Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. President, under our amendment, the public workers and private contractors alike will have a chance to compete for Department of Defense contracts. It will represent approximately $100 billion. Only about $1 billion of that is competed for. We believe competition is good. We believe competition will get the best product at the best price, which will reflect the unanimous recommendations of the recent study. Fewer than 1 percent of these Department of Defense service contracts are done in that way at this particular time. I don't understand for the life of me why there should be resistance or reluctance to these various proposals. This kind of proposal was considered by the Commercial Activities Panel on improving the sourcing division of the Government, which was chaired by the Comptroller of the United States. In this particular proposal, one of the recommendations, which was 12 to 0, was the amendment we are offering today. If our Republican friends have trouble with that, why wasn't there some opposition to that in this report? There was none. It is a unanimously favorable report. This wasn't Democrat and this wasn't Republican. These were contractors, representatives of the public, employees, and accountants, talking about how the U.S. Department of Defense could get the best buy for its money. It was said for years that we couldn't go ahead with competition until we finally got the Commercial Activities Panel report. That took a year and half and 11 different hearings with public comments from all over. This was unanimous. It was not 8 to 4; this proposal was unanimous. They believe as a result of their proposal that DOD is going to get the best services--the American taxpayers are going to get the best buy, the best service, and the men and women of the military are going to be best served. Why in the world the resistance to that argument? I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself another 2 minutes. I have listened to my friend and colleague. He says they are opposed because of cost. The fact is, how do they say it is going to cost more when we are going to get competition? We are going to get competition. The fact remains we have the unanimous recommendation of the group that studied this issue, and they believed the taxpayer would be best served, and DOD would be best served as well with that recommendation. What is the current situation? Under the current situation, I understand if you are able to get the contracts, you do not want to change the system. That is what is going on on the floor of the Senate. They do not want competition. They have their contracts. They have the sweetheart contracts, and they are saying no. Listen to this: The GAO found that the costs of nearly 3,000 spare parts purchased by the military increased by 1,000 percent or more in just 1 year. If you have that kind of contract, why do you want competition? There it is. Taxpayers are the ones losing out. One small part, a hub, estimated to cost $35, was sold to the Government at the contractor's price for $14,000. If you have that kind of deal, why do you want competition? That is the issue, plain and simple. It is not just the belief of the Senator from Massachusetts, that is the unanimous recommendation of those who have studied it, contractors, workers, and all. Most of us believe that competition does improve the services and the quality of the products. So you find out that is the result. We have heard time in and time out about the various kinds of products that have been produced, and the costs and the escalation of those costs. I have a sheet right in my hand. This is the GAO oversight. These are the costs on it. Hub, body, estimated to cost $35, sold for $14,000; transformer, radio, $683 was the unit price, but they charged $11,700; The list goes on and on.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time does the other side have?

Mr. KENNEDY. On the motion to table.

Mr. KENNEDY. I believe my time has expired. I believe we need to ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2002. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider nominations.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. on reauthorization of the National Transportation Safety Board.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate my colleague from New Hampshire for an excellent presentation. I look forward to supporting it for reasons that he has outlined. He made a very compelling case here this afternoon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Smith amendment be temporarily laid aside so that I may call up amendment No. 3918.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The clerk will report.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield myself 9 minutes. Mr. President, as I understand it, for the benefit of the Members, we are going to vote at 5:45. I bring to the attention of the floor leaders that we can have a vote on this at a time agreeable sometime in the middle of the morning tomorrow. We will have additional time to discuss this. I offer this amendment to promote public-private competition for Department of Defense work. Today, there is far too little real competition for contracts to provide goods and services to Federal agencies. We should be getting the most out of every taxpayer dollar. So if a Federal agency could do the job better and cheaper than a defense contractor, the Federal worker should get the job. Today, less than 1 percent of Department of Defense service contracts are subject to public-private competition. Only a tiny fraction of the more than 2 million DOD contracts face real competition. As a result, we are depriving loyal and dedicated public workers of the chance even to compete for their own jobs. At the same time, we are depriving the American people of the efficiencies they deserve, especially as we take on today's great challenges in defending the security of our Nation. My amendment would lower costs for taxpayers and enhance our Nation's readiness by promoting expanded public-private competition. Over the last decade, there has been a massive shift in who does the work for the Department of Defense. This work has shifted dramatically from civilian employees to private contractors. Between 1993 and 2001, the number of civilian employees at the Department of Defense declined by more than one-third. That represents the loss of 300,000 public jobs. The work has gone instead to private contractors. During a period of only 3 years, the contractor workforce expanded by almost 400 percent. The number of private contract jobs grew astoundingly, from 197,000 to 734,000 jobs--substantially surpassing the DOD's civilian workforce of public workers. These are the same contractors who overcharge the Defense Department and taxpayers for simple tools and even toilet seats. The GAO study found that the cost of nearly 3,000 spare parts purchased by the military from private contractors increased by a 1,000 percent or more in just 1 year. One spare part estimated to cost less than $3 was sold to the Government by contractors for $14,529. I have a list here from the GAO: A machine bolt, estimated at $40, actual price: $1,887; a hub body, estimate $35, actual price: $14,529; a self-locking nut, initial estimate $2.69, actual price: $2,185; a radio transformer, initial estimate $683, actual price: $11,000. The list goes on and on and on and on. Surely, the DOD found that the cost of spare parts increased more than twice as fast between 1993 to 2000 when there was no competition. Do we understand that the cost of these spare parts increased dramatically over the period of time when there was no competition. Surely, we can do better. The critical work by DOD is not subject to open, full competition. In many cases, the private contractors face no competition at all. In fact, the Associated Press reported last year that the Government bought more than half of its products without bidding or other practices to take advantage of the marketplace. As a result, current defense contractors are being unfairly shielded from competition. It is the taxpayers who are paying the price in higher costs. In any other area of American business, these noncompetitive practices would be unacceptable. In fact, no private company would reasonably outsource jobs without a hard-headed analysis showing cost savings. Even the Department of Defense recognized that real competition has been sorely lacking. When the inspector general looked at the Department of Defense service contract process in the year 2000, he concluded that 60 percent of service contracts suffered from ``inadequate competition.'' Despite these huge markups by private contractors, it doesn't mean their workers are being paid even a living wage. In fact, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, more than 1 in 10 Federal contract workers is earning poverty-level wages, and most of the firms paying these wages are defense contractors. Workers are losing out and taxpayers are losing out from this lack of competition. Clearly, more private-public competition is needed to ensure that the taxpayers, as well as public workers, are getting a fair shake. The record shows when there is real competition, public workers will show their strength. In fact, when Government agencies have competed for contracts, they have won the bids 60 percent of the time fair and square. The public-private competitions that have taken place have saved an average of over 30 percent for an estimated $660 million in savings to taxpayers. That means the taxpayers save money and good workers keep their jobs. The amendment I am offering this evening requires an analysis of the costs of maintaining work in the public sector and contracting work out to the private sector. It lays out flexible principles to guide the public-private competition process and allows DOD broad flexibility in establishing a competition consistent with these principles. The amendment also offers wide discretion to DOD by creating a number of exemptions from the public-private competition. When national security so demands, DOD is given the power to waive public-private competition.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the amendment also exempts many categories of work for public-private competition, including high-tech work. The amendment also provides a waiver to DOD for functions that must be performed urgently. Finally, it remains in the discretion of DOD to determine which jobs may be open to public-private competition. The principles underlying this legislation have broad support. In fact, the administration is on record for expanded public-private competition. I want to show statements that were made this past spring. This is Angela Styles of the Office of Management and Budget: No one in this administration cares who wins a public- private competition. But we very much care that government service is provided by those best able to do so. Every study on public-private competition I have seen concludes that these competitions generate significant cost savings. GAO recommendations: Competitions, including private competitions, have been shown to produce significant cost savings for the government, regardless of whether a public or private entity is selected. Mr. President, why not have competition? That is what this amendment is all about. When we have not had the competition, we have seen these explosions of cost. We are just saying let the Department of Defense set up the criteria. They can exclude the matters which are of national security importance, urgent, or have some other requirements. But when we have the results, as I mentioned, the fact we have bolts and self- locking nuts, radio transformers, routine matters--I have a list of over 30 items right here in my hand--cable assembly; linear microcircuit; aircraft stiffener, $125, sold for $3,400; insulation, $1, sold for $3,390. Why do we tolerate it, Mr. President? How can the Defense Department not be willing to accept this? I believe I have about 3 minutes. I yield those remaining 3 minutes to my friend and colleague from Hawaii.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have 12 minutes. I see my friend from Hawaii. He wanted to speak on my amendment. If the Chair reminds me when 9 minutes is up, if there is no objection, I will let the Senator from Hawaii speak for 3 minutes, if that is all right, following me.

Mr. KENNEDY. Just for a moment, if I have the opportunity to speak on another amendment as well. I will follow whatever procedure the chairman wishes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that immediately upon the reporting of my amendment, it be laid aside, and the Senate resume the consideration of the Smith amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my military fellow, Craig Faller, be afforded privileges of the floor for the duration of S. 2514.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I want to commend our colleagues, Senator Miller and Senator Graham, for their leadership in this area, which is of such enormous importance and consequence to people in my State of Massachusetts and across the country. I hope the American people are going to pay close attention to these presentations that are made today by both of these leaders, as well as my friend from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow, as they continue to help the American people understand what is really at stake. Medicare is a solemn promise between the government and the American people and between the generations. It says ``Play by the rules, contribute to the system during your working years, and you will be guaranteed health security in your retirement years.'' Because of Medicare, the elderly have long had insurance for their hospital bills and doctor bills. But the promise of health security at the core of Medicare is broken every day because Medicare does not cover the soaring price of prescription drugs. Too many elderly citizens must choose between food on the table and the medicine their doctors prescribe. Too many elderly are taking half the drugs their doctors prescribe--or none at all--because they can't afford them. The average senior citizen has an income of $15,000 and prescription drug costs of $2,100. Some must pay much more. I want to pick up on the issue of comparing the different bills. Hopefully, as we come to debate these issues and questions, we will begin to understand the importance of the differences in the Democratic and Republican bills. They are enormously different. The administration's first bill did not even pass the laugh test, and the bill that is being considered now by the Republicans in the House of Representatives does not pass the truth-in-advertising test. The administration allocated $190 billion. Senior citizens are going to spend $1.8 trillion for prescription drugs. So they get about 10 cents on the dollar to assist them, and there are still a lot of gimmicks they have to go through to get even that. Listen to the Republican proposal. The House Republicans have a proposal that says: If you have an income below 150 percent of poverty, you are not going to have to worry about your premiums, copayments, or deductibles. Doesn't that sound reasonable for low-income people? Except there is an assets test which the Miller-Graham proposal does not have. This is basically a hoax on the low-income people. To qualify for low-income subsidies under the Republican plan a senior cannot have $2,000 in savings. They cannot have $2,000 in furniture or property, they cannot have a car that is worth $4,500 or a burial plot that is worth $1,500. Any one of these assets disqualifies one from the Republican plan. Do they mention that? No. Do you read about it? No. Is it there? Yes. Effectively this writes off, writes out millions of low- income seniors. This group of seniors is seeing a fraud perpetrated on them. The Miller-Graham bill has rejected that concept. If we in the Senate are going to be true to our word, we will reject it, too. This will be an important battle. The second group of seniors is those with moderate incomes who are going to pay the $420 annual premium and the additional $250 deductible. We know they are going to get very little in return. They will pay up to $670 in premiums and deductibles before they are going to get any assistance at all. Those with prescription drug spending of $250 or less will pay $670 and receive no benefit. Seniors who have drug costs between $250 and $1,000 annually will spend up to $820 in annual costs but only receive up to $600 in benefits. Those seniors with prescription drug costs falling between $1,000 and $2,000 a year will pay premiums, deductibles, and copayments totaling up to $1,320 in return for benefits of up to only $1,100. Seniors ought to know just what help the Republicans are offering in their proposal. Finally there is the last group, individuals who still have a very modest income, but have prescription drug costs over $2,000. They are going to fall into the hole, as Senator Graham has pointed out. They will get no assistance for their drug costs once they reach $2,000. It is important to understand, as we begin this debate, who is going to be helped and who is not going to be helped. The Republican program fails to explain that either to their membership or to the American public. In each of these areas, the Miller-Graham bill rejects those artificial barriers and assists each and every citizen all the way through. That is a major difference. This is one of the important differences we ought to recognize. Here's another important difference. Rather than the safe, dependable Medicare system that senior citizens understand, the Republican plan is run through private insurance companies--pharmaceutical HMOs. They are allowed to set premiums at whatever the traffic will bear. And there is no guarantee that benefits will actually be available if private insurance companies decide they don't want to participate. Senior citizens have seen what has happened to HMOs in the regular Medicare program--cutbacks in benefits, withdrawal of services. They don't need that for lifesaving prescription drug coverage. And to complete this dishonor roll of the Republican plan, it does not even start until 2005. The Republican prescription for senior citizens: take two aspirin and call the pharmacy in two and a half years. Senior citizens and their children and their grandchildren understand that affordable, comprehensive prescription drug coverage under Medicare should be a priority. Let's listen to their voices instead of those of the powerful special interests. Let's pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit worthy of the name.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stacey Sachs be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join in celebrating World Refugee Day and the many contributions of refugees around the world. The United Nations High Commission on Refugees works tirelessly to provide hope and opportunity to many of the world's most vulnerable people, and I commend High Commissioner Lubbers for his leadership in this area. The focus of this year's celebration is on the critical situation of refugee women and children, who make up 70 percent of the refugee population. More must be done to address the special needs of these individuals, and World Refugee Day celebrations are an important step in the right direction. To celebrate this day, United Nations Goodwill Ambassador, Angelina Jolie has commissioned a national poster competition and I am proud to say a fifth-grade student from Newton, MA, Lev Matskevich, is one of the winners. I would like to congratulate all of the winners, Lev, Sarah Rahmani from Edmunds, WA, and Roxann Acuna from San Antonio, TX for their hard work not only on the posters, but in bringing needed attention to the plight of refugees. The theme of this year's poster contest, as it says proudly on Lev's poster, is tolerance. As a nation of immigrants we must remember that our tolerance toward immigrants has been a principal source of our progress and achievement. With this year's celebration of World Refugee Day and these wonderful posters, we continue the important tradition of recognizing the contributions of refugees and encouraging the United States' continued commitment to providing a safe-haven to those in need around the world.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Frist in introducing this important legislation to help in the international battle against the AIDS pandemic. AIDS is the fourth leading cause of death in the world. This disease ends lives, destroy families, undermines economies, and threatens the stability and progress of entire nations. We in America know the pain and loss that this disease cruelly inflicts. Millions of our fellow citizens, men, women, and children, are inflected with HIV/AIDS, and far too many have lost their lives. While we still seek a cure to AIDS, we have learned to help those infected by the virus to lead long and productive lives through the miracle of prescription drugs. But this disease knows no boundaries. It travels across borders to infect innocent people in every continent across the globe. We have an obligation to continue the fight against this disease at home. But we should also share what we have learned to help those in other countries in this life-and-death battle. And we must do all we can to provide new resources to help those who cannot afford today's therapies. We must carry the fight against AIDS to every corner of the globe, and the legislation that I am introducing with Senator Frist today is a step in that direction. The International AIDS Treatment and Prevention Act provides new legal authority and funding to our Nation's strongest health care agencies to join the global battle against AIDS. It promotes models of community-based care that reach the real people affected by this disease; better access to the research and therapies needed to prevent transmission of this deadly disease; and most importantly, funds research and treatment models to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS from mothers to their infants including the family support services necessary to stem the orphan crisis. Governments can make the difference in battling this epidemic. When governments in poor countries have been provided resources to fight the spread of AIDS, infection rates have dropped 80 percent. With this legislation, the United States will do its part to support countries to turn the corner of AIDS on their own. I am pleased that the administration is increasing funding for the fight against the global AIDS epidemic, and together with this legislation, we can truly lead the international community in the fight against the greatest public health threat of our times.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Defense authorization bill, we all know that this legislation is extremely important for our country. Around the world, the members of our armed forces are engaged in an ongoing and all-important battle against terrorism. Our men and women in uniform are serving with great skill and courage in defense of our freedom. They endure long hours and hazardous, life- threatening challenges. They do so with awe-inspiring spirit and determination that has made us all proud and that keeps our country free. I know I speak for all of us when I express our vast appreciation and respect for these courageous men and women. It is an essential priority for all of us in Congress to ensure that they have the resources needed to carry out their missions. Recruiting, training, and equipping the best possible force is the cornerstone of our Nation's military strength and superiority. The Armed Service Committee has produced a strong and effective bill to see that our military is well-prepared to face the challenges of the 21st century. The funds authorized for fiscal year 2003 demonstrate our strong commitment to the Nation's defense. The U.S. military is the most capable fighting force in the world and this bill is well designed to maintain that strength. This legislation also builds on the steps we have taken in recent years to improve the quality of life of our armed forces. The 4.1 percent pay increase is the fourth consecutive year that the committee has authorized a significant pay raise above the rate of inflation. The bill also maintains support for reducing out-of-pocket housing expenses from 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent, with the goal of reducing them to zero by fiscal year 2005. Additionally, the bill adds $640 million above the President's budget request for military construction. In recent years improvements in TRICARE and prescription drug benefits have dramatically improved the quality of life for service members, retirees, and their families. This bill also addresses the quality of life issue by providing $35 million to public school systems that serve large numbers of military children and children with severe disabilities. The bill also directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a quadrennial review of the quality of life of our service members. For many years, we have emphasized a quadrennial review of our defense strategy. Under Personnel Subcommittee chairman Max Cleland's leadership, we have now recognized that the morale and well-being of our service members is vital to an effective national defense. As chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I have consistently advocated a strong Navy-Marine Corps team as a major part of the Nation's defense. This bill supports the President's budget request for shipbuilding. We have also worked hard in the committee to provide additional funds for advanced procurement of Virginia Class attack submarines, Arleigh Burke Class destroyers (DDG-51) and San Antonio Class amphibious transport dock ships (LPD-17). These funds do not buy additional ships, but they will contribute to solving the shipbuilding shortfall that is a great concern to our committee. The committee has resisted efforts to fund additional ships through reductions in the Operations and Maintenance accounts. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines need these funds to carry out their day-to-day operations, maintenance and training. Instead, the committee rightly focused on providing modest increases to the shipbuilding accounts from the missile defense fund. After reviewing the administration's proposal, we found that a small reduction in this fund is justified. We believe this proposal is the best way to sustain the readiness of our armed forces to conduct their full range of operations and missions. The bill also improves the ability of the armed forces to meet non- traditional threats, including terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Overall, $10 billion is provided for combating terrorism. Significantly, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Defense to expand the Cooperative Threat Reduction program beyond the countries of the former Soviet Union. A major priority in our defense strategy continues to be the ability to deter a potential adversary. If deterrence ultimately fails, we must be prepared to fight and win future conflicts. The $300 million added by the committee to the science and technology budget brings the Department of Defense closer to the goal of devoting 3 percent of all defense funds to the cutting edge technology that can bring us new systems and more effective deterrence. Key discussions by the Department of Defense and Congress on past defense budgets contributed significantly to the outstanding performance of our armed forces in Operation Enduring Freedom. Now more than ever, we must think creatively about the future and do all we can to enhance our readiness and our technological edge to meet the challenges we will face. I urge the Senate to approve this legislation as an important part of that effort.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Frist in introducing this important legislation to help in the international battle against the AIDS pandemic. AIDS is the fourth leading cause of death in the world. This disease ends lives, destroy families, undermines economies, and threatens the stability and progress of entire nations. We in America know the pain and loss that this disease cruelly inflicts. Millions of our fellow citizens, men, women, and children, are inflected with HIV/AIDS, and far too many have lost their lives. While we still seek a cure to AIDS, we have learned to help those infected by the virus to lead long and productive lives through the miracle of prescription drugs. But this disease knows no boundaries. It travels across borders to infect innocent people in every continent across the globe. We have an obligation to continue the fight against this disease at home. But we should also share what we have learned to help those in other countries in this life-and-death battle. And we must do all we can to provide new resources to help those who cannot afford today's therapies. We must carry the fight against AIDS to every corner of the globe, and the legislation that I am introducing with Senator Frist today is a step in that direction. The International AIDS Treatment and Prevention Act provides new legal authority and funding to our Nation's strongest health care agencies to join the global battle against AIDS. It promotes models of community-based care that reach the real people affected by this disease; better access to the research and therapies needed to prevent transmission of this deadly disease; and most importantly, funds research and treatment models to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS from mothers to their infants including the family support services necessary to stem the orphan crisis. Governments can make the difference in battling this epidemic. When governments in poor countries have been provided resources to fight the spread of AIDS, infection rates have dropped 80 percent. With this legislation, the United States will do its part to support countries to turn the corner of AIDS on their own. I am pleased that the administration is increasing funding for the fight against the global AIDS epidemic, and together with this legislation, we can truly lead the international community in the fight against the greatest public health threat of our times.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today I am introducing the Efficiency in Health Care, eHealth Care, Act. The time is long overdue to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of America's antiquated healthcare information technology systems. We can achieve large cost savings and improve patient care by bringing the nation's health care systems into the information age. The eHealth Care Act provides modern standards for financial transactions such as billing and claims processing that can only be met by adoption of the same kind of high volume, speedy, cost-efficient technology that has dramatically lowered administrative costs in other industries. The new standards will be coupled with grants to health care providers to assist them in upgrading their information technologies to meet these new demands. Estimates are that administrative costs currently represent 20 to 30 percent of health care spending, or up to $420 billion each year. While other industries are making full use of available information technology, health care has been a very slow adopter. And this bill will reduce health care administration by as much as $300 billion a year, enough to provide universal health coverage for every American many times over. The sad fact is that processing a single health care transaction can cost as much as 25 dollars. Other industries have drastically reduced administrative costs by using modern information technology. Banks and brokerages have cut their costs to less than a penny per transaction using modern technology. Health care remains one of the few industries clinging to antiquated 20th century technology while the rest of the Nation's businesses have moved into the 21st century. This bill will provide the tools for health care systems to make a great leap forward by using new technologies to cut costs. Recent breakthroughs in technology not only can save money, but also can provide more timely and accurate billing and claims transactions. Today, only 10 or 15 percent of all patient charts are available electronically, and it costs about $9 each and every time a doctor has to pull a patient's chart. Even worse, despite the high cost, the patient's chart is often incomplete. Through advances in technology, doctors should be able to access complete patient records at a huge cost saving. That is not only more efficient care, it is better care. Today, 30 percent of doctor's claims leave the physician's office with errors, and nearly 15 percent get lost. Manual procedures for handling referrals, eligibility, treatment authorizations, and explanations of benefits can add anywhere from $10 to $85 per transaction. In fact, estimates are that $250 billion is spent each year on medical claims paperwork. Paper claims processing amounts to $28,000 per physician and $12.7 billion for all physicians each year. Conducting these transactions online could cut that figure tenfold. We are clearly not getting much bang for our buck. The eHealth Care Act will provide the standards needed for health plans, insurers, providers, and patients to realize both the cost savings and better billing and claims transactions. But the cost to the health care system is not just monetary. The eHealth Care bill will also set standards for physicians ordering prescription medications. Medication errors are responsible for over 7,000 deaths annually, but doctors currently write only 1 percent of prescriptions electronically. By requiring adoption of computerized systems for writing prescriptions, errors due to mistaken prescriptions or illegible handwriting will be reduced. There is no excuse for patients to be harmed and even die when we have the technology to save them. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to get this very important legislation passed.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today I am introducing the Health Care for Working Families Act, a bill that will make the basic human right to health care a reality for millions of working Americans and their families. The tragedy of September 11 created a special obligation to address the injustices that have festered for far too long within our national family. The brave passengers of Flight 93 fought and defied the terrorists and saved the lives of thousands. Construction and health workers braved the treacherous fire and debris to rescue survivors and recover the remains of those who lost their lives. Police and firefighters, and ordinary citizens, gave their lives so that others might live. And thousands of Americans all over the country lined up to donate blood to help the victims. I believe that the most enduring legacy of the September 11 attacks is a new sense of community among all Americans. A nation that has united to battle a terrorist threat from abroad can also unite to vanquish the conditions here at home that curtail the opportunities and sadden the lives of so many of our fellow citizens. Just as the British people came together after World War II to provide health care for all citizens of the United Kingdom, we join hands after September 11 to guarantee all citizens of the United States the protection and opportunity that should be their birthright. There is no area where action is more urgently needed than health care. Americans are rightly proud to be at the forefront of medical and scientific advancement. In the past year, we successfully mapped the human genome. We developed new pharmaceuticals to target specific cancers. We have seen the promise stem cell research gives to millions suffering from chronic diseases. We clearly recognize the value of scientific achievement and have always been supportive of the great institutions and individuals that are driving our progress. But our successes in the science of medicine must not blind us to the great failure of our health care system, the failure to provide affordable, quality health insurance to all our people. We lead the world in medical research. We lead the world in our capacity to cure and treat the most complex and deadly illnesses. But we lag behind every country in the industrial world in guaranteeing all our people access to the best medical care we can offer. And today we face another health care crisis as the number of the uninsured has begun to rise and rise rapidly. Health care is not just another commodity. It is not a gift to be rationed based on the ability to pay. The state of a family's health should not be determined by the size of a family's wealth. Yet, thirty-nine million Americans now have no health insurance at all. Over the course of a year, 30 million more will lack coverage for an extended period. It is unacceptable that any American is uninsured. It is shameful that thirty-nine million Americans are uninsured. And it is intolerable that the number of uninsured is now rising again and, if we do nothing, could reach more than 52 million by the end of the decade. Who are the 39 million uninsured Americans who must go without the health care they need because they must do without the health insurance they deserve? Over 80 percent are members of working families. They are grocery baggers, car mechanics, construction workers. They are factory workers, nurses and nurses aides, secretaries and the self-employed. They are child care workers and waiters and cooks. They are teachers and social workers. They are veterans. They are people who wake up every morning and go to work. They work hard 40 hours a week and fifty- two weeks a year, but all their hard work cannot buy them the health insurance they need to protect themselves and their families, because they can't afford it and their employers don't provide it. They play by the rules. They stand by their families and their country. But when it comes to health insurance, America has let them down. A recent report by the Institute of Medicine lays out the stark result of America's failure to provide health insurance. Cancer, stroke, heart disease, leukemia, AIDS, and other serious illnesses know nothing about insurance, or economic class or race or creed. They can strike anyone equally. And when they do, the uninsured are left out and left behind. In hospital or out, young or old, black or white, the uninsured receive less care, suffer more pain, and die at higher rates than those who are insured. One-third of uninsured Americans will simply go without care when they get sick instead of seeking medical attention. They stop and ask themselves whether their symptoms or their childrens symptoms are truly worth a doctor visit. Is this cough just a cold or could it be strep throat? Is this pain in my bones indicative of something more serious or will it eventually go away if I ignore it? Millions of families are forced to decide between their health and other necessities of life. They ration health care for themselves and their children, and too often they pay a terrible price. Every year, 8 million uninsured Americans fail to take their medications because they can't afford to pay for their prescriptions. 300,000 children with asthma never get treated by a doctor. Uninsured women diagnosed with breast cancer are 50 percent more likely to die from the disease because their cancer is diagnosed later. 32,000 Americans with heart disease go without life-saving bypass surgery or angioplasty. The chilling bottom line is that Americans without health insurance are one-quarter more likely to die prematurely solely because they lack coverage. The legislation I am introducing today is a major step forward toward the day when all Americans will enjoy the health insurance that should be their birthright This measure will require every firm with more than 100 workers to provide health insurance coverage for employees and their dependents. This coverage must be as good as the coverage now provided for Federal employees. If good health insurance coverage is available to every member of the Senate, to every member of the House, and to the President of the United States, it ought to be available to every other American too. This measure alone would assure coverage for more than a third of today's uninsured workers. For generations we have required employers to contribute to Social Security and then to Medicare. We have required them to pay a minimum wage, and contribute to unemployment insurance. Now it is time to say, at least for large firms, that they also have an obligation to contribute to the cost of health insurance for their employees. The vast majority of large businesses already do so, and the rest should fulfill that obligation, too. The legislation I am introducing is supported by more than 100 health, labor, elderly, disability, church, and family groups. It deserves the support of Congress as the single most important way to move America closer to the goal of health care for all. This legislation is an important first step toward the day when the fundamental right to health care will be a reality for every American. But it is only a first step. Later this year, after broad consultation with affected groups, I will introduce legislation to assure that all Americans, wherever they work, wherever they live, have the quality, affordable health insurance coverage they deserve. Health care is a defining test of our commitment and our national character. The American people have shown that they are ready for great missions. They are the creators of the new spirit of September 11. Now, we in public life must live up to the standards they have set. We must strive to do what is best, in health and education as well as national defense, and we must measure our success by what we accomplish not just for one political party or another, not for this or that interest group, but for America and its enduring ideal of liberty and justice for all.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the matter before the Senate at the present time is an amendment offered by my friend, Senator Brownback. I will address the issues raised by that amendment. We are considering a question that is of vital importance for every American affected by diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's disease, or other serious disorders. That question is whether we will permit a type of life-saving medical research to achieve its full potential to heal illnesses and cure disease--or whether we will stop this promising research dead in its tracks and deny its benefits to millions of Americans. We all know where Senator Brownback stands on the issue of medical research using the breakthrough new technique of nuclear transplantation. My friend from Kansas wants to ban this research forever. That's the position he has stated time and again in this Chamber and in forums across the country. And that is what the amendment that he offers today will accomplish. Members of this body have spent long, serious hours grappling with the complex scientific and ethical issues raised by the issue of human cloning. Senators know the difference between human cloning and medical research. Human cloning produces a human being. Medical research is done in a laboratory dish and produces cells. But these cells can be used by doctors to develop astonishing transplants that will never be rejected by a patient's own body. A majority of the Senate opposes any legislation to ban, even temporarily, the lifesaving research on nuclear transplantation that brings such hope to so many of our constituents. In the innocuous guise of an amendment to suspend certain aspects of the patent law, my friend from Kansas is trying to accomplish the goal he has long sought-- banning medical research that uses nuclear transplantation. The Brownsack amendment does many things. First, it bans patents on any cloned human being. It seems to me that if we want to ban human cloning, then we should ban it--pure and sample. I introduced legislation with Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Hatch to ban human cloning in a straightforward way. Our legislation makes human cloning a crime punishable by 10 years in prison and substantial fines. That's the way to prohibit cloning. Using cloning to reproduce a child is improper and immoral--and it ought to be illegal. I think that every Member of the Senator would agree on this point. Some want to use our opposition to human cloning to advance a more sweeping agenda. In the name of banning cloning, they would place unwarranted restrictions on medical research that could improve and extend countless lives. In a letter to the Congress, 40 Nobel Laureates wrote that these restrictions would ``impede progress against some of the most debilitating diseases known to man.'' Of course we should reject the offensive idea that human beings could be patented, as the Patent Office already rightly does. But the Brownback amendment goes far belong this commonsense proposal. It is so broadly written as to ban patents on single cells derived from medical laboratory research using cloning techniques. It even bans patents on the processes used to conduct this important medical research. Why would my friend from Kansas propose such sweeping bans on patents? He offers this proposal precisely because he knows that if it is enacted, it will eviscerate this research. The extraordinary progress in medical research that we have seen in recent years relies on two great motors of innovation: NIH funding and a dynamic private biotechnology sector. But when it comes to vital research using nuclear transplantation techniques, one of those motors has already been broken. There are no research grants being given by NIH or any other Federal agency for this research. There never have been, and under this administration, there never will be. If we had allowed our Nation's great research universities to conduct extensive nuclear transplanation research, there's no telling what medical miracles we might have seen by now. Perhaps scientists using NIH funds could have already developed replacement cells for little children with diabetes that would never run the risk of tissue rejection. Perhaps those same NIH-funded scientists could have developed new cures for those whose minds and memories slowly ebb away on the tide of Alzheimer's disease. Fortunately, we have a robust and dynamic biotechnology industry where new cures are developed and new discoveries made. Because NIH will not fund nuclear transplantation research, every major discovery in this field has come from funds provided by biotechnology companies. But the biotechnology industry runs on patents. Abraham Lincoln said that the patent system ``added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.'' The Brownback amendment would permanently shut off the supply of that fuel. It would accomplish Senator Brownback's long-held goal of banning this medical research entirely. NIH already can't fund it and the Brownback amendment would make sure no biotechnology company would touch it. Instead of debating peripheral issues like patents, we should be debating the question that's at the core of this debate, whether we should allow or prohibit a type of medical research that bring hope to millions of Americans simply because it seems new or strange to some people. We offered our opponents on this issue the opportunity for a debate, but they declined that offer. I am saddened by this decision, because I believe that these issues deserve to be debated thoroughly on their own merits, not hastily considered as part of legislation on insurance. I hope that we will have the opportunity for a full debate on the issue of cloning, as I know it is of profound interest to many of our colleagues. It has been my privilege to take part in some of the other great debates we have had over the years on issues raised by the progress of science. In the 1970s we debated whether to ban the basic techniques of biotechnology. Some of the very same arguments that are raised against nuclear transplantation research today were raised against biotechnology back then. Some said that it would lead to ecological catastrophe or genetic monsters. Critics told us that the new science of recombinant DNA research was unproven and untested. They said that it might never yield new cures and that its benefits would never materialize. We could not know in the 1970s all the incredible advances that recombinant DNA research would bring, not only in medical breakthroughs, but in so many different aspects of our lives. We didn't know then that DNA fingerprinting would one day ensure that criminals are punished and the wrongly imprisoned are released. But that is what is happening today. We did not know then that scientists would learn to put thousands of genes on a tiny chip, so that medicines can be customized for the genetic signature of an individual patient. But that is what is happening today. We did not know any of this in the 1970s. But we did know that recombinant DNA research offered extraordinary promise and that it should not be banned. Because Congress rejected those arguments then, patients across America today can benefit from breakthrough new biotechnology products that help dissolve clots in the arteries of stroke victims, fight leukemia, and help those with crippling arthritis lead productive lives. When in vitro fertilization was first developed in the 1980s, it too was bitterly denounced. And once again, there were calls to make this medical breakthrough illegal. Because Congress rejected those arguments then, thousands of Americans today can experience the joys of parenthood through the very techniques that were once so strongly opposed. Even heart transplants once seemed new or strange. Some denounced the idea of taking a beating heart from the chest of one person and placing it in the body of another. But this debate is not about abstract ideas or complex medical terms. It is about real people who could be helped by this research. Dr. Douglas Melton is one of the nation's foremost researchers on diabetes. For Dr. Melton, the stakes involved in this research could not be higher. His young son, Sam, has juvenile diabetes, and Dr. Melton works tirelessly to find a cure for his son's condition. One of the most promising areas of research on diabetes involves using stem cells to provide the insulin that Sam, and thousands of children like him, need to live healthy, active lives. But a shadow looms over this research. A patient's body may reject the very cells intended to provide a cure. To unlock the potential of stem cell research, doctors are trying to reprogram stem cells with a patient's own genetic material. Using the breakthrough technique of nuclear transplantation, each one of us could receive transplants or new cells perfectly matched to our own bodies. Can we really tell Sam Melton, and the millions of Americans suffering from diabetes, or Parkinson's disease, or spinal injuries that we won't pursue every opportunity to find a cure for their disorders? Some who support the Brownback proposal say that the science is still uncertain, that we should delay this research because we can not predict what avenue of scientific inquiry will be the quickest pathway to a breakthrough. The Brownback amendment makes certain that breakthrough cures will never see the light of day. If Congress adopts that proposal, we can be certain that doctors will never use this medical research to develop new pancreas cells for diabetics that are perfectly matched to the patient's own body. We can be certain that doctors will never use these techniques for important new insights into the basic mechanisms of Parkinson disease or Alzheimer's disease. We can be certain that patients in every community in every State in the Nation will be denied the hope and the benefits that this research brings. That is the kind of certainty the Brownback amendment brings. If you want to accept this false and dangerous certainty, then you should vote for his amendment. But if you want to promote life saving medical research, if you want to side with patients, if you want to take a chance on hope, then I urge you to vote for patients, for medicine, for hope and for the bipartisan proposal that I have introduced with Senator Specter, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and many other colleagues. I yield the floor.