Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in just a few moments we are going to be casting an extremely important vote that will in many ways have a dramatic impact on the economy of this country. I had the opportunity to be here in 1981 when we had a Republican proposal on a tax program. At that time there were 12 of us who voted in opposition to that program. But it passed, and we saw our Federal debt grow from $400 billion to close to $4 trillion over the period of the next years because of the economic forces that were put in place by that tax program. It had a very dramatic impact, particularly in terms of the allocations of wealth and the distribution of wealth here in the United States. Those that had resources benefited enormously, but for the great majority of the Americans, they had to work longer and harder just to hold on. Then in 1993, the Democrats passed a very important tax measure. The implications of that tax program, which took some belt tightening, so to speak, had a very dramatic impact in terms of our economy. That policy, more than any other single action we have seen, has had a more positive impact on our economy than any other action that has been taken by the Government. The point is that a tax bill of this magnitude has enormous impact on our economy as well as in relation to the issues of distribution. We now have before us, in 1999, a third rather dramatic proposal. Mr. President, very few decisions we make in Congress will have more impact on the long-term economic well-being of our nation than how we allocate the projected surplus. By our vote today, we are setting priorities that will determine whether the American economy is on firm ground or dangerously shifting sand as we enter the 21st century. This vote will determine whether we have the financial capacity to meet our responsibilities to future generations, and whether we have fairly shared the economic benefits of our current prosperity. Sadly, the legislation before us today fails all of these tests. We should vote to reject it. A tax cut of the enormous magnitude proposed by our Republican colleagues would reverse the sound fiscal management which has created the inflation-free economic growth of recent years. That is the clear view of the two principal architects of our current prosperity--Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan. Devoting the entire on-budget surplus to tax cuts will deprive us of the funds essential to preserving Medicare and Social Security for future generations of retirees. It will force harsh cuts in education, in medical research, and in other vital domestic priorities. This tax cut jeopardizes our financial future--and it also dismally flunks the test of fairness. When fully implemented, the Republican plan would give 80% of the tax cuts to the wealthiest 20% of the population. The richest 1%--those earning over $300,000 a year--would receive tax breaks as high as $46,000 a year, while working men and women would receive an average of only $138 a year--less than 40 cents a day. Republicans claim that the ten year surplus is three trillion dollars and that they are setting two-thirds of it aside for Social Security, and only spending one-third on tax cuts. That explanation is grossly misleading. The two trillion dollars they say they are giving to Social Security already belongs to Social Security. It consists of payroll tax dollars expressly raised for the purpose of paying future Social Security benefits. Clearly, these dollars are insufficient to achieve our goal of protecting Social Security for future generations. Yet, Republicans are not providing a single new dollar to strengthen Social Security. They are not extending the life of the Trust Fund for even one day. It is a mockery to characterize those payroll tax dollars as part of the surplus. That leaves the $964 billion on-budget surplus as the only funds which are available to address all of the nation's unmet needs over the next ten years. Republicans propose to use that entire amount to fund their tax cut scheme. Since CBO projections assume that all surplus dollars are devoted to debt reduction, the $964 billion figure includes over $140 billion in debt service savings. The amount which is available to be spent--either to address public needs or to cut taxes-- is only slightly above $800 billion. As a result, the $792 billion Republican tax cut will consume the entire surplus. It will inevitably usher in a new era of deficits--just as the baby boom generation is reaching retirement age. Most Americans understand the word ``surplus'' to mean dollars remaining after all financial obligations have been met. If that common sense definition is applied to the federal budget, the surplus would be far smaller than $964 billion. We have existing obligations which should be our first responsibility. We have an obligation to preserve Medicare for future generations of retirees, and to modernize Medicare benefits to include prescription drug assistance. The Republican budget does not provide one additional dollar to met these Medicare needs. The American people clearly believe that strengthening Social Security and Medicare should be our highest priority for using the surplus. By margins of more than two to one, they view preserving Social Security and Medicare as more important than cutting taxes. We should use the surplus to meet these existing responsibilities first, in order to fulfill the promise of a retirement with both financial security and health security. If we do nothing, Medicare will become insolvent by 2015. The surplus gives us a unique opportunity to preserve Medicare, without reducing medical care, or raising premiums for senior citizens, or raising the retirement age. The Republican tax cut would take the opportunity away. It would leave nothing for Medicare. In fact, this legislation will actually force additional cuts over the next five years. Under existing budget rules, which Republicans have refused to modify, the enactment of this tax bill will force a sequester of Medicare funds. Senate Democrats have a realistic alternative. We have proposed to use one-third of the surplus--$290 billion over the next ten years--to strength Medicare and to assist senior citizens with the cost of prescription drugs. The Administration's 15 year budget plan provides an additional $500 billion for Medicare between 2010 and 2014. Enactment of the Republican tax cut would make this $800 billion transfer to Medicare impossible. If we squander the entire surplus on tax breaks, there will be no money left to keep our commitment to the nation's elderly. Unless we use a portion of the surplus to strengthen Medicare, senior citizens will be confronted with nearly a trillion dollars in health care cuts and skyrocketing premiums. We know who the people are who will carry this enormous burden. The typical Medicare beneficiary is a widow, seventy-six years old, with an annual income of $10,000. She has one or more chronic illnesses. She is a mother and a grandmother. Yet the Republican budget would force deep cuts in her Medicare benefits in order to pay for this exorbitant tax out The Republican tax cut, if enacted, will also make it impossible for us to assist Medicare recipients with the high cost of prescription drugs. That is one of the choices each of us will make when we vote on this bill. The cost of prescription drugs eats up a disproportionately large share of the typical elderly household's income. Too many seniors today must choose between food on the table and the medicine they need to stay healthy or to treat their illnesses. Too many seniors take half the pills their doctor prescribes, or don't even fill needed prescriptions--because they cannot afford the high cost to prescription drugs. Too many seniors are ending up hospitalized--at immense costs to Medicare--because they are not receiving the drugs they need. Pharmaceutical products are increasingly the source of medical miracles--but senior citizens are being denied access to the full benefit of these new drug therapies. Remedying these inequities should be our priority. Instead, with these enormous GOP tax breaks, we are ignoring the basic needs of the elderly. The Republicans claim that their tax bill provides a prescription drug benefit for the elderly--but it is a meaningless provision which few if any seniors will ever be able to use. The provision is contingent on a whole series of other legislative actions that may not occur. Thus, it may never take effect. Even if it takes effect, it provides an above the line tax deduction for private insurance premiums which can only be used by the small percentage of more affluent senior citizens who itemize deductions. The vast majority of elderly taxpayers will never be able to use this provision. The projected surplus also assumes drastic cuts in a wide range of existing programs over the next decade--cuts in domestic programs such as education, medical research and environmental cleanup; and even cuts in national defense. We have an obligation to adequately fund these programs. If existing programs grow at the rate of inflation over the next decade--and no new programs are created and no existing programs are expanded--the surplus would be reduced by $584 billion. That is the amount it will cost to merely continue funding current discretionary programs at their inflation-adjusted level. In other words, the Republican tax breaks for the wealthy would necessitate more than a twenty percent across the board cut in discretionary spending--in both domestic programs and national defense--by the end of the next decade. If defense is funded at the Administration's proposed level--and it is highly unlikely that the Republican Congress will do less--domestic spending would have to be cut 38% by 2009. No one can reasonably argue that cuts that deep should be made, or will be made. We know what cuts of this magnitude would mean in human terms by the end of the decade. We know who will be hurt. 375,000 fewer children will receive a Head Start. 6.5 million fewer children will participate in Title I education programs for disadvantaged students. 14,000 fewer biomedical research grants will be available from the National Institutes of Health. 1,431,000 fewer veterans will receive VA medical care. These are losses that the American people will not be willing to accept. The Democratic alternative would restore $290 billion for such domestic priorities, substantially reducing the size of the proposed cuts. A significant reduction would still be required over the decade. One thing is clear--even with a bare bones budget, we cannot afford a tax cut of the magnitude the Republicans are proposing. Our Republican colleagues claim that these enormous tax cuts will have no impact on Social Security, because they are not using payroll tax revenues. On the contrary, the fact that the Republican budget commits every last dollar of the on-budget surplus to tax cuts does imperil Social Security. Revenue estimates projected ten years into the future are notoriously unreliable. As the Director of the Congressional Budget Office candidly acknowledged: ``Ten year budget projections are highly uncertain.'' Despite this warning, the Republicans tax cut leaves no margin for error. If we commit the entire surplus to tax cuts and the full surplus does not materialize, or if we have unbudgeted emergency expenses, Social Security revenues will be required to cover the shortfall. The vote which we cast today--the choices which we make--will say a great deal about our values. We should use the surplus as an opportunity to help those in need--senior citizens living on small fixed incomes, children who need educational opportunities, millions of men and women whose lives may well depend on medical research and access to quality health care. We should not use the surplus to further enrich those who are already the most affluent. The issue is a question of fundamental values and fundamental fairness. Unfortunately, Republicans returned from the Senate-House Conference with a substantially more regressive bill than the one the Senate passed last week. The current bill contains a costly reduction in capital gains tax rates which was not in the Senate bill. The current bill completely eliminates the estate tax, providing enormous new tax breaks to the richest few. It also provides more than twice as much in tax cuts for multinational corporations as the Senate bill did. Yet, the permanent extension of the research and development tax credit--the provision which would do the most to help many of those businesses whose innovations have created jobs and fueled our prosperity--was not included in this legislation. Instead, only a brief extension of the credit was provided. How extraordinarily shortsighted. In order to plan this research efficiently, the companies need to know what the rules will be in future years. The permanent extension of the research and development tax credit is the type of tax cut we should be passing. Unfortunately it is not before us. Democrats believes in tax cuts which are affordable and fairly distributed. The Democratic alternative, which I support, would provide $290 billion in tax relief over the next decade. That is an amount the nation can afford without endangering the economic progress we have made and without ignoring our responsibilities to Medicare, to Social Security, to education, and to other vital programs. We oppose the $792 billion Republican tax bill because it would poison our prosperity and lead to a crippling rise in interest rates. We oppose the Republican bill because it would consume the entire surplus, and distribute the overwhelming majority of it to those who already have the most. That is not the way the American people want to spend their surplus. I urge my colleagues to reject the bill. The American people deserve better than this.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to express my strong support for S. 296, the Federal Research Investment Act, which was introduced earlier this year by Senator Frist and Senator Rockefeller, and was reported favorably by the Commerce Committee earlier this month. This legislation is important for the future of the nation's economy and our competitive position in the global market- place. A key ingredient in the continued success and growth of our economy is federal investment in research and development. Much of America's technological leadership today and in the past has been stimulated by federal R&D expenditures, and we need to continue to strengthen these investments as a top national priority. The results of this public-private partnership are all around us. They include the biotechnology industry, commercial satellite communications, integrated circuitry, the Internet, satellite-based global navigation and communications, and supercomputers. The Act calls for doubling the federal non-defense science budgets over the next eleven years. As a share of GDP, federal investment in R&D now stands at about half what it was 30 years ago. This share is projected to continue to fall under the current budget caps. Clearly, a strong commitment is needed for investment in R&D funding for basic sciences. Without a strong commitment, the worsening imbalance in R&D funding will have a negative impact on the economy and the nation's competitive position. I strongly support the effort to double the federal R&D budget. It is one of the most effective ways to ensure the continued prosperity of our nation. It is imperative that we continue making these investments which have made Massachusetts and many other states renowned for their innovative leadership. We must continue and enhance, not cut back, on these needed investments. I commend Senator Rockefeller and Senator Frist for their leadership and vision on this critical piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this important Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with the announcement of his proposal to modernize and strengthen Medicare, President Clinton has demonstrated that we can achieve needed Medicare reform without compromising our clear commitment to the fundamental principles of that basic and highly successful program. Our goal is to preserve and strengthen Medicare, so that it effectively meets the needs of all senior citizens in the years ahead, as it has done so well for the past thirty-four years. Above all, we must reject any proposals that undermine the ability of senior citizens to obtain the health care they need, or that attempt to transform Medicare into a voucher program, as the Medicare Commission's recommendations and other premium support plans do. Such proposals are risky schemes. They abandon Medicare's successful social insurance compact, and current guarantee of a defined benefit. Premium support proposals could price conventional Medicare out of reach and force senior citizens to join HMOs. They threaten to compromise the quality of care and reduce access to care. That is unacceptable to senior citizens, and it should be unacceptable to members of Congress. There are a number of hard-working organizations dedicated to the well-being of senior citizens. I welcome this opportunity to comment on one such group--a distinguished public interest organization that works effectively to protect the interests of senior citizens and ensure fairness in Medicare reform. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is a major leader in the national effort to protect and strengthen both Social Security and Medicare. I commend the Committee and its members for their commitment and their leadership, and I look forward to working closely with them in the critical weeks and months ahead to achieve the great goals we share.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced the first major steps under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 to protect children from overexposure to two widely used pesticides. Organophosphate chemicals, such as these two pesticides, kill insects by disrupting nerve impulses. Unfortunately, these chemicals have the same effect on humans, and children are especially vulnerable because of their developing bodies and the high proportion of fruits and vegetables in their diets. Effective protection against these two pesticides is an important step in implementing the Act as Congress intended. These steps by EPA to comply with the law are critical to ensure the health and safety of the nation's children. These actions are welcome, and EPA must continue to carry out its important mission to assess tolerance levels for pesticides that pose the highest risks to children. Much work remains to be done. Timely and complete implementation of the Act is essential, but we need to know more to assure that all children are protected from the harmful effects of pesticides. I have asked the General Accounting Office to evaluate the technologies used to assess immune, reproductive, endocrine, and neurotoxic effects of pesticides on children. GAO will also report on current research on links between pesticides and child health and disease. In particular, I have asked the GAO to evaluate whether the Act is being implemented adequately to protect the health and safety of the nation's children. Our children are our greatest natural resource. The goal in passing the Act was to set a strong public health standard to protect them, and EPA has a clear responsibility to implement the Act in accord with that standard.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Reed for introducing this important legislation. I am proud to co-sponsor this bill to ensure that parents have a stronger role in the education of their children. The first and most important teachers in children's lives are their parents. It is parents who help children begin learning about the world. It is parents who provide motivation and encouragement for academic success. And it is parents who provide indispensable lessons of character. The central role that parents play in the lives of their children requires strong parental involvement in education. Involving parents in education increases the achievement of all students. Research has repeatedly shown that a child with an involved parent is more likely to attend school regularly, is less likely to engage in violence or substance abuse, and will do better academically and on standardized tests. These fundamental principles apply without regard to the economic status or ethnic background of the parents. Parental involvement is also a vital part of a child's literacy. Children excel in reading when reading is a regular part of their early education. Students who have a greater array of reading material in the home have higher reading achievement. We know that increased parental involvement works. In Worcester, the Belmont Community School has instituted a school-wide reading initiative called ``Books and Beyond,'' which is helping children improve their reading skills and encourage their desire to read. Its success is largely due to special workshops and classes for parents, which emphasizes parental involvement, adult literacy training, and strong parent-school partnerships. The Hueco Elementary School in El Paso, Texas, supports parent involvement in a number of ways. It offers parenting classes throughout the year, including training for parents to support learning at home. It works to increase communication with parents through a Parent Communication Council that meets monthly. Hueco has also hired a successful parent coordinator to help teachers involve parents. This effort has paid off. Now parents have a strong role in the school. They participate in classroom instruction, and they are able to improve their own education. Average attendance has risen to 97 percent. Students whose parents attend workshops and participate in other activities have more success in school and fewer disciplinary problems. The federal government has a responsibility to be part of the effort to enhance parental involvement. The legislation we are introducing will help states and school districts to create strong ties with parents. It strengthens parental involvement programs in Title I, and encourages schools to use proven techniques for helping teachers and parents work together. It also provides support for connecting schools and parents through technology, and it increases the role of parents in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program. Strong parent involvement will help ensure strong schools. We should do all we can to make sure that federal support for improving public schools provides a strong role for parents. By doing so, we help create the brighter future that all the nation's children deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. In an effort to reduce costs under managed care, more than a third of all hospitals across the country are now reusing medical devices that are labeled by the original manufacturer as ``disposable'' or ``for single-use only.'' More than a million devices a year are being reprocessed and then used on patients without their knowledge, in violation of the original manufacturer's recommendation or warning, and without a determination by the FDA that these devices are safe and effective. To protect patient safety, FDA requires that before a medical device manufacturer can begin selling a single-use device as reusable by additional patients, the manufacturer must file the appropriate premarket notification to prove the safety and efficacy of the reused device. But this requirement only applies to original equipment manufacturers, and not to hospitals, other providers, or third party reprocessors. When hospitals, or third-party reprocessors, prepare a ``single-use only'' device for use again in another patient, they do not supply the FDA with any information on the safety and efficacy of the device and they do not notify the FDA of their intent to remarket the used device. The FDA does require third-party reprocessors to register with the Agency and to conform to the ``Good Manufacturing Practices'' required of device manufacturers. The larger reprocessors are registered with the FDA and may be inspected for compliance. But there are numerous smaller reprocessors that do not register with FDA, and hospitals that reprocess in-house do not register either. Even when registration takes place, is not a form of approval. Compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices does not assure that the reprocessing results in a safe and effective device. The reprocessing industry is, for the most part, unregulated. Some of the disposable devices that are reprocessed and reused are highly invasive and are contaminated with blood and tissue during use. A few examples include: Balloon angioplasty catheters for dilating coronary arteries; Electrophysiology catheters for cardiac testing; Biopsy forceps and biopsy needles for removing tissues and cells; Laparoscopic instruments for surgical procedures. Inadequate cleaning and sterilization of these devices prior to reuse can lead to cross-contamination of patients and hospital staff. Single-use devices are often made from heat sensitive plastics, and have intricate, inaccessible parts which can be difficult, if not impossible, to clean. They often contain long narrow tubing, acute angles, crevices, coils, joints, and porous surfaces where contaminants can collect. The potential is high for contamination by blood, respiratory secretions, gastric secretions, and fecal matter. Cleaning and resterilizing can also threaten the operation of a used single-use device. Physical, mechanical or electrical properties can be altered when the device is subject to harsh chemicals, high temperatures, pressure, gases, and physical removal of debris. Proper use of the device in the initial patient may also alter the performance of the device. Reprocessors say that they test these devices. But any testing is done without the benefit of the data and other proprietary information in the original manufacturer's Premarket Notification to the FDA. The FDA has conducted studies on balloon angioplasty catheters. These devices are threaded from an artery in the leg into the heart, and then inflated to open the coronary arteries. The studies concluded that many of the narrow spaces in these catheters were contaminated with blood, and that the balloons no longer inflated properly. Studies by FDA on reprocessed electrophysiology catheters have found debris accumulated at the edges of the electrodes. These devices are also threaded into the heart, and measure electrical activity to locate abnormal heart tissue and burn it away. FDA concluded that the determination as to which devices can be safely reused must be made on a model-by-model basis, and should not be made for an entire class or type of device. Other independent studies on biopsy forceps used to collect samples from the colon and digestive tract showed that over 80% were contaminated with blood, tissue, or fecal matter. The devices in this study were taken from hospital shelves where they were waiting for reuse on future patients. Injuries and product failures have also been associated with reused disposable devices. In January of this year, metal from an electrophysiology catheter electrode fell off and lodged in the heart of a 32-year-old woman in Kansas. The device had been reprocessed six times. In another case, a reprocessed catheter partially separated, and the tip was retained only by a small piece of wire. In this case, fortunately, the patient was not injured, but the potential for serious injury was great. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 gave FDA the authority to exercise pre-market control over medical devices for the first time. The Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 required hospitals and other facilities that use medical devices to report adverse events to FDA. A box on the MedWatch adverse event form asks if the device was being used for the first time or was reused. Additional information is needed on how many times a device has been reused and the name of the reprocessor, so that the Agency can identify signs or trends of problems with the reuse of a particular class or model of device, or with a particular reprocessor or process. The amendment we offer today will help ensure the safety and effectiveness of reprocessed medical devices. I commend the FDA for its continuing efforts to improve the premarket review program. This effort has resulted in reduced review times of Premarket Notifications, so that in 1997 and 1998, FDA had no backlog of these marketing applications. FDA should now move forward and require medical device reprocessors to demonstrate that reprocessed devices are safe and effective for use.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, very few decisions we make in Congress will have more impact on the long-term economic well-being of our nation than how we allocate the projected surplus. By our votes this week, we are setting priorities that will determine whether the American economy is on firm ground or dangerously shifting sand as we enter the 21st century. These votes will determine whether we have the financial capacity to meet our responsibilities to future generations, and whether we have fairly shared the economic benefits of our current prosperity. Sadly, the legislation before us today fails all of these standards. We should vote to reject it. A tax cut of the enormous magnitude proposed by our Republican colleagues would reverse the sound fiscal management which has created the inflation-free economic growth of recent years. That is the clear view of the two principal architects of our current prosperity--Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan. Devoting the entire on-budget surplus to tax cuts will deprive us of the funds essential to preserve Medicare and Social Security for future generations of retirees. It will force harsh cuts in education, in medical research, and in other vital domestic priorities. This tax cut jeopardizes our financial future--and it also dismally flunks the test of fairness. When fully implemented, the Republican plan would give 75% of the tax cuts to the wealthiest 20% of the population. The richest 1%--those earning over $300,000 a year-- would receive tax breaks as high as $23,000 a year, while working men and women would receive an average of only $139 a year. Republicans claim that the ten year surplus is three trillion dollars and that they are setting two-thirds of it aside for Social Security, and only spending one-third on tax cuts. That explanation is grossly misleading. The two trillion dollars they say they are giving to Social Security already belongs to Social Security. It consists of payroll tax dollars expressly raised for the purpose of paying future Social Security benefits. Using those dollars to fund tax cuts or new spending would be to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. The Republicans are not providing a single new dollar to help fund Social Security benefits for future generations. They are not extending the life of the Trust Fund for even one day. It is a mockery to characterize those payroll tax dollars as part of the surplus. That leaves the $996 billion on-budget surplus as the only funds available to address all of the nation's unmet needs over the next ten years. Republicans propose to use that entire amount to fund their tax cut scheme. Since CBO projections assume that all surplus dollars are devoted to debt reduction, the $996 billion figure includes nearly $200 billion in debt service savings. The amount which is available to be spent--either to address public needs or to cut taxes--is only slightly above $800 billion. Their $792 billion tax cut will consume the entire surplus. Even more troubling, the Republican tax cut has been designed to expand dramatically beyond the tenth year. The cost between 2010 and 2019 will dwarf the cost in the first decade. It will rise from $800 billion to $2 trillion dollars. And the cost of the debt service payments necessitated by a tax cut of that magnitude will grow exponentially as well. The GOP plan will usher in a new era of deficits--just as the baby boom generation is reaching retirement age. While the Senate Rules have been invoked to prevent the current tax cut from going beyond ten years, the Republican leadership has made clear their intent to make these massive cuts permanent. If these tax cuts were to become permanent, they would precipitate a genuine fiscal crisis. Most Americans understand the word ``surplus'' to mean dollars remaining after all financial obligations have been met. If that common sense definitions is applied to the federal budget, the surplus would be far smaller than $996 billion. We have existing obligations which should be our first responsibility. We have an obligation to preserve Medicare for future generations of retires, and to modernize Medicare benefits to include prescription drug assistance. The Republican budget does not provide one additional dollar to meet these needs. The American people clearly believe that strengthening Social Security and Medicare should be our highest priorities for using the surplus. By margins of more than two to one, they view preserving Social Security and Medicare as more important than cutting taxes. We should use the surplus to meet these existing responsibilities first, in order to fulfill the promise of a secure retirement with access to needed medical care. If we do nothing, Medicare will become insolvent by 2015. The surplus gives us a unique opportunity to preserve Medicare, without reducing medical care or raising premiums. The Republican tax cut would take that opportunity away. It would leave nothing for Medicare. We must seize this opportunity. Senate Democrats have proposed committing one-third of the surplus--$290 billion over the next ten years--to strengthening Medicare and to assisting senior citizens with the cost of prescription drugs. The Administration's 15 year budget plan provides an additional $500 billion for Medicare between 2010 and 2014. Enactment of the Republican tax cut would make this $800 billion transfer to Medicare impossible. If we squander the entire surplus on tax breaks, there will be no money left to keep our commitment to the nations' elderly. Unless we use a portion of the surplus to strengthen Medicare, senior citizens will be confronted with nearly a trillion dollars in health care cuts and premium increases. We know who the people are who will be asked by the Republicans to carry this enormous burden. The typical Medicare beneficiary is a widow, seventy-six years old, with an annual income of $10,000. She has one or more chronic illnesses. She is a mother and a grandmother. Yet the Republican budget would force deep cuts in her Medicare benefits, in order to pay for new tax breaks for the wealthy. As a result, elderly women will be unable to see their doctor. They will go without needed prescription drugs, or without meals or heat, so that wealthy Americans earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year can have additional thousands of dollars a year in tax breaks. The projected surplus also assumes drastic cuts in a wide range of existing programs over the next decade--cuts in domestic programs such as education, medical research, and environmental cleanup; and cuts in national defense. We have an obligation to adequately fund these programs. If existing programs merely grow at the rate of inflation over the next decade and no new programs are created and no existing programs are expanded, the surplus would be reduced by $584 billion dollars. That is the amount it will cost to merely continue funding current discretionary programs at their inflation-adjusted level. In fact, the real surplus over the next ten years is only slightly above $200 billion, roughly one-quarter the size of the proposed Republican tax cut. In other words, the Republican tax cut would necessitate more than a twenty percent across the board cut in discretionary spending--in both domestic and national defense--by the end of the next decade. If defense is funded at the Administration's proposed level, and it is highly unlikely that the Republican Congress will do less, domestic spending would have to be cut 38% by 2009. No one can reasonably argue that cuts that deep should be made, or will be made. We know what cuts of this magnitude would mean in human terms by the end of the decade. We know who will be hurt: 375,000 fewer children will receive a Head Start; 6.5 million fewer children will participate in Title I education programs; 14,000 fewer biomedical research grants will be available from the National Institutes of Health; 1,431,000 fewer veterans will receive V.A. medical care; and there will be 6,170 fewer Border Patrol agents and 6,342 fewer FBI agents insuring safer communities. These are losses that the American people are not willing to accept. The Democratic alternative would restore $290 billion, substantially reducing the size of the proposed cuts. A significant reduction would still be required over the decade. One thing is clear--even with a bare bones budget, we cannot afford a tax cut of the magnitude the Republicans are proposing. Our Republican friends claim that these enormous tax cuts will have no impact on Social Security, because they are not using payroll tax revenues. On the contrary, the fact that the Republican budget commits every last dollar of the on-budget surplus to tax cuts does imperil Social Security. First, revenue estimates projected ten years into the future are notoriously unreliable. As the Director of the Congressional Budget Office candidly acknowledged: Ten year budget projections are highly uncertain. In the space of only six months, CBO's estimate of the cumulative surplus has increased by nearly $300 billion. Further changes of that or a greater magnitude are likely--in either direction--as a result of economic fluctuations, administrative and judicial actions, and other developments. Despite this warning, the Republican tax cut leaves no margin for error. If we commit the entire surplus to tax cuts and the full surplus does not materialize, Social Security revenues will be required to cover the shortfall. Second, even if the projected surplus does materialize, the cost of the Republican budget exceeds the surplus in five of the next ten years--2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. Unless the Republican proposal is restructured, Social Security revenues will be required to cover the shortfall in each of those years. Third, the Republican tax cut leaves no money to pay for emergency spending, which has averaged $9 billion a year in recent years. Over the next decade, we are likely to need approximately $90 billion to cover emergency needs. That money has to come from somewhere. With the entire surplus spent on tax cuts, the Social Security Trust Fund will have to fund these emergency costs as well. The three threats to Social Security I have described are very real. However, there is an even greater impact of the Republican plan on the future of Social Security. As I noted earlier, that plan does not provide Social Security with a single new dollar to fund future benefit payments. In contrast, the Administration has proposed using a major portion of the surplus to strengthen Social Security for future generations of retirees. Beginning in 2011, the President's budget allocates to Social Security the savings which will result from debt reduction. Between 2011 and 2014, the Social Security Trust Fund would receive 543 billion new dollars from the surplus, and it would receive an additional $189 billion each year after that. As a result, the solvency of Social Security would be extended for a generation, to well beyond 2050. The Republican tax cut proposal, which costs over $2 trillion between 2010 and 2019, will consume all of the surplus dollars which were intended for Social Security. There will be nothing left for Social Security. As a result, no new dollars will flow into the Trust Fund, and the future of Social Security will remain clouded. For two-thirds of America's senior citizens, Social Security retirement benefits provide more than 50% of their annual income. Without Social Security, half the nation's elderly would be living in poverty. Social Security enables millions of senior citizens to spend their retirement years in security and dignity. A Republican tax cut of the magnitude proposed here today will put their retirement security in serious jeopardy. The votes which we cast this week--the choices which we are required to make--will say a great deal about our values. We should use the surplus as an opportunity to help those in need--senior citizens living on small fixed incomes, children who need educational opportunities, millions of men and women whose lives may well depend on medical research and access to quality health care. We should not use the surplus to further enrich those among us who are already the most affluent. The issue is a question of fundamental values and fundamental fairness. The Republican tax cut would consume the entire surplus, and distribute the overwhelming majority of it to those with the highest incomes. The authors of the Republican plan have highlighted the reduction of the 15% tax bracket to 14%. They have pointed to this as middle class tax relief. But that relief is only a small part of the overall tax breaks in their bill. It accounts for only $216 billion of the $792 billion in GOP tax cuts. Most of the remaining provisions are heavily weighted toward the highest income taxpayers. If the Republican plan were enacted and fully implemented, nearly 50% of the tax benefits would go to the richest 5% of taxpayers, and more than 75% of the benefits would go to the wealthiest 20%. Those with annual incomes exceeding $300,000 would receive tax breaks of $23,000 per year. The lowest 60% of wage-earners would share less than 11% of the total tax cuts--they would receive an average tax cut of only $139 per year. That gross disparity is unfair and unacceptable. This is not the way the American people want to spend their surplus. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. The American people deserve better than this.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, the time has been used or yielded back. I look forward to a vote on this motion.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is to try to provide some help and additional assistance to those individuals who are receiving the Pell grants. Those are virtually the lowest-income students. For the over 4 million students who are receiving Pell grants, their average income is $14,000 a year. They are the students who are encumbered to the greatest degree as a result of borrowing. They start out, if they are lucky enough to get into college, having these overwhelming debts. This would provide some $39 billion which would increase the Pell grants some $400. It would still only make them about 60 percent of what the Pell grants were some 20 years ago. As we are looking out after providing tax breaks for those in the upper incomes, it does seem to me that to try to give further encouragement to able and gifted students at the lower income level deserves support.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, there is a 2-minute time limit, 1 minute to either side; is that correct?

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Republicans continue to deny us the opportunity to vote on our bill to raise the minimum wage for the lowest paid workers. That is why I have filed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1999 as an amendment to the Budget Reconciliation Bill. Shame on Congress for giving tax breaks to the rich, but denying a pay raise for the working poor. The $792 billion Republican tax package will disproportionately benefit the richest Americans. Almost thirty percent of the tax breaks, once fully implemented, will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans--those who make over $300,000 a year. Seventy-five percent of the tax breaks will benefit the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans--those with an average income of over $139,000. But these tax breaks do virtually nothing for the lowest paid workers. They give minimum wage earners less than $22 a year in tax relief, compared to an average tax break of $22,964 a year for the wealthiest Americans. The Republicans want to give America's wealthiest 1 percent a tax break that is equal to or higher than what 40 percent of Americans earn in a year. The vast magnitude of these tax breaks is possible only because they depend on severe budget cuts in Head Start, Summer Jobs for low-income youth, and HUD housing subsidies for low-income tenants. Shame on Congress for ignoring the majority of America's workers to benefit the wealthy few. Our amendment is a modest proposal to raise the minimum wage from its present level of $5.15 an hour to $5.65 on September 1, 1999 and to $6.15 on September 1, 2000. It will help over 11 million American families. At $6.15 an hour, working full-time, a minimum wage worker would earn $12,800 a year under this amendment--an increase of over $2,000 a year. That additional $2,000 will pay for seven months of groceries to feed the average family. It will pay the rent for an average family for five months. It will pay for almost ten months of utilities. It will cover a year and a half of tuition and fees at a two-year college, and provide greater opportunities for those struggling at the minimum wage to obtain the skills needed to obtain better jobs. The national economy is the strongest in a generation, with the lowest unemployment rate in three decades. Under the leadership of President Clinton, the country as a whole is enjoying a remarkable period of growth and prosperity. Enterprise and entrepreneurship are flourishing--generating unprecedented expansion, with impressive efficiencies and significant job creation. The stock market has soared. Inflation is low, and interest rates are low. We are witnessing the strongest peace-time growth in our history. The sad reality, however, is that low wage workers are being left behind. And the Republican tax bill only widens the gap between the wealthy and the working poor. The Republican pension provisions, for example, only benefit high income Americans with extra income to contribute to IRAs and 401(k) plans. Raising the contribution limits on these savings vehicles only discourages companies from offering across- the-board retirement plans that benefit all employees. The Republican tax bill also undermines the current tax code rules that require retirement benefits to be distributed fairly among lower and higher paid workers. Under current law, minimum wage earners can barely make ends meet. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, they earn $10,712--almost $3,200 below the poverty line for a family of three. The real value of the minimum wage is now more than $2.00 below what it was in 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage should today be at least $7.49 an hour, not $5.15. This unconscionable gap shows how far we have fallen short over the past three decades in giving low income workers their fair share of the country's extraordinary prosperity. To rub salt in the wound, Congress recently signed off on a cost of living pay increase for every member of the Senate and House of Representatives. Republican Senators don't blink about giving themselves an increase--how can they possibly deny a fair increase to minimum wage workers? It is time to raise the Federal minimum wage. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. I urge my colleagues to join me in raising the minimum wage.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 helped bring us to this era of budget surpluses and economic prosperity. But too much of the actual savings used to balance the budget have come from Medicare. At the time the BBA was enacted, those savings were expected to total $116 billion over five years. Now, they are estimated by CBO to be nearly twice as great--nearly $200 billion over five years. Such deep cuts in Medicare are clearly unfair and unacceptable. Not surprisingly, all of us are now hearing from bedrock health care institutions across the country that are being devastated by these excessive cuts. Teaching hospitals--community hositals--community health centers and many others. We are hearing from those who care for the elderly and disabled when they leave the hospital--nursing homes-- home health agencies--rehabilitation facilities. We are hearing from virtually every one who cares for the 40 million senior citizens and disabled citizens on Medicare. They are telling us in no uncertain terms that Congress went too far. This motion is the first step toward reducing the steepest cuts. It would provide $20 billion over the next ten years to slow or eliminate the harshest impact of the Balanced Budget Act. It would ensure that the nation's hospitals and other health care facilities will be able to care for senior citizens and the disabled in the years ahead. With the retirement of the baby boom generation, the last thing we should be doing is jeopardizing the viability of the many health care facilities that depend on Medicare for their survival. These institutions are being hard hit in cities and towns across the nation. Often, the hospitals and other institutions that care for Medicare patients also care for other patients as well. Health care in the entire community is being threatened. Teaching hospitals are on the receiving end of a triple-whammy. The slash in Medicare reductions is leading to less patient care, less doctor training, and less medical research at the nation's top hospitals. In my own state of Massachusetts, for the first time in history, some of the finest and most renowned teaching hospitals in the country are now operating at a deficit. This situation is unsustainable--and it is happening all over our country. We will all suffer if these great institutions are forced out of business or into the arms of for-profit corporations. Community hospitals are suffering, too. Throughout my State of Massachusetts, we are seeing red ink and cutbacks in essential services. This, too, is happening all over the country. In Massachusetts alone, house health agencies are losing $160 million a year. Twenty agencies have closed their doors since the Balanced Budget Act went into effect. Many others are seeing fewer patients, and seeing their remaining patients less often. The home-bound elderly are especially vulnerable, and are suffering even more. In just the last two weeks, two Massachusetts nursing homes have declared bankruptcy. This proposal is an important step to restore the viability of these indispensable institutions in our health care system, and I urge the Senate to approve it. We must undo the damage before it is too late. The last thing we need to see on the doors of the nation's teaching hospitals, community hospitals, home health agencies, and nursing homes, is a sign that says, ``Closed because of the ill-considered activities of the United States Congress.''

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive all the applicable sections of the Act for consideration of the pending amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, virtually every major organization that represents senior citizens or persons with disabilities is in urgent support of this particular motion. They know what is happening. There isn't a Member who hasn't gone home and met with seniors in the state that doesn't know what is happening. It is not good enough to say we care about it and we will handle it some time in the future. You have a chance to handle it now, in the next 15 minutes. We have a chance to put the Senate of the United States on record and say: OK, we will work the details out now, but we are going to allocate the resources for it. We don't have to do as my friend and colleague from Tennessee says--that we can wait until after 10 years and see where we are; or as our friend from Louisiana said, we can deal with this some time in the future. The seniors deserve better. They need an answer and they need it now. They need a message from the Senate that says we hear you, we know what is of concern to those who have made this the great country that it is. They deserve this kind of a protection. There is an enormous need and incredible consequences. It is a matter of life and death for many senior citizens. Let us say that it is at least--at least--as important to guarantee that there will be funding for prescription drugs as it is for a tax benefit. Many of us believe it is more important, but with this motion to recommit the bill we are saying it is at least as important as the tax cut bill itself. I hope this motion will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable section of that act for consideration of the pending motion. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a group of letters from various groups that support this motion be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, to come back to a very basic and fundamental concept, we believe it is as important to give assurances to our senior citizens that there will be a prescription drug benefit for them as it is to have significant tax breaks. That is what this is about. Those that oppose us say they have a different conclusion, a different priority. They think tax breaks are preferable. Then they make other assumptions in terms of what is going to be available at some future time. I am not going to spend the last few minutes on this dispute, because this has been debated over the past few days, but the Wall Street Journal, the CBO, and OMB have basically indicated that if we go through with the kind of tax cut that is being proposed and advanced by our Republican friends, there just won't be resources left to deal with the elderly, the children and other priorities. I say, why ask the senior citizens to wait? Why should they always be the ones who have to wait? Why shouldn't we say that the Senate will put aside the amount necessary to afford a good benefit program on prescription drugs as part of this legislation? We want to give them the assurance that they are going to be protected. Why leave it iffy to the seniors? Why are they always the ones left behind? That is the question. This is an issue of priority. We say, if you are going to go down this road with regard to tax breaks that benefit the wealthy, let's make sure we are going to allocate some funds for a prescription drug benefit for the senior citizens and disabled persons who are on Medicare. My friend and colleague from Louisiana said we can't do that over this period of time. Well, they are going to have a conference on the two tax bills over the weekend. If they can have a conference on these two bills over the weekend, they ought to be able to get together and allocate sufficient funds for a prescription drug benefit in about half an hour. In the Finance Committee, we know they can do that within an hour. They can do it forthwith--introduce and report back with funds reserved for a benefit program. But we wanted to leave this up to the Finance Committee. This should not be a procedural issue, and it is not. Those of us who are supporting it are telling every senior citizen that we believe they are a priority, that their interests are important, and that their health care needs will be met. This isn't only an issue for the health care of the senior citizens; this matters to their children and grandchildren. They have an interest in the health care of their parents and grandparents. We ought to be able to have a Finance Committee that can report back allocations of resources and say a sufficient amount will be reserved for prescription drugs. We will go ahead with the rest, but this is reserved for prescription drugs for all of those in Medicare. Let the Finance Committee work that process out, either as part of the Medicare proposal or as a separate proposal. This is what this is about--priorities. It is about priorities. Those of us who are supporting it are giving the priorities to our senior citizens. Finally, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am in strong support of Senator Robb's amendment to recommit the tax bill to instruct the Finance Committee to make a $5.7 billion investment in rebuilding and modernizing the nation's schools. I commend Senator Robb for his leadership on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support this sensible legislation that is necessary to help the nation meet the critical need to modernize and rebuild crumbling and overcrowded schools. Schools, communities, and governments at every level have to do more to improve student achievement. Schools need smaller classes, particularly in the early grades. They need stronger parent involvement. They need well-trained teachers in the classroom who keep up with current developments in their field and the best teaching practices. They need after-school instruction for students who need extra help, and after-school programs to engage students in construction activities. They need safe, modern facilities with up-to- date technology. But, this investment can't succeed when roofs are crumbling and children are in overcrowded classrooms. Sending children to dilapidated, overcrowded facilities sends a message to these children. It tells them they don't matter. No CEO would tolerate a leaky ceiling in the board room, and no teacher should have to tolerate it in the classroom. We need to do all we can to ensure that children are learning in safe, modern school buildings. Renovation, rehabilitation, and modernization will allow schools to correct problems that prevent them from offering an environment conducive to learning. Researchers have documented a clear link between school building conditions and student learning. A study by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1996 compared test scores of students in substandard and above-standard buildings, and found that students in better buildings with access to modern technology do better in their academic work then those without these problems. Nearly one third of all public schools are more than 50 years old. 14 million children in a third of the nation's schools are learning in substandard buildings, and half of the schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. The problems with ailing school buildings aren't the problems of the inner city alone. They exist in almost every community, whether urban, rural, or suburban. In addition to modernizing and renovating dilapidated schools, communities need to build new schools in order to keep pace with rising enrollments and to reduce class sizes. Elementary and secondary school enrollment has reached an all-time high again this year of 53 million students, and will continue to grow. The Department of Education estimates that 2,400 new public schools will be needed by 2003, to accommodate rising enrollments. The General Accounting Office estimates that it will cost communities $112 billion to repair and modernize the nation's schools. Congress should lend a helping hand and do all we can to help schools and communities across the country meet this challenge. In Massachusetts, 41 percent of schools report that at least one building needs extensive repairs or should be replaced. 80 percent of schools report at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor. 48 percent have inadequate heating, ventilation, or air conditioning. And 36 percent report inadequate plumbing systems. This past year, I visited Everett Elementary School in Dorchester, Massachusetts. The school is experiencing serious overcrowding. The average class size is 28 students. The principal of the school gave up her office and moved into a closet in the hall in order to accommodate the rising enrollment. When the school needs the multi-purpose auditorium/library, the rolling bookcases are moved to the basement, and the library has to close for the rest of the day. In Fitchburg, Massachusetts, enrollments are rising by 200 students a year. Educators there would like to reduce class size, extend special education and bilingual education programs, and hire new teachers, but the school system does not have the facilities or resources to accomplish these important goals. Instead, Fitchburg has been forced to construct four portable facilities--and a fifth is under construction-- to deal with overcrowding. Forrest Grove Middle School in Worcester, Massachusetts, is at full capacity with 750 students. As enrollments rise, they expect an additional 150 students, forcing them to rent rooms at a local church to alleviate overcrowding. The schools in Olathe, Kansas are growing at a rate of 500-1,000 students a year, which is equivalent to about one new school per year. Two cafeterias at Bladensburg High School in Prince Georges County, Virginia were recently closed because they were infested with mice and roaches. A teacher commented, ``It's disgusting. It causes chaos when the mice run around the room.'' At an elementary school in Montgomery, Alabama, a ceiling which had been damaged by leaking water collapsed only 40 minutes after the children had left for the day. In Ramona, California, where overcrowding is a serious problem, one elementary school is composed entirely of portable buildings. It has neither a cafeteria nor an auditorium, and a single relocatable room is used as a library, computer lab, music room, and art room. In Silver Spring, Maryland, a second-grade reading class has to squeeze through a narrow corridor with a sink on one side into a space about 14 feet wide by 15 feet long. Schools are trying to meet their needs, but they can't do it alone. The federal government should join with state and local governments and community organizations to ensure that all children have the opportunity to get a good education in a safe and up-to-date school building. Children need and deserve a good education in order to succeed in life. But they cannot obtain that education if school roofs are falling down around them, sewage is backing up through faulty plumbing, asbestos is flaking off the walls and ceilings, schools lack computers and modern technology, and classrooms are overcrowded. We need to invest more to help states and communities rebuild crumbling schools, modernize old buildings, and expand facilities to accommodate reduced class sizes. Senator Robb's bill offers school districts the necessary flexibility and assistance to get the job done. Under this proposal, states will be able to put together a school financing package which best meets their needs. It offers states and school districts five choices from a menu of school construction financing components. It gives states and communities the authority to offer zero-interest school modernization bonds. It also offers other tax incentives to enhance the ability of communities to rebuild their schools, including private activity bonds, advance refunding, elimination of arbitrage rebates for small issuers, and Federal Home Loan Bank guarantees on school construction bonds. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Robb's amendment. The time is now to do all we can to help rebuild and modernize public schools, so that all children can succeed in safe, technologically-equipped schools.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding business in Centerville, Massachusetts, ``The Four Seas'' ice cream parlor. Our family has known for decades that the Four Seas has always produced excellent ice cream. I am delighted to bring my colleagues' attention today to a New York Times article last Sunday on ``The Four Seas'' and owner Richard Warren's extraordinary relationship with his employees and the entire community. The article recognizes ``The Four Seas'' as a business which makes some of the best ice cream on Cape Cod, and which also treats its employees with the respect and generosity that make it a model for other employers. It is gratifying to see the Four Seas receive this recognition that it eminently deserves. It is an honor to pay tribute to this extraordinary institution that is so beloved at Cape Cod. I ask that the New York Times article may be printed in the Record. [From the New York Times, July 25, 1999] Prized Ice Cream Jobs Create Extended Family (By Sara Rimer) Centerville, MA.--Cory Sinclair, 17, was scooping ice cream at the Four Seas as fast as he could and talking about the future. ``I want to be President,'' he said. ``I'm serious.'' Kelly O'Neil, 18, had more prosaic concerns. ``I'm sorry, we don't have jimmies,'' she informed a customer. (As any Four Seas regular knows, jimmies don't belong on good ice cream.) Mixing up a batch of coconut, Bryan Schlegel, 22, was feeling restless and wistful. ``It's time to move on,'' he said. ``I've been here six summers.'' The Four Seas, a white cottage with blue shutters and a white formica counter with 12 blue stools, has been an institution on South Main Street of this Cape Cod village for 65 summers. The owner, Richard Warren, 64, who has been on the job for 45 years, makes what is indisputably delicious ice cream. He uses fresh peaches, strawberries, blueberries and ginger, expensive chocolate and loads of buttercream, and he tastes every batch himself. He does not add candy or try bizarre flavors. But what also distinguishes the Four Seas is the help. Summer after summer, the young men and women behind the counter seem as unchanging as the decor, the ice cream and the oldies on the radio. They are clean-cut and sport no visible tattoos or strange piercing. They are alert and polite, even when the customers are rude. They are the class presidents, newspaper editors and honor roll regulars from Barnstable High School who have been handpicked by Mr. Warren, a retired math teacher and guidance counselor there. They start serving up cones at 16, and they stay through college, ending their careers--and career is the word they use--as ice cream makers and managers, like Mr. Schlegel. ``It's the best job you can get on the Cape,'' said Tava Ohlsen, 18, who graduated at the top of her class in June, plans to go to medical school and moved up this summer from ice cream scooper to sandwich maker. ``People say, `Oh, you work at the Four Seas. You're a good student; you're good with people.' '' From the week before Memorial Day until the week after Labor Day, the staff races from the counter to the ice cream and back to keep up with the crowds. There are higher paying summer jobs--the Four Seas is minimum wage, with tips bringing it to about $10 an hour--but Mr. Warren never has any trouble finding help. He solicits recommendations from the faculty at Barnstable High, and summons those with the highest ratings for interviews. ``It's known that you can't apply,'' Mr. Sinclair said. To be called by Mr. Warren is to become a member of his extended family. ``He's like a second dad,'' said Jahni Clarke, 19. ``I tell him about everything, from school to money to my love life.'' At the end of every summer Mr. Warren throws a staff party, with dinner and a live band. He organizes an all-expenses- paid ski weekend in New Hampshire every winter. He writes his employees' college recommendations, and when they get to college, he visits them. He brings ice cream to their weddings (romance, predictably, blooms behind the counter, and there have been seven Four Seas marriages so far. He has periodic reunions; at the last one, in 1988, only 4 Four Seas alums, out of more than 200, were not able to make it. Mr. Warren is married, with four grown children. Each season he gives out scholarships totaling several thousand dollars in memory of his son Randy, who was killed in 1983 when he was hit by a car while crossing the street in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. He was 21. ``I was never close to my dad,'' said Mr. Warren, who was talking recently between greeting customers and making ice cream. ``He was 46 when I was born. I longed for a relationship with my children. Randy and I were so close. We won the state father-son golf tournament. We'd ski all day, play tennis till we dropped. He wanted to run this place someday. Randy lives on, in a way, Mr. Warren said, in the young people who work beside him each summer. ``Bryan is like a son,'' he said as he and Mr. Schlegel poured frozen pudding ice cream into cartons. ``We just played in the father-son golf tournament.'' Mr. Schlegel graduated this spring from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He was recently called for an interview in the customer service department of a Boston investment banking firm. By fall, he said, he hopes to have a permanent job. Meanwhile, Mr. Clarke, who is a junior at the University of Massachusetts, just moved up to manager. ``I'm the first black manager,'' said Mr. Clarke, who was freshman class president, and editor of the newspaper at Barnstable High, which is mostly white. Things do change at the Four Seas. As hard-working as his 25 employees are, Mr. Warren said that most do not want to put in the hours that previous generations did. ``They don't need the money as much,'' he said, adding that whereas workers from summers past arrived on foot or by bicycle, or were dropped off by their parents, almost all of the employees now drive their own cars. But the biggest change, the one everyone is talking about, is that Mr. Warren's son Doug, 36, is back from Las Vegas, where he had been running a restaurant and selling computer software. The plan is for him to take over the ice cream parlor. The elder Mr. Warren is talking about retiring in a couple of years. His staff is skeptical. ``The chief will never retire,'' Ms. O'Neil said.