Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, CBO says the cost impact of this proposal on business is negligible but a destructive impact on individuals and society of the failure to act will be immense. On the part of this proposal that deals with employment, without this kind of amendment, those who have been responsible for the breakthrough in terms of the sequencing of the gene understand very well, and have stated repeatedly, we are going to have a new form of discrimination in employment. We want to avoid that. Two, from a health point of view, if people don't believe they are going to be secure either in employment or in getting health insurance, they are not going to take the tests and they are going to, therefore, deny themselves the kind of treatment that is going to be available to them in order to remain healthy. So we ought to take these steps that this amendment includes; it is essential. We already know from what is happening today that a number of people aren't taking these genetic tests because they fear genetic discrimination. This is one of the most important health issues we are going to face in this century. It has been identified by those on the cutting edge of progress in terms of the sequencing of the gene. We should take their advice and counsel and accept the Daschle amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this week, as the leader has pointed out, scientists announced the completion of a task that once seemed unimaginable; and that is, the deciphering of the entire DNA sequence of the human genetic code. This amazing accomplishment is likely to affect the 21st century as profoundly as the invention of the computer or the splitting of the atom affected the 20th century. I believe that the 21st century will be the century of life sciences, and nothing makes that point more clearly than this momentous discovery. It will revolutionize medicine as we know it today. Already, genetic tests can be used to identify and help those who are at risk for disease, and those who are already diagnosed. Scientists are using new knowledge gained from the genetic code to design better treatments for cancer, AIDS, depression, and many other conditions and diseases. Tragically, the vast potential of genetic knowledge to improve health care will go unfulfilled it patients fear that information about their genetic characteristics will be used as the basis for job discrimination or other prejudices. To realize the unprecedented opportunities presented by these new discoveries, we must guarantee that private medical information remains private and that genetic information cannot be used for improper purposes. I commend our leader, Senator Daschle, for offering this important amendment that would do just that. It would give the American people the protections against genetic discrimination they need and deserve. The amendment would prohibit health insurers and employers from using predictive genetic information to discriminate in the health care system and the workplace. It would bar insurance companies from raising premiums or denying patients health care coverage based on the results of genetic tests, and prohibit insurers from requiring such tests as a condition of coverage. In the workplace, the amendment would outlaw the use of predictive genetic information for hiring, advancement, salary, or other workplace rights and privileges. And, because a right without a remedy is no right at all, this important measure would provide persons who have suffered genetic discrimination in either arena with the right to seek redress through legal action. In too many cases, the hopeful promise of genetic discoveries is squandered, because patients rightly fear that information about their genes will be used against them in the workplace or the health system. That fear is clearly well-founded. Today, employers and insurers can and do use this information to deny health coverage, refuse a promotion, or reject a job applicant--all in the absence of any symptoms of disease. Although many genetic discoveries and technologies are new, the problems they raise with respect to discrimination in insurance and in employment have been with us for decades. It was clear in 1973 that new developments in genetics had the potential for enormous good, as well as significant harm. That's why I worked with the scientific community to bring together legal scholars, medical professionals, and scientists at the Asilomar Conference Center to assess the risks and benefits of genetics. That conference formed the basis for laws and established procedures for the use of genetic technology that helped create today's thriving biotechnology industry. It was clear in 1993 and 1996 that genetic tests and information had the potential not only to help patients, but also to harm them. That's why we included protections against genetic discrimination in the Health Security Act of 1993 and the Kassebaum-Kennedy Act of 1996. While the Health Security Act did not become law, Kassebaum-Kennedy did. Its protections were an important step forward, but were far from complete. Insurers can still use genetic information to outright deny coverage or charge outrageous rates to individuals who are currently healthy, but may have a genetic pre-disposition to a particular disease or condition. And, with this week's announcement, it is more clear than ever before that in the year 2000 the American people need strong federal laws to protect them against the malicious misuse of genetic data. The century may have changed, but the problem of discrimination hasn't--and neither has my commitment to protect the American people from discrimination in all its ugly forms. Discrimination is discrimination whether it's done at the ballot box, on a job application, or in the office of an insurance underwriter who denies an otherwise healthy patient the health care they need based solely on the result of a genetic test or medical history of a family member. This is the same form of discrimination that would be evident on the question of race. Individuals have virtually no kind of control over their genetic makeup. What we are saying now is, without these kinds of protections, it will be permissible for insurance companies or for employers to say: I am not going to hire that person because of the genetic makeup they have, because it may mean they are going to get sicker over time and cost me in the workplace. Therefore, I am going to deny that person. On the other hand, it will require workers to take the test as a condition for employment. And then if they find that their genetic makeup demonstrates some kind of proclivity to acquire this kind of disease, they won't hire them. That is what is happening. They are going to find out that the workers are not going to take the test, which is increasingly the case, because they don't want to risk not being hired in a particular employment situation. What happens is, they put themselves at greater risk of getting the disease because they deny themselves all the preventive health care that could keep them healthy and avoid getting sick and being more useful and valuable citizens in the community. Fear of genetic discrimination causes patients to go without needed medical tests. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 57 percent of women at risk for breast or ovarian cancer had refused to take a genetic test that could have identified their risk for cancer and assisted them in receiving medical treatment to prevent the onset of these diseases because they feared reprisals for doing so. As the potential for discrimination increases, more and more Americans are becoming concerned about the danger that employers and insurers will misuse and abuse genetic information. Just this week, in the aftermath of the historic completion of the genome sequencing project, a new CNN-Time magazine survey found that 46 percent of Americans believe that sequencing the genome would have harmful results. Surely, using genetic information as a basis for discrimination would be one of the most harmful consequences of this remarkable scientific accomplishment. Experts in genetics are virtually unanimous in calling for strong protections to prevent such a misuse of science. Secretary Shalala's advisory panel on genetic testing--consisting of experts in the fields of law, science, medicine, and business--has recommended unambiguously that ``Federal legislation should be enacted to prohibit discrimination in employment and health insurance based on genetic information.'' Dr. Craig Venter, the president of the company that led the privately-financed genome sequencing effort, has testified before the Joint Economic Committee that genetic discrimination is ``the biggest barrier against having a real medical revolution based on this tremendous new scientific information.'' Without strong protections, the health and welfare of large numbers of our fellow citizens will be unfairly at risk. Last week, I was proud to stand with Terri Seargeant, a woman who carries a genetic trait that can--if untreated--lead to a lung disease often called ``Alpha-1 deficiency.'' Let me emphasize that this trait only carries the potential to develop the lung disease. If persons at risk for the disorder take a simple genetic test and are appropriately treated, they can prevent development of the disease. Terri Seargent is such a person. She received a genetic test that revealed her risk for this disease, and took the preventive measures needed to avoid the onset of symptoms. She worked hard at her job and received consistently positive performance reviews and salary increases. Nonetheless, her employer--who had access to her medical files and the records of her genetic tests--decided to terminate this hard-working, healthy employee. What are we to conclude except that she had been fired on the basis of her genetic potential for disease? And for every Terri Seargent, who has suffered actual discrimination, there are millions of men and women across the nation who are either at risk of genetic discrimination or fear getting tested because of possible reprisals in the workplace or health system. National Human Genome Research Institute, ``Already, with but a handful of genetic tests in common use, people have lost their jobs, lost their health insurance, and lost their economic well being because of the misuse of genetic information.'' Make no mistake: The potential for genetic discrimination is growing. Already DNA ``chips'' are available that can determine a person's genetic traits in only a few minutes. In the near future, genetic tests will become even cheaper and more widely available than they re today. If we do not pass legislation to ban genetic discrimination, it may become commonplace for an employer to require such tests, and to use the results of these tests to decide which employees to hire or promote and which to deny such advancement, based in whole or in part on their perceived risk for disease. Even now, some employers require information about a person's genetic inheritance as a condition of employment or part of the job application process. A recent American Management Association survey of more than 2,000 companies showed that more than 18 percent of companies require genetic tests or family medical history data from employees or job applicants. According to the same survey, more than 26 percent of the companies that require this information use it in hiring decisions. President Clinton recognized the need for employees to be protected from the dangers of genetic discrimination. In an action of great vision and wisdom, President Clinton signed an Executive order on February 8 of this year to ban any use of predictive genetic information as a basis for hiring, firing, promotion or any other condition of employment in the federal workplace. With the stroke of a pen, the President instituted for federal workers the types of protections that this amendment would provide for all workers and all patients. Our amendment is strongly supported by leading patient groups, medical professional societies, and scientists. The need for these kinds of protections has been clearly and repeatedly endorsed by the two leaders of the genome sequencing project and by experts in law, medicine, and science. A host of editorial boards have written in favor of congressional action to protect people in this area. In many respects, people's genetic composition is essentially a blueprint of their medical past and a crystal ball of the possibilities for their medical future. It is difficult to imagine more personal and more private information. This powerful information should be shared between patients and their doctors--not their employer and their coworkers. The threat of genetic discrimination faces every American, because every American carries unique genetic characteristics that indicate risk of disease. This is not about Terri Seargent. This is about each and every one of us, and everyone we know. The vote cast today in this Chamber will help determine whether the secrets of our DNA will be used for beneficial or for harmful purposes. Congress should give the American people the strong and comprehensive protection from genetic discrimination that they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. That is not to be included.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for just a brief observation, as I understand the request of the majority leader, this does not include any request to bring back the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Did the Senator from Nevada hear that clearly? I did not hear that clearly.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want the record to show that I was on my feet seeking recognition at the time the Senator from South Dakota yielded the time. I want to take a moment of the Senate's time to review what has happened in terms of this policy issue in the Human Resource Committee so there is no confusion about it. We had a hearing on genetic discrimination in health insurance on 21 May 1998. That was a good hearing. That was in 1998. Then, in May of 1998, a number of us asked the chairman of the committee to have a further hearing about discrimination in the workplace. We have not received it. So I don't take kindly to those who suggest that when we raise this issue on the Senate floor, we are somehow acting out of order. Our committee, the committee of jurisdiction, has tried to focus attention on the dangers of the utilization of genetic information toward possible discrimination for health insurance and employment, and we have been unable to do so. Thankfully, with the Daschle amendment, we will have the opportunity to do so this afternoon. The Jeffords amendment pretends to be a half a loaf because it addresses insurance, but does not address employment. But it is not a half a loaf. It is no more than a thin crust or a thin slice. It will not deal with the central problem of people failing to get needed genetic tests because of unfair discrimination. That is the issue. As long as they can lose their job and as long as their children can be denied jobs, this protection is no protection at all. This program is as full of holes as Swiss cheese. They can still require genetic information. They can still disclose it, and there is still no meaningful enforcement. An insurance company can still get the information to the employer. There is no prohibition on that in the amendment of the Senator from Vermont. They can still do that. The fact is, they are doing that. In a 1990 survey by the American Management Association, 20 percent of employers collected family medical history information on applicants, including genetic information. Five percent of the employers acknowledged using that information in hiring decisions. We already know that employers are using genetic information to make employment decisions. We must ensure that employees and applicants are not discouraged against getting those kinds of tests. That is what this is all about. I ask for 1 more minute.

Mr. KENNEDY. As Senator Daschle pointed out, there is a group of more than 60 organizations that support the Daschle amendment. The National Breast Cancer Coalition is, once again, supporting the Daschle amendment: Passage of this amendment, and the protections it offers, are essential not only for women with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, but also for women living with breast cancer, their families, and the millions of women who will be diagnosed with breast cancer. We strongly urge you to support this legislation. Let us stand with the patients. Let us stand with the victims. Let us not stand only with the insurance companies. That is what this issue is about. I hope the Jeffords amendment will be defeated. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the National Breast Cancer Coalition.

Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Wasn't the Senator from North Dakota recognized?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is always interesting to listen to my friend and colleague from Texas. But I still am trying to find out why he is opposed to the protections which are included in our Patients' Bill of Rights. There was a lovely, wonderful statement about his reservations and about the importance of freedom to HMOs: If we give total freedom to HMOs, the public be damned. That is what has happened too often. What we are talking about is the protections that are guaranteed in a Patients' Bill of Rights, which is, interestingly, all the kinds of protections he has in his health insurance under the Federal employees program. There is not a Member of the Senate who has not accepted the Federal employees program, and it guarantees virtually every one of these protections we are talking about tonight with the exception of the right to sue. The question before the Senate tonight is this: Are we going to insist that whatever protections we are going to pass in a Patients' Bill of Rights are going to be available and accessible to all Americans? That is the Norwood-Dingell bill, the bill we on our side of the aisle favor. Whatever protections we are going to put in ought to include the 161 million Americans with private health insurance. That is our principle, that is what we stand for. All you have to do is read the Nickles bill and you will find out that it covers exactly what was in the Senate Republican bill--only the 48 million Americans who are self-insured. Whatever protections they are talking about cover only those 48 million. Look at the Nickles access to pediatric provision: ``If a group health plan''--that would be 123 million people;--``other than a fully insured group plan.'' Other than; that knocks out the fully insured. It knocks all of them out. So the guarantees on pediatric care apply to only 48 million out of 161 million. Go through the rest of the Nickles bill. Go through coverage of emergency services. It says, again, ``If a group health plan''--they are covering 123 million. The next sentence, ``other than a fully insured group health plan.'' Other than fully insured--75 million. How many are left out? Forty-eight million. They cover the same number of people they covered 7 months ago. That is the reality. Here it is in their bill. Every one of these guarantees: If a group plan, other than a fully insured group plan. You go for the 48 million in the legislation that is rejected by Dr. Norwood, who is the principal health spokesman for Republicans on health matters over in the House of Representatives. There it is. Their own language. They cover 48 million. The Dorgan proposal said: Whatever we are going to do, in terms of protecting consumers, let's protect them all--161 million. We are one vote away in the Senate from passing an effective Patients' Bill of Rights. The conference is a failure. The amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma does not even have the support of the House Republicans. And only one of the House Republican conferees was a supporter of the Norwood-Dingell bill. There is no agreement on covering all Americans. There is no agreement on external appeals. There is no agreement on holding health plans accountable. There is no agreement on access to specialists, to clinical trials, or a host of other patient protections. There was no agreement. This vote today is a chance for the Senate to make a statement. A vote for the Dorgan amendment is a vote for the proposition that every patient in America is entitled to protection. Establishment of that principle is a giant step towards the day the Senate will pass a true patients protection program. A vote for the Nickles amendment is a vote against patients and for insurance companies. It is a vote for covering less than a third of all Americans. It is a vote for the same limited coverage originally passed by the Senate. It is a vote for a review process that is not truly independent. It is a vote against meaningful accountability. It is a vote against access to specialists outside a plan, even if the specialist is the only one able to treat that condition. It is a vote against access to clinical trials for heart patients. It is a vote for a bill that is so inadequate it will never pass the House, and it will never be signed by the President. It will not protect the thousands of patients who are injured every day. It is up to the Senate. We should vote for the principle that everyone be covered. We should vote against a plan rejected by every group of patients and doctors, and by House Republicans. And we should come back after the recess and pass a real patients' rights bill, of which we can all be proud, whether we are Republicans or Democrats. Let's protect patients, not HMOs. I withhold the remainder of my time. Let's protect patients, not HMOs. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. If it is the understanding that we treat both of them the same way, is it agreeable with the floor manager that the point of order be on both so they are both treated the same way?

Mr. KENNEDY. No points of order.

Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry: Is that on or in relation? Do I understand that it is their intention to have an up-or-down vote on both of these?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we are all operating in good faith and wanting to move ahead. I ask if our floor staff has seen this. I would like to, with all due respect, reserve a minute until our floor staff has an opportunity to see it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. In terms of numbers, what are we talking about in the Nickles proposal? The initial proposal, the first proposal, was 48 million. We are talking about 161 million in the Dorgan proposal. Does the Nickles proposal include 161 million American families?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2 minutes for that purpose. What is the scope of and coverage in the Senator's proposal, not what will apply in terms of internal-external appeals, but what is the total coverage?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for one question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the issue of providing protection for American families has been before the Senate for the past 3 years, but we have been unable to pass legislation that will guarantee to the families of this country that medical decisions that are going to affect them and the treatment of the family are going to be made on the basis of sound medical reasons rather than for the interests of the HMOs. That is what this issue is all about. This chart indicates very clearly what has been happening. The Senate, in July 1999, about a year ago, passed legislation, the Republican bill, 53-47. This 47 was basically the Norwood-Dingell bill, virtually identical to the Norwood-Dingell bill, which is a party-line vote. The House passed the Norwood-Dingell bill 275-151 in October, 1999. Then the House and the Senate conferees appointed. Now 8 months have passed. We have nothing that has come out of that conference. We are going to have something now before the Senate, offered as an alternative to the Dorgan proposal, that evidently has been drafted solely by Republicans. Whether it includes Republicans in the House of Representatives or not is something we will have to wait and see. I doubt it very much. Why? Because just this afternoon Congressman Norwood, who was the principal sponsor of the Norwood-Dingell bill, said in a press conference: What is significant about today is that all 21 Republican sponsors of the Norwood-Dingell bill are standing behind me and each of us has declared that we will not support any bill that does not allow patients to choose their own doctor, that does not protect all Americans, and that does not hold the insurance industry accountable for its decisions. It doesn't matter what the Senate does today. The 25 us will vote against any bill that does not guarantee patients the protections they deserve. If the Senate passes anything less, they are killing the bill. That isn't a statement made by Democrats; that was made by Republicans. So let's understand it. Here are the leaders in the House of Representatives, in a bipartisan effort that got a third of the Republican Party to pass an effective bill that we should pass, and it failed by one vote only 2 weeks ago. We are being denied, week after week after week, from being able to protect American families from being harmed. That statement is made by the Republican Congressman. The legislation we on this side of the aisle support is supported by 300 organizations, including every medical organization, every doctor organization, every patient organization, every organization that represents women, every organization that represents children, every organization that cares about cancer--you name it, they support our proposal. Do you know who supports the other side? The insurance industry. They supported them before and they are supporting them tonight. So you will have a chance to show, on the floor of the Senate, whether you are going to cast your vote with those who have been dedicated to protecting the lives and well-being of the families in this country, or protecting the profits of the HMOs. That is the issue as plain and simple as can be stated. That is why Congressman Norwood, I think, has been so courageous, because he understands it. He was there when the Senate considered 2 weeks ago the Norwood-Dingell bill that failed by one vote. He was supporting our efforts, as was the American Medical Association. The particular amendment that Senator Dorgan has proposed is a very basic and fundamental amendment that affects the Patients' Bill of Rights. It is the question of scope. Are we going to cover 161 million Americans, or are we going to cover only a third of those, as was covered in the Senate Republican bill before and I daresay will be in the Republican bill tonight--although they have not shared that with us, only with the staff for a few minutes. I daresay that will be the fact. Here it is. They cover 48 million--self-funded proposals. They do not cover those fully insured; those who are represented by Blue Cross or by Kaiser. They don't cover those 75 million. They don't cover the individual markets, the self-employed, the farmers, child care providers, the truckers. They don't cover the teachers and the firefighters and the police officers. We cover all 161 million. They cover 48 million. Here is a picture of Frank Raffa, Vietnam veteran, decorated war hero, 21 years in the fire department of Worchester, MA. He has two children. Do you think he is covered? No, not covered under the Republican plan. Why should Frank Raffa not be covered? Why should his family not be covered, his wife and his children? He has dedicated his life to the people of Worchester, MA, as a firefighter and to this country in Vietnam. But, oh, no, the Republicans say we are not going to cover State and county officials. No. 2, here we have Dave Morgan, with two of his 63 employees. He is a pharmacist in Boston. Tonya Harris right here, she is a pharmacy technician, a single mother of two, and Rhonda Hines, another of Dave's employees. She is married and has three children. Do you think working for a business they are going to be covered? Absolutely not. He is a community pharmacist. He worked hard building a business employing 63 members of the community. Some are in training, some are getting advanced degrees--are they covered? Absolutely not. Why not? Why do you exclude those? Norwood-Dingell did not exclude them, why should we? Finally, Leslie Sullivan, a family nurse practitioner in the Quincy Mental Health Center, a Massachusetts employee. She is not covered under the Republican plan. She has worked hard all her life. I want to hear a justification from Senator Nickles tonight why these people are being excluded. They can't get it. We have insisted, in that conference, on three basic things: One, you are going to have coverage and cover all Americans; No. 2, you are going to have accountability; No. 3, you are going to have a definition of medical necessity that is going to protect American consumers. At the end of 3 months of hearings, 3 months of meetings in the Nickles office--as much as I like and respect Don Nickles and consider him a friend, the fact is, of the 22 differences, only 2 had been agreed to. I will just take 3 more minutes. Here are the guarantees under the legislation that the Democrats support: 22 different protections here. I would like to hear from the other side: Which ones don't you want to guarantee to the American consumers? You don't want to protect all of them? You don't want to guarantee the specialists? You don't want to guarantee that women that are going to be able to go to an OB-GYN without first going to a general practitioner? You don't want to guarantee prescription drugs? You don't want to guarantee the emergency room? These are our guarantees. This is what we stand for. If the Republican bill embraces those without the loopholes, we will support it. But if it does not, it ought to get defeated. That vote ought to be no, and we ought to continue to fight in this Congress to make sure we get a good Patients' Bill of Rights. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before the Senate are the appropriations bills which provide the funding for education, health, and training programs. As I have mentioned over the past few days, I respect the work by Senator Specter and Senator Harkin in trying to shape that proposal. We have some differences, even within the limited budget figures that were allocated, in areas we feel were shortchanged. We tried to bring some of those matters to the floor yesterday. On the issues of making sure we will reach out in the areas of recruiting teachers, providing professional development for teachers, and mentoring for teachers, we received a majority of the Members of the Senate. I believe it was 51 votes. A majority of the Members felt that should be a higher priority than designated. Even in the majority party, there is a clear indication, particularly against the backdrop of the announcements made in the past 2 days with these enormous surpluses, that one of the priorities of the American people is investing the surpluses in the children of this country. I think that is something that needs to be done. We are going to proceed during the course of this day on amendments which I think are very important. The next one, which will be offered by Senator Daschle to deal with issues of genetic discrimination and employment discrimination, is very important. We will go on, as has been agreed to by the leaders. But as we are going through this debate, I cannot remain silent on the allocating of resources. We are hopeful, as a result of the action of the President of the United States, there will be a different form and shape of this appropriations bill by the time it comes back from the conference, or by the time it is actually enacted in the fall. We are not giving the priorities in the areas of education, and I must say even in the health area, that I think the American people want and deserve. The principal reason for that is there is an assumption within the Republican leadership that there will be a tax break of some $792 billion. So if you are going to write that into the budget, or parts of that into the budget, you are going to squeeze other programs. That is really what has happened. I daresay that at a time when we are gaining increased awareness and understanding about what actually helps children expand their academic achievement and their accomplishments, as a result of some dramatic reports, which I find compelling--and actually self-evident--we find we are really not taking the benefits of those reports and using them in ways that can benefit the greatest number of children in this country. I think again of the excellent presentations of the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, when she spoke time and time again about the importance of smaller class sizes. She referred again and again to the excellent studies done in Tennessee with thousands of children, going back to 1985, that resulted in smaller class sizes, and we find that children have made very significant progress. I remember Senator Murray mentioning the SAGE Program in Wisconsin, which has been enacted in recent years. I myself met these past weeks with members of the school board, parents and teachers out in Warsaw, WI, who participated in that program and commented about the importance of investing in children with smaller class sizes. So we know this is something that works. If we are going to have scarce resources, we ought to give focus and attention to something that works, as Senator Murray has pointed out. I think she brings credibility to this issue because she is a former school board member and a former first grade teacher herself. She has been in the classroom and knows what works. We have been very fortunate to have her presentation on this issue and her enthusiasm for it. We also know, looking over the recent history, that we have actually had bipartisan support for smaller class sizes. We saw yesterday her amendment was not successful, but it was very closely fought in a divided Senate, and I am hopeful, with the strong support of the Senate, we can finally persuade Congress, as we have in the past, to move ahead in that direction. We have to understand this legislation is going to go to the House of Representatives, which has seen a very sizable reduction in its commitment to the funding of these various programs. Whatever we do here is going to be knocked back significantly. That is why many of us were very hopeful we could go ahead and add some additional resources so at least coming out of the conference we would have something worthy of the children of this country. But we have been unable to do that. We have to look back over the years and see what has happened, ultimately, in allocating funding resources in the area of education when have had Republican leadership. We hear a great deal about the importance of investing in children, but the tragic fact is that it is not reflected in the requests by the Republicans either in the House or the Senate in recent years. I remember very clearly the 1995 rescission because I remember the debate in 1994, when we had a rather significant enhancement in our investment in children. The ink was hardly dry, the results were in, and the results of 1994 and 1995 were that we had a very vigorous debate on rescinding money that had already been appropriated and signed by the President. After the extraordinary efforts made by the Republican leadership to actually rescind those funds, we had those rescissions in 1995. Then the House bill in 1996 was $3.9 billion below what was actually enacted in 1995. Then in 1997, the Senate bill was $3.1 billion below the President's request; the House and Senate bill in 1998 was also below the President's request. This was a time when the Republicans were trying to abolish the Department of Education. I think most parents feel it is important to have a Cabinet Member sitting in the Cabinet room so that every time the President of the United States meets with the Cabinet to make decisions on priorities, there will be someone in there to say, ``What are we going to do on education, and particularly education that is going to affect the elementary and secondary schoolchildren of this country, particularly at a time when we have exploding numbers of children who are going into our classrooms?'' Nonetheless, what we continue to see, in 1999, is the House was $2 billion below the President's request; in 2000, $2.8 billion below the President's request; and in 2001, $2.9 billion below the President's request. This is what has happened. Members ask: ``Why do the Democrats try to force these issues? Why don't we just go ahead and accept what these appropriations committees have done?'' They try to defend their positions with all these facts about what is really happening out there in education, but when you add them all up, this is what you are finding: The Federal share of education funding has declined. If you look at higher education, from 1980 to 1999, the federal share declined from 15.4 percent to 10.7 percent. If you look at elementary-secondary education, from 1980 to 1999, we see a decline from 11.9 percent to 7.7 percent. Only 7.7 percent of every dollar spent locally is Federal money, and this is perhaps the lowest figure we have had in elementary-secondary education. In terms of the amount of our budget, which is $1.8 trillion, this is less than one percent. It is less than one penny per dollar. If you combine the elementary and higher education, you may be getting close to two pennies. That, I think, is what concerns many of us, particularly at a time when we are finding out the total number of children is increasing. We recognize there should be a partnership among the Federal, State, and local governments in enhancing academic achievement. We have learned important lessons: Smaller class sizes work and better trained teachers work. Take the two States that have invested in teachers: North Carolina and Connecticut. They are seeing dramatic results in academic achievement. We have been fighting to provide the resources to do that. That is what the debate is about. We have, I think, demonstrated to this body and, hopefully, the American people the seriousness of our purpose in allocating resources to what the American families want, and they want to invest in children and education. We believe that is quite preferable to the large tax breaks which have been included in the overall budget. We will continue this battle. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I offer this amendment along with Senators Reed, Bingaman, Wellstone, Dodd, Murray, Levin, Schumer, and Durbin. Mr. President, this amendment is one of the most important policy matters that we are going to consider on this appropriation bill, and that is whether we are going to provide adequate resources to train the needed number of teachers for our classrooms and for children across this country. We believe--at least I do--that the funds that have been allocated in the current bill are inadequate to do the job. I spelled out in my earlier comments that I know the Appropriations Committee received allocations. But, I don't believe those allocations given to the committee were adequate to really respond to the challenges we are facing in education. It is as a result of the fact that the Republican leadership wants to have a tax break. It seems to me that these priorities take preference over that. I wish these priorities had been given additional funds. In spite of that, we ought to make an expression in the Senate about our priorities for the children of this country, particularly in the area of training teachers, so that we are going to have a well-trained teacher in every classroom in the country. Mr. President, it was only in February of this year that the Wall Street Journal had an article on the front page: Schools Turn To Temp Agencies for Substitute Teachers. Most school districts begin each day with a nerve-racking hunt for substitutes to fill in for absent teachers. With a tight labor market making the task especially tough, a few are starting to outsource the job. Kelly Services Inc. unveiled the first nationwide substitute teacher program four months ago, and now handles screening and scheduling for 20 schools in 10 States. Mr. President, this is a national indictment of policy out of the local, State, and Federal level, where we are using the Kelly Services, which have provided professional secretaries and office assistants, and now they are out there recruiting teachers to teach in the schools for the children of this country. We have to be more serious about this issue. We know what needs to be done, and we ought to get about the business of doing it. We have a number of groups that support our amendment, which include the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the Association of Community Colleges, American Council on Education, the National Association of Independent Colleges, the NEA, the AFT, Council of Chief State School Officers, and others. I ask unanimous consent that the full list of those supporting the program be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Laura Chow, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during the debate on the Labor-HHS bill.