Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to respond. I hope we can do this briefly because we are going to recess. I will let the Senator from North Carolina respond to that, if I may.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes; briefly.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. In the press conference of the Republican leadership, it was represented that there were complicated changes and alterations to the bill. The Senator responded to questions raised as to what these changes and clarifications are. This is a result of the White House asking the principals to work out some clarification in these areas and to accommodate these kinds of requests. Those changes were made. Now they are being used as an excuse for failing to bring this matter up.

Mr. KENNEDY. I asked specifically whether the Senator agreed with the President's principles. The Senator said yes, he did. He went on to say that the language in the legislation opens up massive opportunity for suing employers, which is different. He answered my question. I am reclaiming my time since I only have about a minute and a half left. I wish we had the opportunity to debate this because it is very clear what has been done with the drafting of this legislation. The employers, outside of those who are actually going to be making medical decisions affecting patients, are excluded. I have been going to the conferences with those who are opposed to it. They say, oh, no, that is not what it does. It is a favorite whipping provision in this language. They keep saying that isn't what it does. That is what we intend to do. That is what we have done in this language. We will have more of an opportunity to debate that later.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will have to reclaim the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I only have about 5 or 6 minutes to be able to make some presentation on this. I look forward to that time. I will be glad to yield. Could I ask that we defer the recess time from 12:30 until 12:35?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we only have 2 or 3 more minutes. I wanted to give the opportunity for a response. I think the answer, as the Senator pointed out, is read from President Bush's own words. Only employers who retain responsibility for or make final medical decisions should be subject to suit. It is that language and that principle that has been included in the language. If the Senator from New Hampshire thinks that is in some way ambiguous, or doesn't achieve that objective, that is the objective that we had. That is the language that was drafted in the Senate to carry that purpose forward. But we are open. Does he agree with that principle? I ask the Senator. Does the Senator agree with that fundamental principle or differ with the President on it?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. That is right.

Mr. KENNEDY. At the end of this discussion today, we ought to realize that virtually every single medical organization--the American Medical Association, children's health, women's health, disability organizations, senior health organizations, and patient organizations-- is supporting this bipartisan proposal. There are but a handful of organizations that support our opponents' proposal, and virtually all of these organizations have also endorsed our bill. I put that out as a challenge. I hope those who are opposed to this bipartisan proposal are going to at least give us the credit for the very breadth of support that comes to this proposal. This comes from people who have studied this issue, worked this issue, and whose livelihood is affected by this issue in terms of the type of care they can provide for families all across this country. So, Madam President, I look forward to the debate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. We want to make sure the patients receive the prescription drugs that their doctors prescribe. This is not always the case. It is difficult to believe, but it is not the case in too many HMOs. The list goes on. This bill prohibits clauses which frequently gag medical professionals and doctors from recommending what is best for patients. This bill also prohibits financial incentives to deny care. It is difficult for most of us to believe what exists in many HMO contracts at this time. Many have major financial incentives for doctors--if they do not prescribe certain care, doctors can enhance their financial situation. Any legislation ought to have that particular protection, as well as protections for the providers who advocate for patients. We want to make sure we have a good internal appeals process conducted in a timely way. So if there is a question of getting the treatment, it is done in a timely way. We also need a timely independent external appeals process. There are those who think if the HMO makes a recommendation on appeal, then that is good enough. Recommendations should be independent. In States with the external appeals process, it is done independently. We should do no less. We will have a chance to debate that. Surprisingly, it is debatable, but the protection makes a good deal of sense. Health plans should be held accountable in Federal court when contract disputes result in injury or death. Plans should be held accountable in State courts when a disputed medical judgment results in injury or death. The judicial conference has made these recommendations, and it is, by and large, the situation we have in the State of Texas at the present time. Since 1997, we have seen only a handful of suits take place. If the Chair will let me know when I have 1 minute left, please? Let's take a look here, once again, why it is so important to pass this bill. I will do this very quickly. Every day we fail to act, this is what it means in terms of American patients being hurt. The number of patients affected every day from health care abuse--from delay in needed care--is 35,000; from delay in specialty care, the number of patients affected every day is 35,000; and from HMOs forcing patients to change doctors, 31,000 patients are affected each day. As a result of that, 59,000 patients every day have added pain and suffering, and 41,000 patients every day experience worsened conditions. That is happening every single day. That is why we believe it is so important to provide protections. Doctors know that congressional delay means patient suffering. That was the result from a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation. It illustrates that 14,000 doctors each day see patients suffering from serious decline in their health because of abuses by health plans. It happens from health plans denying coverage of physician recommended prescription drugs. Each day, 14,000 doctors prescribe prescription drugs, and patients do not receive these necessary drugs. There are 10,000 doctors every day recommending various diagnostic tests so they can analyze the health care needs of their patients, but patients are denied coverage for these tests. And there are 7,000 doctors who are recommending specialty care for their patients. They have made the decision and have found it necessary, but the specialty care is being denied. There are 6,000 doctors who say patients ought to stay overnight in the hospital, but it is being denied. And there are 6,000 doctors who see their referral for mental health or substance abuse treatment denied--every single day, that is happening. This is why we need to address this situation across this country-- north, south, east, and west. We ought to establish a basic floor of protections. We ought to have accountability, because when we have accountability, HMOs do the correct thing. If we look at what has happened, we just finished 8 weeks on the floor of the Senate where rarely a speech was made about education when we did not hear about accountability. Remember that? We are going to have accountability for children, third grade through eighth, for taking tests. We are going to have accountability for schools. If they don't shape up, they will be restructured and reorganized. Accountability on the parents, accountability on the States-- accountability, accountability, accountability. This is all we are saying--when we have accountability, which means when a decision is made by an HMO that overrides a doctor's decision, and that decision results in harm, death, or injury to a patient, the HMO should be held responsible for its decision. When we include this protection in HMOs, we find the number of harmful decisions falls. If you look at the State of Texas where they have had this protection in effect for 3\1/2\ years, they have had about a dozen cases. If you look at the State of California-- which has a very tough protection not dissimilar from what we are talking about, but also has accountability--they have no cases to date. None, zero. This has been a surprise to the industry and to other health observers in California. There have been 200 appeals out there. Mr. President, 65 percent of those appeals have been decided in favor of the HMO, but they still have not had those cases brought to court. But what you do have is guarantees to patients, such as the ones we have outlined here in this particular list. That has been true. Finally, we have about 50 million Americans through their own contract--State and county workers--who have the opportunity to sue the HMOs under that particular contract. We don't find the kind of abuses the naysayers will talk about in terms of this legislation, and we find their premiums are very much along the lines of the others. We are looking forward to this debate tomorrow. I welcome the opportunity to finally bring this bill up. I am grateful to the leadership of Senator Daschle who has urged us to move on this in a timely way. In the past, we haven't been able to bring this up in the way we will tomorrow--as a free and open debate. We have had to bring it up in other circumstances, at other times, using the rules of the Senate to insist that the Senate address it. Now we will have the chance for a free and open debate. We want progress on this legislation. It is necessary. In the last week, we were able to work out--with the administration and others--a very solid result for education reform. I am still not satisfied it will benefit all the children it should because although the authorization will ensure that all children will benefit, we are going to have to make an issue on those questions. I wish we had that same opportunity on health care as well because this protection is of such enormous importance to families across the Nation. I look forward to the debate. I hope we can get to this bill in a timely way. We had a full opportunity to examine and look at the various provisions. We already debated and acted on most of these provisions 2\1/2\ years ago. This is a substantive matter with which Members should be familiar. The need is paramount. I look forward to working with our colleagues on all sides of the aisle. I look forward to, hopefully, working with the administration so we can enact legislation that will make sure that when doctors make a decision with a family, it will be a decision that will stand. Doctors need that kind of protection. Health professionals need that protection. Importantly, patients need that protection. That is what this legislation is really all about. We look forward to working with our colleagues to make sure we get the job done. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend from Pennsylvania. Could I go for 10 more minutes? I ask unanimous consent for 10 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, tomorrow I am very hopeful we will at long last have the opportunity to consider, again, legislation to protect American patients from HMO abuses. Across the country, we have seen abuses as a result of HMOs interfering with the decisions being made daily by doctors, nurses, and family physicians. Health care professionals are seeing their decisions overruled by HMO accountants who, in many instances, are many miles away. These accountants do not have the professional training that the doctors and the nurses initially making that judgment and decision have received. They are not seeing the patient and are more interested in the bottom line for the HMO rather than the good outcome for the patient. This legislation has been out there for nearly 5 years. During that period of time, we have had some debate. We have had some votes in the Senate, but it seems to me we now have a chance to finally give Americans the protections they want and deserve. I will take a few moments this afternoon to review, once again, what this legislation is about. This legislation recognizes that managed care too often means ``mismanaged'' care. We have the opportunity to change that. We should change it and establish a minimum standard of quality care. If individual States want to build on those standards, that should be the decision for the States, but we ought to establish a minimum standard. That is what this legislation, before the Senate tomorrow, will do. This legislation basically incorporates the protections which are already in effect in the Medicare and Medicaid protections. Many of the protections included in this bill have been recommended by insurance commissioners who are not Democrats or Republicans. Actually, if you looked, there are probably more Republicans than Democrats among this group. A few protections included in the bill are the result of the unanimous bipartisan commission, set up 3 years ago, that made a series of recommendations. The protections included here reflect a unanimous vote by the commission. I will review them quickly. It is important we understand the introduced proposal now known as the McCain-Edwards legislation. I am a strong supporter. Senator Daschle is a strong supporter, as well as others. Over the weekend, more than 44 State medical societies wrote their Senators indicating their strong support for this legislation. As of this afternoon, more than 600 health organizations from across the country support the McCain-Edwards legislation. I would be surprised if the other side can find about 15 supportive organizations. Virtually the entire medical community--not only the professional doctors, nurses, consumers, but the advocates--understand the importance of this legislation and support it, along with the senior organizations. The disability community understands this legislation. This bill provides care for children and others that have special needs as a result of their condition. Virtually every health organization supports it. This bill has bipartisan support. Sixty-three Republicans effectively supported this legislation in the House of Representatives, and it has bipartisan support in the Senate. I daresay if one asks Republicans or Independents across the country-- whether in the upper parts of the State of Maine, southern Florida, California, or the State of Washington--this bill has common interest and common concern across the Nation. So many of the issues we deal with in the Senate have support only in one region of the country among one particular group, and they usually face strong opposition in other parts of the country. The principal opposition--the singular opposition--is the insurance companies and the HMOs. If one looks at the breadth of support on our side, it is not just the bipartisan membership bringing this and supporting this, Republicans and Democrats alike. Dr. Norwood in the House of Representatives, Congressman Ganske, and others in the House of Representatives--along with Congressman Dingell support the bill. In the Senate, we have Senator McCain and others, including Senator Specter, who is on the floor at this time, and other Members who support this concept. It is understandable because this bill has compelling reason for protections. They are commonsense protections. First, we want to protect all patients. That is very fundamental and important. We don't want legislation that alleges coverage for all, but creates sufficient loopholes so large numbers of our American families will not be covered. President Bush has recognized this principle. He wants to make sure all families and all patients will be covered. We talk about access to specialists. It includes out-of-network service. I can remember in my own family situation, my son Teddy was 12 years old, and he had a particular type of cancer--Osteosarcoma. About 1,500 children have this kind of cancer every year. It took a child pediatric oncologist who could understand his real needs and was able to make the recommendations for treatment of that particular need. We want to make sure if other families have either children or loved ones who need the kind of specialty care that is outside of the network, then they will be able to access the best of the speciality's trained medical professional. We want to make sure it is guaranteed. In too many instances today, it is not guaranteed. We want to make assure care coordination and standing referrals. This is especially important for individuals who have a disability, so they don't have to go back every single time to their primary care physician for a referral. We need care coordination and protections particularly because some patients have complicated, involved health care needs or disabilities. This is enormously important. It is a feature the disability community cares so much about. It makes sense and provides savings for resources. Next, this bill protects coverage for clinical trials. A lot of Members say they support clinical trials. We voted on this issue in the Senate not along ago. We did not guarantee access to clinical trials. There is a decline in the number of clinical trials at the present time--at a time when we are supporting dramatic increases in the NIH budget, and at the time of the century that we will see the greatest progress in the life sciences that we have ever seen. As the previous century was the age of engineering, chemistry, and physics, this is the century of the life sciences. When we pick up a newspaper each day, we find that new breakthroughs are taking place. The only way we can get the breakthroughs from the laboratory to the bedside is through clinical trials. We have to make sure we encourage clinical trials. We are seeing a decline in the number of clinical trials because the industry will not continue to support these programs. We will have a chance to get into this in greater detail. Obviously, when we debate clinical trials, the additional kinds of health care costs that are entailed should be covered by the clinical trials. But there should be basic coverage for that individual who has a health care need that should be continued by the insurance company. It is always amazing to me why insurance companies or HMOs will not support it. If the person gets better as a result of the clinical trials, it is going to save the health plan resources, and it is not going to put them at greater risk. Next, coverage for emergency care. In too many instances, if patients go to another emergency room or another emergency care facility or hospital, the HMO will not cover it. That makes absolutely no sense. Direct access to OB/GYN providers and pediatricians is enormously important. It is an issue that is of primary concern to women, so they can have the OB/GYN as their primary care doctors. Certainly for primary care physicians, the need for pediatricians for children ought to be very clear and supported.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I don't think we called on him more than 25 times a day, asking him to come out here to help us out. But in a serious way, I just underline what Senator Reid has said: The ultimate credit for this achievement is with the leader of the Senate; that is, our new leader and our friend, Senator Daschle. I think all of us understand that is what leadership is really about. We were able to get this done and done in a bipartisan way. Senator Daschle announced when he assumed the leadership the way he wanted this institution to be run, and that is the way it was run. Members all through this debate were able to have their views either voted on or considered, unfettered by parliamentary gimmicks. The abuse of parliamentary technique was not in play. There was full, open, frank debate and discussion and accountability. It is a breath of fresh air in terms of the functioning of this body. It is really what I think most of us believe this body is really all about. It is a real honor and pleasure to know Tom Daschle is leading this institution. I thank him for his words.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator and yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to, first, express appreciation to many of our colleagues and friends and then say a very brief word about what I think this bill is really about. I want to start off by thanking the extraordinary staffs, mine and those of the members of our committee, Democrats and Republicans alike. We are enormously blessed to have men and women who are committed and dedicated to trying to strengthen the educational system of this country. To a great extent I hope they feel some satisfaction this evening with the completion of this legislation. As has been pointed out by my friend Senator Dodd, we had areas of differences but there was no real difference in our desire to send a very clear message, which tonight we are sending to families all across this country, that help is on the way. The legislation that was passed a short while ago was not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill; it was an education bill. Stated very clearly with this extraordinary vote--91 votes in favor of this legislation--this Senate is committed to the future of this country. That is what this is about. It is about the hopes and dreams of children, their desire to excel in athletics and sports, but also in the classrooms. When they have exciting and innovative and creative teachers, when they have interesting curricula and it is all well taught and supported by parents--all of that is really about the future of America. This vote this evening is a clear manifestation of what has been happening over the past days on the floor of the Senate. Democrats and Republicans were coming together on this central issue, the core issue, the first issue for American families. All parents understand the importance of children's dreams. We realize, really, the greatest limitation on those children's dreams is the failure to provide the opportunity for those children's minds to be as expansive as they possibly can be, to be interested and informed, benefitting from educational opportunities which, hopefully, we have strengthened in this legislation. First, I thank Denzel McGuire and Stephanie Monroe of Senator Gregg's office; Holly Kuzmich of Senator Hutchinson's staff; Maureen Marshall of Senator Collins' staff; David Crane and John Mashburn of Senator Lott's staff; Mark Powden and Sherry Kaiman of Senator Jeffords' staff; Lloyd Horwich of Senator Dodd's staff; Carmel Martin and Dan Alpert of Senator Bingaman's staff; and Elizabeth Fay of Senator Bayh's staff; Michelle Stockwell of Senator Lieberman's staff. I also thank Sandy Kress, who has been enormously helpful to all of us in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, representing the President. She is a person who understands the President's views very completely. She is a forceful fighter for the position of the President. But as I said on many occasions, she doesn't always say no. She understands the importance of attempting to fight for the position of the President. I thank as well Townsend McNitt of the White House staff as well, who was enormously valuable and helpful to us. I thank Secretary Paige for his work. Secretary Paige really set the tone for this legislation. At the time of his swearing in, I asked if he would be good enough to come up and meet with all the Democrats. He came up for a meeting. We had very good attendance. I think almost our whole Democratic caucus was in attendance. He stayed there until the last question was asked. It was a very impressive presentation. Since that time, he has been available and accessible to all of us on matters with which we were concerned. I could not possibly have made much difference in this effort without, really, the tireless work of my own staff: Jane Oates, Michael Dannenberg, and Roberto Rodriguez, for their indispensable roles--all of our staff, of whom I am so proud. They are superb professionals who take great pride in their work, as they should, and as I do in them. My thanks go to Jim Manley for his able assistance; Danica Petroshius, Dana Fiordaliso, and Ben Cope for the amazing support over the weeks--most of all to Danica Petroshius, whose leadership, energy, and vision has made all the difference. I thank Danica so much. Her friendship I value greatly. I am very fortunate for in our staff we have not only great professionals, but they are also great friends. We have a good opportunity to work together. I am not always sure they felt that way for every moment over these past 8 weeks, but I want them to know that is the way I felt about them. Let me thank also our colleagues who were really indispensable. One of the things that makes it so satisfying to work on our committee, as well as being productive, is there is a great coming together by Democrats and Republicans. I think the markups were enormously spirited with very good debate and discussion of different viewpoints. But there is a great deal of respect for the opinions of each other. In our committee we have tried to work out some special responsibilities. All members have had great commitment in the area of education. Of course, when we think of Senator Dodd, we think of the children's caucus and all the good work he has done in those areas, particularly in the afterschool programs. Tom Harkin: We think of his efforts to make sure we are going to have modern classrooms for our children. Senator Mikulski has been singular in her work in trying to focus on the digital divide to make sure we are not going to have the disparities in the digital divisions what we have had in educational divisions. She has been light-years ahead of the rest of us in understanding this and in helping us to try to minimize it. Jeff Bingaman knows more about accountability than any other Member and has been such a leader in this area. Senator Wellstone has been so passionate on so many different issues. I can think of his contributions, particularly on this legislation, to try to make sure we address the quality of our testing and to make sure that children are going to be treated fairly and equitably. I know he has serious reservations about many of these provisions. Our committee is so much the better for having Senator Wellstone, as is the Senate. Jack Reed comes from a long tradition of interest in education, not only since he has been in the Senate but also as a House Member. He follows in the Senate Claiborne Pell, who was chairman of our Education Committee. Senator Reed understands the importance of quality education and the importance of parental involvement, and also the recognition of libraries as a special priority to children. I still think we missed some important opportunities in being able to adopt some of the Reed amendments because we are enhancing dramatically the reading programs which the President has stood behind. We need good, effective libraries over the long range. Jack Reed understands this. Senator Murray--I can still hear her eloquent pleas for us to go to smaller class size--as a former schoolteacher, brings dimension to our education issues which are unique. Senator Edwards, who is so much involved in the development of the education policy in North Carolina, which has really been singular in its achievement, shared with us these extraordinary lessons and made valuable contributions. Senator Clinton probably has spent more time in schools in New York and as much as any Member of the Senate has spent time in schools, learning and speaking. Of course, we were advantaged by the fact that when she arrived on our committee, she already had a lifetime of involvement in children's issues and educational issues. Since she arrived on that committee, from the first day we benefited from her experience. I also thank Connie Garner of my staff for her tireless dedication. She has worked on issues involving the disabilities questions. She left a sickbed. She was there 3 weeks ago in a very important medical condition, from which she has recovered. But she was quick to put aside the attention to her own health in order to be in here and be with us on these debates on matters dealing with disability. She is the proud mother of eight, at last count. Connie is the proud mother of a disabled child, and she has made an extraordinary mark on disability policy. I want to finally thank the one who pulled all of this together for our committee, Michael Myers, with whom I have had the good opportunity to work on many different policy issues for years, starting with refugees years and years ago, longer than he may want to remember. He has the extraordinary ability to make a lot of different issues, policy questions, and problems a great deal easier. He is a problem solver with rare qualities. In an undertaking such as we had, he was absolutely, extraordinarily valuable. I thanked earlier Senator Jeffords and spoke about his very special contributions. I also thank Senator Gregg, who has spent a good deal of time here on the floor. I always enjoy working with him--more often when we agree than when we disagree. But it is always a pleasure. Senator Frist--who has worked on education--and I have worked closely together on health care. I thank Senator Hutchison, Senator Collins, and other members of our committee. We had the benefit also of Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh. Senator Bayh took special interest in education as a Governor. After being Governor, he brought those interests here to the Senate. He is not a member of our committee but is as thoughtful about issues on education as one can possibly imagine. Senator Lieberman has made education one of his great areas of specialization and has been both an enormously helpful and valuable ally as we have pursued this issue. I thank all of the outside groups who have worked with us. We tried to communicate as much as we possibly could as we were working through this process. We tried to do as good a job as we could. I thought we did a decent job. I am sure there are people to whom we owe an apology. I extend that apology. If we weren't able to get to you, or answer your questions on some of these matters, we will take the opportunity now and invite those who are concerned about this to examine this bill and to give us their ideas as we go to the conference. We are very grateful for all of the outside help and assistance we had. I commend all the students, parents, and teachers who left an indelible mark on this legislation, and thank them for their commitment and willingness to put aside the divisions of the past and find constructive compromise to improve education for all students and all public schools across the country. It is a good bill. It has strong support. I thank the floor staff, who are always available to us and who are invaluable in working through complex and difficult situations on the floor. They have been absolutely superb, wonderful professionals. Finally, I thank Senator Harry Reid who was absolutely instrumental. He is not on our committee, but I think at the end of these 8 weeks he knows more about education than perhaps he intended to at the start of this legislation. He is learning more about every bill because there isn't an ally--having been here as long as I have been and having had the good fortune to be a floor manager of legislation--there is no one who has greater value as a floor manager than the Senator from Nevada. He has extraordinary skills, and he uses them in amazing ways. He was able to get things achieved and move this process along. People might ask, Well, how much of a difference does it make? It makes the difference between success and failure. Make no mistake about it, it makes the difference between success and failure. And we would not be here with that success in terms of the strong support of the Members of this body tonight had it not been for my friend and colleague, Senator Reid. I am enormously grateful to him for all of his good work. I thank him for all he has done. We look forward to seeing him in harness next week on the Patients' Bill Of Rights. And hopefully he will be able to dispose of those 300 amendments, as he was able to dispose of the 300 amendments that were offered to this bill and get us to final passage. Finally, I thank the clerks and also all the pages for their help and assistance during this time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I join my friend and colleague, Senator Reid, in paying tribute to Jim Jeffords at the time of the completion of this legislation. As the Senator rightfully pointed out, Senator Jeffords was really the architect of the development of the core aspects of this legislation and presided over a very extensive markup. He was able to bring the committee to a unanimous vote of support for that legislation even though there were a good many differences that were expressed. It does not surprise any of us who are on that committee because he has been a leader in the area of education over his entire career in the Senate as well as in the House of Representatives. There are many features in this legislation that have been included of which he was really the architect many years ago. So I think all of us who are mindful of the progress that has been made join in paying tribute to Senator Jeffords for his remarkable leadership. I think this body will continue to benefit from his continued involvement. We certainly depend upon it, and I know America's children depend upon it as well. I thank Senator Jeffords for all of his good work.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Sessions amendment. I hope our colleagues will consider the alternative Senator Harkin has offered. Let me mention that briefly and then put this into some context. The amendment Senator Harkin and I are proposing ensures that students with disabilities will continue to receive services even if they are suspended or expelled. It retains the noncessation of services provision in current law. It ensures that behavioral supports are available to children so they may continue to learn. We are agreeing with Senator Sessions that a uniform policy of discipline for students with or without disabilities is appropriate. Where we differ is in the ultimate outcome. Our amendment continues the services while his amendment denies them. Our communities will be safer. Our children will become better citizens, if they have the full opportunity to learn. Conversely, expulsion from school with no alternatives will lead some children down a path where no one wants them to go. That is the alternative. I remind our colleagues of the history of the IDEA and where we have come from in terms of discrimination against those with disabilities. We have made remarkable progress on the road to free our Nation from the stains of discrimination. Discrimination was written into the Constitution. We fought a Civil War. Then again in the late 1950s, primarily with the leadership of Dr. King, and then in the early 1960s, we were able to pass landmark legislation that helped, to the extent that laws could, free us from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender discrimination, and discrimination on the basis of disabilities. Hopefully, we are going to free ourselves from discrimination on sexual orientation as well. It has been a very difficult march. No place has it been more difficult than trying to free the 5 million children who 25 years ago were more often locked in closets, not participating in the educational process. We have moved beyond that; we have proudly gone beyond that. We have seen slow but continuing progress. We saw it in 1974-1975, with the leadership at that time of President Ford. We made important progress. It was in response to Supreme Court decisions that recognized that when every State constitution guaranteed education to children, it didn't mean leaving out the disabled, leaving out the handicapped. The Supreme Court said we have a responsibility to provide for children who have certain mental and physical challenges. We have embraced that. As we have seen through this debate, we have recognized that many communities are attempting to deal with this problem. Given the complexity and the challenges of those disabilities, it is costly for many small communities. I know this is true in every State. Members have talked about small communities that have children with severe disabilities and what the impact has been in terms of taxes in the communities. What we stated a number of years ago--10 years ago--is that we were going to at least give the assurance that the Federal Government was going to provide 40 percent of the help for education. It still is a State requirement. Make no mistake about it. If we were not providing the funds, there is still the requirement under the State constitution, according to the Supreme Court. But we said we want to participate. That is what this legislation is about in terms of its focus on needy children. We are saying that that is a particular challenge for our country, that the poorest children, locked in rural and urban areas, are a special cause of America. We are also saying those children who have disabilities are a special cause. That is one of the most important parts of the bill, and I am going to do everything I possibly can to ensure that it comes back from conference with the kinds of funding we have guaranteed in this legislation. There has been slow progress in giving assurance to children that they are going to have an opportunity to get a decent education in our public schools. This issue the Senator from Alabama has raised has been before the Senate on a number of occasions. The place to deal with it is when we do the reauthorization of the IDEA, which is going to occur next year. That is the appropriate place to deal with it. We haven't had the hearings. We haven't conducted the studies. We haven't had review. We have anecdotal evidence the Senator from Alabama has provided to us. Let's take the General Accounting Office. I listened to the Senator from Alabama talk about various letters. You can get letters on school behavior from any school in the country. Public schools are still the safest place in America for children, and we know the number of incidents taking place in public schools generally in any event. You could get 1,000 letters from many cities on kids and their concerns about safety. We have to do something about it. We are trying to do something about it. We have included that in the legislation. I will not spend the time in reviewing that at this moment, but we have taken many steps to ensure safer and better education in the community. Let's look at student discipline. In January 2000, just 2 years ago, we adopted new disciplinary procedures for the public schools. Here is the GAO report: Nevertheless, responding principals generally regarded their overall special education discipline policy as having a positive or neutral effect on the level of safety and orderliness in their schools. That is the GAO. That is not anecdotal. That is not coming here to the Chamber and reading four or five letters from students. That is what the General Accounting Office said. They are not advocating my position or the position of the Senator from Alabama. They are trying to give us the facts, and these are the facts. The facts are not the anecdotal message of the Senator from Alabama. That is what is happening out there. Now, you can go through the study and you will find out that 27 percent of the principals report that a separate discipline policy for special education--20 percent reported that the disciplinary procedures for IDEA are burdensome and time consuming. I would like to do something about that, but we are not doing that here on the last 1-hour time distribution on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We ought to be able to do something on it. I would like to get the best people here, the GAO people who wrote that report. I would like to hear their testimony and get their recommendations. I would like to help those schools. But that isn't what this amendment is all about. That is not what this is all about. It is taking children who have, in these instances, a disciplinary problem--and note the words of art related to their particular disability. In fact, if you knock those children out, we know what happens. It is five or six times as likely that they will never come back to education once they lose that continuing education. Those are the statistics. We know what is going to happen. Those children are gone, out. Now, this is a difficult challenge, but it is a challenge that I think most of us think is worth it. What we have seen, as the Senator from Iowa pointed out very eloquently last night, is the extraordinary road to progress when local communities and school districts attempt to deal with these issues, with extraordinary kinds of results, incredible kinds of reactions. I could spend the time, which I don't have here, reading letters that have been written by parents who say their children have learned how to love because they have a child in the class who has learning disabilities, and we know the problems they have. We have spent time working with those children and other children who come together. Do you want to throw those kids out? Do you want to throw them out because they have had a cigarette outside in the lobby which was not related to their disability? Throw them out? My goodness. If we are going to have to have a full debate, let's do it, but do it on the reauthorization. Let's not take the final hours here to throw them out of school. That is what this amendment does, make no mistake about it. This is a basic major retreat, Mr. President, on the march of progress for disabled children. It is unworthy of this body, with the progress that we have made, to go backward. That is where this amendment takes us. We have a very solid alternative which is responsive to any of the continuing challenges. It has been offered by Senator Harkin. Every Member can vote for it with pride and hold their head high. I give assurance to the Senator from Alabama, if he wants to do that next year, he can be our first witness on the reauthorization of IDEA. If he wants other people on the panel that sustain his position, we will welcome them, too. Let's not effectively undermine the solid progress that we have made for children in this country over the period of the last 25 years. That is what the Sessions amendment does. We should reject it. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I am interested because I thought we had an hour evenly divided at 9 o'clock. I know we went to this a few minutes after 9.