuine pressure on the Chinese Communists and performs absolutely no role in compelling them to improve the human rights situation. . . . [I]mprovement of the human rights situation and advancement of democracy in China must mainly depend on the greatness of the Chinese people, in the process of economic modernization, gradually creating the popular citizen consciousness and democratic conscience and struggling for them. It will not be achieved through the action of the U.S. Congress in debating Normal Trade Relations. . . . Fu's point was echoed by the China Democracy Party, founded 2 years ago, in its public statement on PNTR. In declaring its support for China's accession to the WTO and for the normalization of our trade relations with China, the Democracy Party stated: We believe the closer the economic relationship between the United States and China, the more chances to politically influence China, the more chances to monitor human rights, and the more effective the United States to push China to launch political reforms. The Democracy Party's statement went on to say that the Communist leadership's power in China is ``planted in state ownership.'' A vote for PNTR is a vote to end the Communist leadership's monopoly on power within Chinese society. A vote against PNTR would condemn the Chinese people to work for the state-owned enterprises that are the Communist leadership's most effective means of political control. That is why, beyond the economic benefits for my home state of Delaware and for our nation as a whole, I support normalizing our trade relations with China. It is a vote for freedom and that is where I will cast my lot every time. I thank my colleagues and urge their support for the motion to proceed and for passage of this essential legislation. Once again, I thank my distinguished colleague from North Carolina.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for starting the process of consideration of this historic legislation and I look forward to the debate in September. At that point, I intend to outline precisely how normalizing our trade relations with China is the single most significant step we can take in promoting the broad range of interests, from national security to human rights, that the United States has in its relationship with China and Asia as a whole. For today, however, I do not intend debate abstractions. Instead, I am going to start where I always do when I am considering legislation. And, that is the simple question of whether normalizing trade with China is good for my constituents back home in Delaware. Delaware's exports to China in many product categories nearly doubled between 1993 and 1998. Delaware's trade with China now exceeds $70 million. The agreement reached with China as part of its accession to the WTO would mean dramatically lower tariffs on products critical to Delaware's economy. The economy of southern Delaware, for example, depends on poultry. China is already the second leading market for American poultry products worldwide. Poultry producers in Delaware and elsewhere have built that market in the face of both quotas and high tariffs. Under the agreement with China, those quotas will now be eliminated and the tariffs will be cut in half, from 20 to 10 percent. In Delaware, chemicals and pharmaceuticals make up a significant share of my State's manufacturing base. In the chemical sector, China has agreed to eliminate quotas on chemical products by 2002 and will cut its tariffs on American chemical exports by more than one-half. Furthermore, there is not a day that I come to work that I do not remember that Delaware is also home to two automobile manufacturing plants, one Chrysler and one General Motors. In fact, I am told that Delaware has more auto workers per capita than any other State, including Michigan. As many of the auto workers in my State remember, I led the fight to ensure Chrysler's survival. And I remain one of the strongest supporters of the Chrysler and General Motors communities in Delaware. Under the agreement with China, China has agreed to cut tariffs on automobiles by up to 70 percent and on auto parts by more than one- half. The agreement also ensures the ability of our automobile companies to sell direct to consumers, rather than through some state- owned marketing office, and the ability to finance those sales directly as they do here in the United States. I want to give each of you a website address where you can see the powerful positive effect this agreement will have on your state and on your constituents as well. You can find it at www.chinapntr.gov. Beyond that, I want to emphasize two final points. The first thing I want every member of the Senate to understand is that China is going to become a member of the World Trade Organization whether we pass this bill or not. What this vote is about is whether American farmers, American businesses, and American workers--real working men and women back home in each of our states--will receive the benefits of an agreement that three Presidents from both parties have pursued with incredible dedication for 13 years. Or, will we reject this bill and see those benefits go instead to our European and Japanese competitors? Under the bilateral agreement reached this past November, China has agreed to open its markets farther than many of our other WTO trading partners even in the developed world. Indeed, to a remarkable extent, China seems willing to go farther faster on agricultural subsidies and services than even Japan and some of our European trading partners. And, the United States is likely to be the primary beneficiary of China's historic agreement to open its markets. Voting no on this motion means that American farmers, its manufacturers and its workers will suffer the consequences and face a dimmer economic future as a result. The second point I want to make in closing has to do with the bill that came to us from the House. We have reviewed the bill in the Finance Committee and I want to emphasize my unequivocal support for the House bill. It preserves precisely what the Finance Committee hoped to do--which is ensure that American farmers, manufacturers, and service providers would gain access to the Chinese market under the terms negotiated this past November. Beyond that, the House bill strikes a reasonable balance in terms of Congress' ongoing scrutiny of China's record on human rights and labor standards. Indeed, in my view, the commission created by the House bill for those purposes offers more to our advocacy of human rights in China than any vote under the Jackson-Vanik amendment ever did or ever would. What that means is that, because benefits of normalizing our trade relations with China, and because there is now so little time left before the 106th Congress adjourns, I will intend to oppose all amendments to the bill. Thirteen members of the Finance Committee have joined me in that pledge and I know many others that have expressed the same view to the majority and minority leaders. With that, let me close by simply urging my colleagues to support the motion to proceed, and final passage when we return in September. Let's engage in the serious debate the bill deserves and let's take action as soon as possible to secure the benefits of the agreement for our farmers, manufacturers, and workers.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to address a serious problem regarding Medicare's treatment of self-injectable drugs. Section 1862(s) of the Social Security Act defines covered ``medical and other health services'' for purposes of coverage under Medicare Part B. Included in the definition are: (2)(A) services and supplies (including drugs and biologicals which cannot, as determined in accordance with regulations, be self-administered) furnished as incident to a physician's professional service, of kinds which are commonly furnished in physicians' offices and are commonly either rendered without charge or included in the physicians' bills . . . Regulations at 42 C.F.R. 410.29 provide further limitations on drugs and biologicals, but they do not define the phrase ``cannot be self- administered.'' Individual Medicare carriers have reportedly applied different policies when considering whether a drug or biological can or cannot be self-administered. Some carriers have based the determination on the typical means of administration while others have assessed the individual patient's ability to administer the drug. On August 13, 1997, HCFA issued a memorandum to Medicare carriers which was intended to clarify program policy. The memorandum stated that the inability to self-administer is to be based on the typical means of administration of the drug, not on the individual patient's ability to administer the drug. The memorandum stated that: ``The individual patient's mental or physical ability to administer any drug is not a consideration for this purpose.'' As a result of this memorandum, certain patients, for example patients with multiple sclerosis or some forms of cancer, no longer had Medicare coverage for certain drugs. However, implementation of this policy directive has been halted for FY2000. On November 29, 1999, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2000. Section 219 of General Provisions in Title II, Department of Health and Human Services contains a provision relating to the memorandum. The provision prohibits the use of any funds to carry out the August 13, 1997, transmittal or to promulgate any regulation or other transmittal or policy directive that has the effect of imposing (or clarifying the imposition of ) a restriction on the coverage of injectable drugs beyond those applied on the day before issuance of the transmittal. The definition of covered services continues to be of concern to policymakers. On March 23, 2000, the House Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health & Environment held a hearing on this issue. I understand that there was a very productive discussion of other policy options during the question and answer period. One witness, Dr. Earl Steinberg of Johns Hopkins University, suggested having the beneficiary's physician determine whether a medication can or cannot be self-injected. The bill I am introducing today follows that expert advice and introduces the judgment of the physician into the decision process. On May 17, 2000 I sent a letter to HCFA Administrator DeParle, requesting her serious attention to this problem. I went further to ask her to propose an administrative remedy for the inequity that existed. In her reply, she stated that she was ``very troubled by the predicament of beneficiaries whose drugs are not covered under the law.'' But it is clear from Administrator DeParle's letter, that without legislative authority there is only a limited amount HCFA will do to address this problem. The bill I am introducing today allows a Medicare beneficiary's own physician to make the determination of whether the beneficiary can or cannot administer their medication. I would ask for my colleagues' support in this legislation. This issue is of vital importance to some of our most gravely ill Medicare beneficiaries. These beneficiaries, many with advanced cases of multiple sclerosis or cancer, deserve our help and they deserve it today. I ask consent that the full text be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to address a serious problem regarding Medicare's treatment of self-injectable drugs. Section 1862(s) of the Social Security Act defines covered ``medical and other health services'' for purposes of coverage under Medicare Part B. Included in the definition are: (2)(A) services and supplies (including drugs and biologicals which cannot, as determined in accordance with regulations, be self-administered) furnished as incident to a physician's professional service, of kinds which are commonly furnished in physicians' offices and are commonly either rendered without charge or included in the physicians' bills . . . Regulations at 42 C.F.R. 410.29 provide further limitations on drugs and biologicals, but they do not define the phrase ``cannot be self- administered.'' Individual Medicare carriers have reportedly applied different policies when considering whether a drug or biological can or cannot be self-administered. Some carriers have based the determination on the typical means of administration while others have assessed the individual patient's ability to administer the drug. On August 13, 1997, HCFA issued a memorandum to Medicare carriers which was intended to clarify program policy. The memorandum stated that the inability to self-administer is to be based on the typical means of administration of the drug, not on the individual patient's ability to administer the drug. The memorandum stated that: ``The individual patient's mental or physical ability to administer any drug is not a consideration for this purpose.'' As a result of this memorandum, certain patients, for example patients with multiple sclerosis or some forms of cancer, no longer had Medicare coverage for certain drugs. However, implementation of this policy directive has been halted for FY2000. On November 29, 1999, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2000. Section 219 of General Provisions in Title II, Department of Health and Human Services contains a provision relating to the memorandum. The provision prohibits the use of any funds to carry out the August 13, 1997, transmittal or to promulgate any regulation or other transmittal or policy directive that has the effect of imposing (or clarifying the imposition of ) a restriction on the coverage of injectable drugs beyond those applied on the day before issuance of the transmittal. The definition of covered services continues to be of concern to policymakers. On March 23, 2000, the House Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health & Environment held a hearing on this issue. I understand that there was a very productive discussion of other policy options during the question and answer period. One witness, Dr. Earl Steinberg of Johns Hopkins University, suggested having the beneficiary's physician determine whether a medication can or cannot be self-injected. The bill I am introducing today follows that expert advice and introduces the judgment of the physician into the decision process. On May 17, 2000 I sent a letter to HCFA Administrator DeParle, requesting her serious attention to this problem. I went further to ask her to propose an administrative remedy for the inequity that existed. In her reply, she stated that she was ``very troubled by the predicament of beneficiaries whose drugs are not covered under the law.'' But it is clear from Administrator DeParle's letter, that without legislative authority there is only a limited amount HCFA will do to address this problem. The bill I am introducing today allows a Medicare beneficiary's own physician to make the determination of whether the beneficiary can or cannot administer their medication. I would ask for my colleagues' support in this legislation. This issue is of vital importance to some of our most gravely ill Medicare beneficiaries. These beneficiaries, many with advanced cases of multiple sclerosis or cancer, deserve our help and they deserve it today. I ask consent that the full text be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first of all, let me say this vote on the marriage penalty represents a great victory for working Americans. I think we can all take great satisfaction that, for the typical American, it will mean something like $1,300 to $1,500 in a tax cut. I thank my friends and colleagues who supported this legislation. I think it is only fair, it is only right. I believe this has, indeed, been a great week for the working people of America. Mr. President, it has been a busy two weeks for the Members of the Senate Finance Committee and our staff. I would like to take a moment to thank the staff who worked on this conference report and also H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. With respect to both bills, I thank John Duncan, my Administrative Assistant. On the Majority Staff, I thank Frank Polk, our Staff Director and Chief Counsel, J.T. Young, our Deputy Staff Director, and members of the tax staff, including Mark Prater, Brig Pari, Bill Sweetnam, Jeff Kupfer, Ed McClellan, and our newest tax counsel, Elizabeth Paris. I thank our Finance Committee press team of Ginny Flynn and Tara Bradshaw. I note that Connie Foster, Amber Williams, and Myrtle Agent also provided valuable assistance to the tax team. I thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished ranking Democratic member of the Finance Committee, Senator Pat Moynihan and his able staff. I refer to David Podoff, Russ Sullivan, Stan Fendley, Cary Pugh, Jerry Pannullo, Mitchell Kent, John Sparrow, and Lee Holtzman. Republican Leadership staff also deserve thanks for helping to bring these bills together. I refer to Dave Hoppe, Sharon Soderstrom, Keith Hennessey, and Ginger Gregory of Senator Lott's office and Hazen Marshall, Lee Morris, and Eric Ueland of Senator Nickles' office. Chuck Marr and Anita Horn of Senator Daschle's and Senator Reid's staff also worked hard on this legislation. The Budget Committee staff also deserve praise. I refer to Bill Hoagland, Beth Felder, and Cheri Reidy. I also thank Marty Morris and Bruce King of the minority staff. None of this legislation would have been possible without the valuable work of the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, including Lindy Paull, Rick Grafmeyer, and the rest of the Joint Tax team. A special thanks also is due to Jim Fransen, Mark Mathiesen, and Janell Bentz from Senate Legislative Counsel. With respect to the marriage tax relief legislation, I also thank Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Sam Brownback, and John Ashcroft and their staffs, including Jim Hyland, Karen Knutson, and Brian Waidmann. On the death tax repeal bill, a special note of thanks to Tim Glazewski of Senator Jon Kyl's staff.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, the provisions in this bill will help 45 million families, and that is substantially every family in the U.S. Some of my colleagues have argued that almost half of those families do not deserve any tax relief. I reject that. I reject it because in my home state of Delaware it would mean leaving over 30,000 families that contributed to our ever-growing budget surplus out of family tax relief. They contributed to the surplus and they should benefit from the surplus. Today's bill amounts to less than 5 percent of the total budget surplus over the next 5 years. That is less than a nickel on the dollar of our total budget surplus. It amounts to just 9 percent of the total non-Social Security surplus over the next 5 years. That is less than a dime on the dollar of the non-Social Security surplus. A nickel and a dime--by any comparison or estimation, this marriage tax relief is fiscally responsible. Those who dispute that are themselves seeking to ``nickel-and-dime'' America's families out of tax relief. I ask those who oppose this family tax relief: just how big will America's budget surplus have to get before America's families deserve to receive some of their tax dollars back? If not now, when? If just 5 percent of the budget surplus and just 9 percent of the tax overpayment is too big a refund, how little should it be? How long do they have to wait? How hard do they have to work? How large an overpayment do they have to make? This bill is fair. We have addressed the three largest sources of marriage tax penalties in the tax code--the standard deduction, the rate brackets, and the earned income credit. We have done so in a way that does not create any new penalties--any new disincentives in the tax code. We have ensured that a family with one stay-at-home parent is not treated worse for tax purposes than a family where both parents work outside the home. This is an important principle because these are important families. Finally, we have made this tax relief immediate for the current year. That means when a couple files their tax return next April, they will be able to see and feel the results of our work. As a result, I believe that we should call this bill the ASAP tax relief bill for America's taxpayers--tax relief for America's families now. Despite the red flags thrown up by those who want to stand in the way of marriage tax relief, this bill actually makes the tax code more progressive. As a result, families with incomes under $100,000 will receive a proportionally larger tax cut. There is no honest way people can claim that this bill is tilted towards the rich. I believe that the real complaint of those who oppose this bill is not that it is tilted towards the rich--because it is not--but because it is tilted away from Washington. While I would rather have seen the 28 percent bracket doubling included in the bill, its absence does do one thing. Its absence removes any excuse for the President not to sign this bill. If President Clinton does not sign this bill, then there is only one explanation. No matter how much the amount of surplus, no matter how much the size of the tax overpayment, no matter how high the overall tax burden, and no matter how much families deserve tax relief, it is all less important to him than the fact that Washington wants the money more. Mr. President, the time for excuses has passed, the time for family tax relief has come. Yet some in the White House still disagree. Yesterday I received a letter from Treasury Secretary Summers in which he tried to raise two new excuses that are as transparent as they are late. First, he tried to over-estimate the cost of the tax relief passed by Congress this year. Despite his exaggerated figures, when Congress sends this bill to the President it, along with the other bills we have passed, comprise just $120 billion worth of tax relief over the next 5 years. Second, there is only one bill before us today and there will be only one bill when it arrives on his desk: family tax relief. When we look at this bill, we need to look at its actual provisions--not some concocted estimate of what another Congress and another President will do. Congress' official estimator scores this bill at under $90 billion for both five and ten years. That is the accurate figure and that is the appropriate measure of the tax relief before us today. Despite what the President's advisers may wish, the issue is whether he will or won't grant America's families the tax relief they have earned. Let's approve the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 and let's divorce the marriage tax penalty from the tax code once and for all. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume debate on the conference report to accompany the marriage penalty reconciliation bill. There will be 30 minutes for closing remarks, with a vote to occur on adoption of the conference report at approximately 9:30 a.m. As previously announced, this will be the only vote today. Following the disposition of the marriage penalty conference report, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the energy and water appropriations bill. Amendments are expected and Senators are encouraged to come to the floor to offer their amendments. I thank my colleagues for their attention.