Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota, 5 minutes. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 10 minutes, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we now have a 1-hour time limitation, am I correct, and the time is divided?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield a minute to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as was indicated in the motion, senior citizens deserve coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare, and it is time for Congress to see that they get it. This amendment presents a clear choice between prescription drug coverage for the elderly and unnecessary new tax breaks for the wealthy. This debate is about priorities. New tax breaks are a priority for the Republicans. Prescription drugs for senior citizens are not. If senior citizens were the priority, we would be debating a Medicare prescription drug bill today--not a tax cut bill. If senior citizens were the priority, we would be debating a tax bill after we had taken care of Medicare and Social Security--not before. These Republican tax bills have $230 billion in new tax breaks for people with incomes over $300,000 a year. They reinstate the three- martini lunch deduction. There are sweetheart deals for the insurance industry, the timber industry, the oil industry, and large multinational corporations. But there is not one dime for Medicare prescription drugs for senior citizens. Medicare is a clear contract between workers and their government. It says, ``Work hard, pay into the system when you are young, and you will have health security in your retirement years.'' But that commitment is being broken today and every day, because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. When Medicare was enacted in 1965, coverage of prescription drugs in private insurance policies was not the norm--and Medicare followed the standard practice in the private market. Today, ninety-nine percent of employment-based health insurance policies provide prescription drug coverage--but Medicare is caught in a 34 year old time warp--and too many seniors are suffering as a result. 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 of prescription drugs. Too many seniors are paying twice as much as they should for the drugs they need, because they are forced to pay full price, while almost everyone with a private insurance policy benefits from negotiated discounts. Too many seniors are ending up hospitalized--at immense costs to Medicare--because they aren't receiving the drugs they need at all, or cannot afford to take them correctly. Pharmaceutical products are increasingly the source of miracle cures for a host of dread diseases, but senior citizens will be left out and left behind if we do not act. The 21st century may well be the century of life sciences. With the support of the American people, Congress is on its way to our goal of doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health. This investment is seed money for the additional basic research that will enable private and public sector scientists to develop new therapies that will improve and extend the lives of people in the United States and around the globe. In 1998 alone, private industry spent more than $21 billion in research on new medicines and to bring them to the public. These miracle drugs save lives--and they save dollars too, by preventing unnecessary hospitalization and expensive surgery. All patients deserve affordable access to these medications. Yet, Medicare, which is the nation's largest insurer, does not cover out-patient prescription drugs, and senior citizens and persons with disabilities pay a heavy price for this glaring omission. Prescription drug bills eat up a large and disproportionate share of the typical elderly household's income. Senior citizen spend three times more of their income on health care than persons under 65, and they account for one-third of all prescription drug expenditures. yet they make up only 12 percent of the population. The greatest gap in Medicare--and the greatest anachronism--is its failure to cover prescription drugs. Ninety-nine percent of all employment-based plans--ninety-nine percent--cover prescription drugs today. But Medicare is still mired in the mid-1960s--when the private plans on which Medicare was modeled did not provide this coverage. Because of this gap and other gaps in Medicare, and the growing cost of the Part B premium, Medicare now pays only 50% of the out-of-pocket medical costs of the elderly. On average, senior citizens now spend almost as much of their income on health care as they did before Medicare was enacted. And Medicare was enacted because there was a crisis in health care for the elderly in the 1960s. How can we fail to act today, to deal with the health care crisis for the elderly in the 1990s? Prescription drugs are the single largest out-of-pocket cost to the elderly for health care. The average senior citizen fills an average of eighteen prescriptions a year, and takes four to six prescriptions daily. Many elderly Americans face monthly drug bills of $100, $200 or even more. America's senior citizens and disabled citizens deserve to benefit from new discoveries in the same way that other families do. Yet, without negotiating power, they receive the brunt of cost-shifting-- often with devastating results. In the words of a recent report by Standard & Poor ``Drugmakers have historically raised prices to private customers to compensate for the discounts they grant to managed care consumers.'' The private customers referred to in this report are largely the nation's mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, and grandfathers. Despite--and to a large extent because of--Medicare's lack of coverage for prescription drugs, the misuse of such drugs results in preventable illnesses that cost Medicare $20 billion or more a year, while imposing vast misery on senior citizens. It is in their best interest, and in the best interest of Medicare, to design a system that encourages the proper use, and minimizes the improper use of prescription drugs. Substantial savings can be found if physicians and pharmacists are educated on senior citizen-prescription drug interactions and on ways to identify, prevent, and correct prescription drug-related problems. Beneficiaries, too, must follow instructions that are dispensed with the medication itself. Too often, we hear stories of senior citizens who skimp on medicine. They take half doses or otherwise try to stretch their prescription, to make it last longer. That is not right, and it doesn't have to happen. If senior citizens are confident that the drugs they need will be covered, proper usage will improve, and so will the quality of life for senior citizens. During the course of this debate, we will hear many arguments from the opponents of this amendment. Their arguments are as predictable as they are wrong. First, we will hear that the sponsors of this excessive tax cut are all for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, too. They claim that even after their tax cut, they still have $253 billion of surplus left. But we all know that those estimates are as phony as a three dollar bill-- and about as valuable. The only way that any money is left after the Republican tax cut is because their budget pretends to cut national defense by $198 billion below the President's request--a request that Republicans say is inadequate. Their budget also pretends that there will never be another emergency appropriation--even though emergencies will cost us $90 billion over the next 10 years if present trends continue. Their budget pretends to cut domestic programs from Head Start to education to highway construction to law enforcement by half a trillion dollars over the next ten years, cuts that no one believes will ever happen. Republicans hope they can continue to play ``let's pretend'' until this reckless and irresponsible tax cut passes the Senate. But by then it will be too late--too late for today's senior citizens, who need prescription drug coverage--too late for tomorrow's senior citizens, who need a solvent Medicare--too late to protect Social Security--too late to meet pressing needs to educate the nation's children, support biomedical research, fight crime, protect the environment, and meet all the other pressing needs that are priorities for the American people. This is an issue of priorities. Republicans may say that there is enough money left over to protect seniors. Let them put their votes where their mouth is. All this motion does is say set aside enough money out of the tax cut to provide a prescription drug benefit before we vote to pass a tax bill. This should be a simple vote for any Senator who cares about senior citizens. Tax cuts are a priority for the Republicans. Prescriptions drugs for senior citizens are not. If senior citizens were the priority, we would be debating a prescription drug coverage bill today--not a tax cut bill. If senior citizens were the priority, we would be debating a tax bill after we had taken care of Medicare and Social Security--not before. If senior citizens were the priority, it would be tax breaks that would get the left-overs, not the elderly. Republicans also say that prescription drug coverage should not be provided to all senior citizens--only to the poor or those who have no current coverage. But we heard those same arguments when Medicare was originally enacted. The American people didn't buy these arguments then--and they won't buy them now. Let's look at the numbers. Fourteen million elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries--one-third of the total--do not have a dime of prescription drug coverage today. Not a dime. One-quarter of Medicare beneficiaries have coverage through an employer--but retiree health benefits are on the chopping block as companies seek to cut costs by trimming health care spending. In fact, the proportion of firms offering coverage has dropped one-quarter in just the last four years. No senior citizen--and certainly no 50-year- old looking forward to retirement--can count on prescription drug coverage being there for them when serious illness strikes. Seven million Americans get prescription drug coverage through a Medicare HMO. But that coverage is offered voluntarily--and it is often being cut back or eliminated altogether. Three-quarters of Medicare HMOs will impose caps on their benefits of less than $1,000 next year. Almost one-third will impose caps of less than $500. The majority of seniors have annual drug expenses well in excess of $500. More than $325,000 beneficiaries will be dropped from their HMOs next year. There is not a single senior citizens who joined an HMO because of the promise of affordable prescription drug benefits who can count on that promise being kept. Four and a half million senior citizens get prescription drug coverage through a Medigap plan. But that coverage is extraordinarily expensive and inadequate. According to Consumer Reports, a seventy-four year old senior citizen enrolled in the least generous Medigap plan offering drug coverage would pay an average of close to $2,000 a year more in premiums--on top of $1,4000 for the non-drug part of the coverage--a total of more than $3,000 a year. And that is an average. Some beneficiaries must pay more than $9,000 a year for drug coverage through Medigap. Whatever the starting premium, it goes higher and higher as senior citizens age and their need for medical care grows. Anyone who misses the chance to enroll in a plan offering drug coverage at age 65 never gets another chance if they have any health problems. The only senior citizens who have stable, secure, affordable Medicare drug coverage today are the very poor on Medicaid. The idea that only the impoverished should qualify for needed hospital and doctor care was popular with Republicans more than 30 years ago when they fought against the enactment of Medicare. The American people rejected that cruel doctrine--and Medicare for all was enacted. Today, it is time for the Senate to reject the equally indefensible proposition that poverty is the price that senior citizens should have to pay to get the prescription drugs they need. A couple of Marshfield, Massachusetts vividly demonstrates why we need to act now. Their plight is representative of millions of other senior citizens across the country. They live on a fixed income of $30,000 a year from Social Security and a retirement pension. They are not poor. Their income is not below 135% of poverty. In fact, it is not even below 200% of poverty--but it is not enough for them to afford the prescription drugs they need. Both have substantial medical needs, and both belong to the Medicare HMO--but 19% of the couple's income is still spent on prescription drugs. By April, the couple had already exhausted their HMO's $150 quarterly cap for prescription drug coverage. The $956 cost of the wife's medications for May and June will come completely out of their pockets. She has been rationing her medication--not taking it as prescribed, in an attempt to stretch out the medicine to save money. She was a stroke victim five years ago. Yet, she has to cut back considerably on her most expensive prescriptions. She is having a difficult time with the left side of her body, and cannot move her left arm. She says, ``My muscles are really tight, and it is a result of not taking my Methocarbamol, because I am trying to stretch my prescription dollars. We don't go out, we can't afford gas, and we have had to cut down on groceries.'' Every senior citizen in America could find themselves forced to choose between a decent retirement and the medications they need to survive. No person and no family should have to make that unfair choice. This is what our amendment is all about. Senior citizens need and deserve prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Any senior citizen will tell you that--and so will their children and grandchildren. I would like to just reiterate an earlier point. The debate this week is really about priorities, and there are many of us who believe that, prior to moving toward any of these kinds of tax breaks, we ought to secure Social Security, we ought to ensure the security of the Medicare system, and include in the Medicare system a prescription drug benefit program. I have listened over the course of the past 2 days, as well as earlier in the year, to those who say we can afford the kind of tax breaks that are being recommended. They say that we will have sufficient resources at the end of it in order to provide for a prescription drug benefit. I don't believe that to be the case. Even if it were the case, I am not going to take our limited time to debate how much may be left over after we deal with the Republican tax breaks. I don't think there will be much, if anything. But what we are saying today is rather than wait to see if there is anything left, let's go ahead today. We are saying that any proposal that is going to come out of this Senate dealing with tax breaks is also going to include an important prescription drug benefit for the senior citizens of this country. That is what we are saying. We say send this legislation back to the Finance Committee, and then we ask the Finance Committee to report back within a period of 3 days. There are a number of acceptable proposals. The proposal by the President of the United States is one that I favor. Senator Rockefeller and I also have a proposal that I favor. But this motion simply requires the Finance Committee to come back with funds sufficient to provide prescription drug coverage to all Medicare beneficiaries. It doesn't specify one proposal over another. That is, in effect, what this amendment is really all about. We believe that coverage of prescription drugs is necessary in order to effectively upgrade Medicare to deal with modern realities. There are other considerations in the Medicare program that the President and others have outlined which deserve consideration. But today we should say that before we pass significant tax breaks, we are going to make a commitment that a prescription drug benefit program be put into place. It is a matter of enormous importance. It makes an incredible difference in the quality of life of the senior citizens of this country. Prescription drug benefits in the current system are completely inadequate. Those who rise to oppose it will say: Let us just have a partial program because there are only about one-third that have no coverage. We went through those numbers earlier. Only the poorest seniors have affordable, reliable and adequate coverage. Those with retiree coverage cannot be certain it will continue. Those in HMOs are being told that their coverage will be limited to $500 or $1,000 a year. Others are being dropped because their plan is leaving the program. Seniors who can get into medigap are shelling out thousands of dollars a year for coverage that is inadequate. Coverage of prescription drugs is an issue of life and death for our senior citizens. Some would like to limit our assistance to only some of the elderly. Are we going to say now on this important issue that we should turn Medicare into a poverty program, a Medicaid program? Clearly, we should not. There are those who say, well, Mr. President, we only have a small group that aren't covered. Let's target it at that. But every kind of indicator shows that coverage is declining every year for those who are fortunate enough to have some coverage now. Our program is very clear and simple. Again, it says that this will be a priority. We said: Send this legislation back to the Committee. Have it come back to the floor with funds reserved to have a prescription drug program that is going to be worthy of its name. It says that before we see the major kinds of tax breaks and tax cuts in this bill, we should meet the needs of our senior citizens. Every Member of this body can give chapter and verse about what is happening in their communities, and about how important this is. I am sure that others in this body have had the opportunity, as I have, of visiting a nursing home or a senior citizen gathering and asking them: How many of you are paying out of your pocket for prescription drugs $25 or $50 or $75 a month? You see all the hands go up. You ask them: How many are paying $75 a month? You will find about half to three- quarters of them. How many are paying $50? Half or three-quarters of them. How many are paying $100 or more? You will still see many of those hands in the air. We are finding that many of the senior citizens are skimping on their prescription drugs--they take half of it or skip days--despite all of the negative health implications that has. It is interesting that for the five most common preventable conditions or diseases in the elderly, just five preventable diseases for which prescription drugs are available, the Medicare system pays $30 billion a year in hospitalizations. Many of those hospitalizations could have been avoided if those senior citizens had been able to afford the prescription drugs recommended by their doctors. That is what we are talking about. We are going to pay for it either on the front end or the back end. This motion makes sense because it is the right thing to do from a health point of view. It is the right thing to do from a bottom line point of view. It is necessary if we are going to meet our continuing responsibilities to our senior citizens. I would like to mention on the floor of the Senate a petition I just received from Silver Spring, MD. It is from the Homecrest House Resident Council in Silver Spring, MD. They wrote, We are enclosing our petition signed by most of our 300 residents. We are sure that we voice a concern of our friends around the Nation, seniors and disabled. We do without other necessities in order to buy needed medications. Here are the names from just one senior citizen center. Three hundred senior citizens and disabled persons. They understand the importance of this particular program. Again, this debate is about priorities. Are we going to have tax breaks for the wealthy and for special interests or are we going to have the protection of our seniors? Final point: I was listening with great interest to the debate on the other side about whether we are going to accept the House proposal. The fact is, that House proposal has a lot of tax goodies. There is the restoration of the three-martini lunch. Many Members thought we freed ourselves from the tax break for the three-martini lunch back in 1993. It is back in the House bill. This bill has all sorts of other tax goodies for special interests, tax goodies for various industries, including the insurance industry, the timber interests, the oil and gas industry, for foreign tax credits, and others that I think are questionable. Out of all those issue that are out there, I say prescription drugs for the elderly people are more important than putting into place the tax privileges in this bill. This motion will put the Senate on record in favor of closing the largest gap in Medicare. A vote to reject it is a vote to put a higher priority on new tax breaks for the wealthy than on quality medical care for senior citizens. I know where the American people stand. It is time for the Senate to decide where it stands. I hope this motion will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we should be doing all we can to help improve public schools to ensure a brighter future for children and the nation. We should help communities improve teacher training and teacher recruitment; reduce class sizes, especially in the early grades; expand after-school programs; build new schools, and modernize crumbling and overcrowded schools; provide up-to-date-technologies in every classroom; and make college more accessible and affordable to all families across the country. But, the Republicans insist on an excessive tax cut at the expense of education and children. We should be making a strong investment in education--not undermining education. The Republican budget denies 5.9 million children in high-poverty communities the extra support they need to meet basic academic standards through the Title I program, including 81,547 children in Massachusetts. It denies 480,000 children the assistance they need to learn to read well by the 4th grade through the Reading Excellence Act. It denies more than a million children the opportunity to learn in smaller classes where they will get the individual attention they need to succeed in school. It denies 430,000 children the Head Start services that help them come to school ready to learn. It denies 215,000 students the after-school and summer school programs they need to stay off the streets and out of trouble. It denies 500,000 disadvantaged students the extra guidance and support they need to prepare for college through the TRIO and GEAR-UP programs. It cuts IDEA by $3.4 billion, resulting in a reduction in the federal share of the funding, rather than the increase requested by school boards and administrators across the country. The Republican assault on education doesn't stop with young children--it affects college students, too. It makes college less affordable for nearly 4 million low- and middle-income students--by slashing the maximum Pell grant to $2,175, the lowest level since 1987. It denies 500,000 students the opportunity to work their way through college. Education for the nation's children must be a higher priority than tax breaks for the rich. The American people tell us that improving public schools is one of their top priorities. They support reducing class sizes. They support after-school programs to help children learn, and to reduce juvenile crime. They agree that every classroom should have a well-qualified teacher. They believe technology should be part of the classroom. They believe that all children should have the opportunity to meet high standards of achievement. They want us to make college more accessible and affordable. Instead of offering new tax breaks for the wealthy, Congress should be addressing the priority education needs of children and families across the country--and help all children get a good education. Overcrowded classrooms undermine discipline and decrease student morale. Students in small classes in the early grades make more rapid progress than students in larger classes. The benefits are greatest for low-achieving, minority, and low-income children. Smaller classes also enable teachers to identify and work effectively with students who have learning disabilities, and reduce the need for special education in later grades. The nation's students deserve modern schools with world-class teachers. But too many students in too many schools in too many communities across the country fail to achieve that standard. The latest international survey of math and science achievement confirms the urgent need to raise standards of performance for schools, teachers, and students alike. It is shameful that America's twelfth graders ranked among the lowest of the 22 nations participating in the international survey of math and science. The teacher shortage has forced many school districts to hire uncertified teachers, or ask certified teachers to teach outside their area of expertise. Each year, more than 50,000 under-prepared teachers enter the classroom. One in four new teachers does not meet state certification requirements. Twelve percent of new teachers have had no teacher training at all. Students in inner-city schools have only a 50% chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher. In Massachusetts, 30% of teachers in high-poverty schools do not even have a minor degree in their field. Another high priority is to meet the need for more after-school activities. Each day, 5 million children, many as young as 8 or 9 years old, are left home alone after school. Juvenile delinquency peaks in the hours between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. Children left unsupervised are more likely to be involved in anti-social activities and destructive patterns of behavior. We need to do more--not less--to meet workers' needs for additional job training opportunities, and to meet families' needs for affordable college education. The nation's workers require strong skills to compete in the new global economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 42 percent of all jobs created between 1996-2006 will require education beyond high school. Education is the key to future earning power. A college graduate earns almost twice as much as a high school graduate earns, and close to three times what a high school dropout earns. Those who complete a post-secondary vocational degree or certificate are more likely to be employed than those who do not pursue post- secondary education. But the average student debt is skyrocketing. In 1995-96, the average debt for undergraduates who borrowed was almost $10,000, an increase of 24 percent just since 1992-93. For graduates of four-year schools, the average debt was $12,000. In the 1990s, students have borrowed more in student loans than in the three preceding decades combined. The time is now to do all we can to improve education across the country. The time is now to meet our commitment to help communities reduce class size, so that students get the individual attention they need. The time is now to expand after-school opportunities, so that constructive alternatives are available to students. The time is now to provide greater resources to modernize and expand schools to meet the urgent need for up-to-date facilities. The time is now to expand support for IDEA, so that more children with disabilities receive a high-quality education. The time is now to provide better training for current and new teachers, so that they are well-prepared to teach to high standards. The time is now to increase funding for critical programs to raise academic standards for all children. The time is now to make college and job training more accessible and affordable for all students. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Bingaman's Sense of the Senate commitment to support increased funding for education. Now is the time to do what it takes to give every child a good education.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, can we have order? I will just take one moment. Mr. President, when the Medicare program was agreed to in 1965, it was intended to provide health security for the seniors in this country. Now it still is a vital force, but there is a major element that is missing, and that is the prescription drug coverage. There are no senior citizens, unless they are on Medicaid, who have a prescription drug benefit that is reliable, dependable, and affordable. This particular motion says we believe, those who support it, that as a part of this tax cut there ought to be set aside funding for a prescription drug benefit. We do not believe a tax cut has a higher priority than providing a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. But what we do say is the Finance Committee should set aside sufficient funds, and that the program can be developed later in this term. The motion ensures that funds will be earmarked to provide our senior citizens with a reliable, dependable, affordable prescription drug benefit. Make such a fund part of this whole program. Do not take a chance there will be some funds down the line. Do not ask our seniors to wait any further. They have waited long enough. They need this; they depend on it. Prescription drugs are a lifeline for our senior citizens. I hope this motion will be passed as part of a tax program, and that there will be a designated fund available for a prescription drug program for all Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, members on both sides of the aisle have spent a great deal of time over the past two years talking about child care. We've introduced dozens of bills. We've held extensive hearings. We know the difficulties facing countless families across the nation in obtaining affordable, quality care for their children. We've emphasized the scientific research that confirms again and again that quality early childhood support is necessary for proper brain development of infants and toddlers. We've called for significant additional investments in the nation's children when they are very young, so that all children can benefit from healthy growth and development. The alternative is unacceptable because it means far higher costs in the long run, and because it denies many thousands of children the opportunity to enter school ready to learn. For all the talk, there has been far too little action. We have severely underfunded the Child Care and Development Block Grants to the states. Only one in ten children who qualify for federal assistance actually receives it. When states run out of funds, they place many of the remaining children on waiting lists. Today, over two hundred thousands children who need a safe and stimulating environment while their parents work are on waiting lists instead. At a hearing held this week, Senators from both parties called this a national disgrace, and I could not agree more. Many of those who have taken jobs under welfare reform are parents who can only find minimum wage employment. At today's low minimum wage, full time work pays only $10,712 in wages a year. Yet child care for one child costs thousands of dollars a year. Without adequate child care assistance, it is irresponsible to demand that parents leave their infants and toddlers without adequate care. Yet that is the consequence of our refusal to fully fund the Child Care and Development Block Grant. With the amendment of Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords, we can begin to deal more effectively with this serious problem. The amendment represents concrete progress in fulfilling the nation's commitment to children. It would give states the additional resources they need to support quality child care in their communities. In this time of enormous prosperity, it is not only the right thing to do--it is a wise investment for this nation's future.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the principle of the Bancus amendment goes to the heart of this debate. We should not enact tax cuts which will use up virtually the entire surplus before we solve the significant financial problems facing Social Security and Medicare. Placing Social Security and Medicare on a firm financial footing should be our highest budget priorities. The surplus gives us a unique opportunity to extend the long-term solvency of these two vital programs, without hurting the senior citizens who depend upon them. We should seize that opportunity. Two-thirds of senior citizens depend on Social Security retirement benefits for more than fifty percent of their annual income. Without it, half of the nation's elderly would fall below the poverty line. These same retirees rely on Medicare for their only access to needed health care. For all of them, the Republican proposal does absolutely nothing. It does not provide one new dollar to support Social Security or Medicare. It squanders the unique opportunity which the surplus has given us. Social Security and Medicare represent America at its best. They reflect a commitment to every worker that disability and retirement will not mean poverty and untreated illness. They are a compact between the Federal government and its citizens that says: work hard and contribute to the system when you are young, and we will guarantee your financial security and your health security when you are old. It has been said that the measure of a society is how well it takes care of its most vulnerable citizens--the very young and the very old. By that standard, Social Security and Medicare are among the finest achievements in all of our history. Because of Social Security and Medicare, millions of senior citizens are able 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. In the first ten years, the Republican tax cut of $792 billion--plus the increased interest on the national debt required by it--will consume all but $25 billion of the $996 billion surplus. The cost of the tax cut alone will mushroom to two trillion dollars between 2010 and 2019, plus hundreds of billions more in additional debt service. There will be no surplus left to strengthen Social Security and Medicare for future generations of retirees. The needs of the millions of Americans who depend on these basic programs for their well-being are ignored. Democrats propose a very different set of priorities for the surplus. We commit one-third of the surplus--$290 billion over the next decade and more thereafter--to Medicare. And beginning in 2011, we would dedicate all of the savings which will result from debt reduction to Social Security. Today, interest on the debt consumes nearly 13% of the federal budget. Under the President's plan, by 2015, that annual debt interest expense will be completely eliminated. As a result, between 2011 and 2019, more than a trillion additional dollars will be available to pay future Social Security benefits. We will be meeting our responsibility to future generations of retirees. In addition, the GOP tax cut is fundamentally unfair in additional ways. It distributes the overwhelming majority of its tax breaks to those with the highest incomes. The authors of the Republican plan highlight the reduction of the 15% tax bracket to 14%. They point to this reduction as middle class tax relief. But that relief is only a small part of the overall tax breaks in their plan. It accounts for only $216 billion of the $792 billion in GOP tax cuts. Most of the remaining provisions are heavily tilted toward the highest income taxpayers. If the Republican plan is enacted and 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 a year. By contrast, 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 a year. The choice could not be more stark--it is between using the entire surplus for an enormous GOP tax cut which overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest Americans, or using the surplus for modest tax cuts that leave room to preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations of retirees. social security On Social Security itself, the Republican proposal is misleading. The rhetoric surrounding it conveys the false impression that it is a major step toward protecting Social Security. In truth, it does nothing to strengthen Social Security. The Republican plan would not provide even one additional dollar to pay benefits to future retirees. It would not extend the life of the Trust Fund by one more day. It merely pledges to give to Social Security the dollars which already belong to Social Security under current law. By contrast, by drawing on the surplus, President Clinton's proposed budget would contribute more than a trillion new dollars to Social Security over the next twenty years. Beginning in 2011, the Administration's plan would devote all of the savings which will result from debt reduction to the Social Security Trust Fund. That step would extend the life of the Trust Fund by more than a generation, to beyond 2050. In fact, the Republican plan does not even effectively guarantee that existing payroll tax revenues will be used to pay Social Security benefits. There are trap doors in the Republican ``lockbox.'' A genuine ``lockbox'' would guarantee that those dollars would be in the Trust Fund when they are needed to pay benefits to future recipients. But that is not what the Republican plan does. Our Republican friends claim that the enormous tax cuts they have proposed 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 in tax cuts. 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 funds 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. These three threats to Social Security that I have described are very real. They expose the fundamental flaws that prevent the Republican ``lockbox'' from being a genuine lockbox for Social Security. In addition, there is an even greater threat to Social Security in the out-years. Under the President's plan, the Social Security Trust Fund would receive 543 billion new dollars from the surplus between 2011 and 2014, and it would receive an additional $189 billion each year after that. The Republican tax cut will make the President's plan impossible to carry out. The cost of their tax cut proposal mushrooms to over $2 trillion between 2010 and 2019. It 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 in serious doubt. medicare The failures of the Republican plan to preserve and strengthen Medicare is just as serious. Today, Medicare is a lifeline for the 40 million elderly and disabled citizens who depend on it for health care. It is an essential part of our health care system. It allows families to save to send a child to college, instead of saving to send a parent to the hospital. It fulfills its founding promise, in which everyone pays in to Medicare during their working years, and everyone benefits from good health care during retirement. The Republican budget threatens to destroy Medicare by putting it on a starvation diet. Instead of protecting Medicare in anticipation of the largest demographic challenge in its history, the Republican budget sacrifices Medicare on the altar of tax breaks for the rich. There is not one additional dime for Medicare in the Republican budget, although that budget contains nearly $800 billion in tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Make no mistake. This budget will determine whether we keep the medical care in Medicare. This budget will determine whether Medicare will continue strong and continue to guarantee the protections that are so essential for senior citizens in the years ahead. Unfortunately, the pending bill falls unacceptably short of reaching these important goals. It is, in fact, a thinly-veiled assault on Medicare and an affront to every senior citizen who has earned the right to affordable health care by a lifetime of hard work. It is a bill that says $800 billion of new tax breaks for the rich are more important than preserving Medicare for our senior citizens. The top priority for the American people is to protect both Social Security and Medicare. But this budget puts tax breaks for the rich first, and Medicare and Social Security last. Our proposal says: save Social Security and Medicare by devoting all of the Social Security surplus to Social Security, and by reserving one-third of the on-budget surplus for Medicare. It says: extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund, not by raiding Social Security but by assuring that some of the benefits of our booming economy are used to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare. It says that we should modernize Medicare to ensure that all senior citizens have access to affordable medications. Some of the other side contend that we should not provide additional funds for Medicare. They say we should look for additional ways to reduce Medicare spending. But Medicare spending growth is at an all- time low. In fact, evidence is mounting that Congress has already cut too much from Medicare in the drive to balance the budget in 1997. While Democrats and Republicans have different opinions about how best to reform Medicare, one fact remains clear: Starting in 2010, the retirement of the baby boom generation will begin in earnest. Without a significant investment now to prepare Medicare for the financial demands of that era, the only options will be to dramatically cut benefits or raise taxes. According to the most recent projections of the Medicare Trustees, if we do nothing, keeping Medicare solvent for the next 25 years will require benefit cuts of almost 11%--massive cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars--or double-digit payroll tax increases. Keeping Medicare solvent for the next 50 years will require cuts of 25%--or even larger payroll tax increases. Under the guise of reform, some argue that we should reduce our obligation to support guaranteed benefits. They favor proposals to privatize Medicare, or turn it into little more than a voucher program--leaving senior citizens to the tender mercy of profiteering private insurance companies. Nothing could be more devastating for America's elderly--today and in the future. We have a clear opportunity to protect Medicare. All we have to do is reserve a fair share of the surplus for Medicare. But instead of protecting Medicare, the pending bill uses $800 billion of the surplus to pay for new tax breaks. You don't need a degree in higher mathematics to understand what is going on here. This Republican plan is Medicare malpractice. Every senior citizen knows--and their children and grandchildren know, too--that the elderly cannot afford cuts in Medicare. They are already stretched to the limit--and often beyond the limit--to purchase the health care they need. Because of gaps in Medicare and rising health cost, Medicare now covers only about 50% of the health bills of senior citizens. On average, senior citizens spend 19% of their limited incomes to purchase the health care they need--almost as large a proportion as they had to pay before Medicare was enacted a generation ago. Many low-income senior citizens have to pay even more as a proportion of their income. By 2025, if we do nothing, the proportion of out-of-pocket spending devoted to health care expenses will rise to 29%. Too often, even with today's Medicare benefits, senior citizens have to choose between putting food on the table, paying the rent, or purchasing the health care they need. 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 this budget would cut her Medicare benefits in order to pay for new tax breaks for the wealthy. These are women who will be unable to see their doctor, who 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 tens of thousands of dollars more a year in additional tax breaks. This is the wrong priority for spending our hard-earned surplus--and the wrong priority for America. And the American people know it. As we debate these issues this week, the response of our opponents is predictable. They deny that they have any plans to cut Medicare. But the American people will not be fooled. They know that our plan and the President's plan will put Medicare on a sound financial basis for the next generation--without benefit cuts, without tax increases, without raising the retirement age, and without privatizing Medicare. In this debate, we intend to offer Senators a chance to vote on whether they are sincere about protecting both Medicare and Social Security. Our opponents are already trying to confuse the issue. They say that it is wrong to put the surplus into Medicare. The workers of this country are the ones who have earned this surplus--and they want to use it to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, not use it for new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Our opponents say that our proposal just puts new I.O.U.s into the Trust Fund. Let's be very clear. There are two ways to restore Medicare's financial stability. One way is to cut benefits. The other way is to provide new resources. Our proposal puts new resources in the Medicare Trust Fund. It takes funds that would otherwise be used for a tax cut for the wealthy, and uses them instead to maintain the health protection the elderly need and deserve--and have earned. In terms of its effect on Medicare, it is no different from depositing payroll tax receipts in the Trust Fund, as we do today. Those on the other side of the aisle have tried to conceal their neglect of Medicare. They say that their plan does not cut Medicare. That may be true in a narrow, legalistic sense--but it is fundamentally false in every way that counts. Between now and 2025, Medicare has a shortfall of almost $1 trillion. If we do nothing to address that shortfall, we are imposing almost $1 trillion in Medicare cuts, just as surely as if we said so directly in the text of the legislation. No amount of rhetoric can conceal this fundamental fact. The authors of the pending bill had a choice between supporting Medicare or slashing Medicare--and they chose to slash Medicare. A vote for our alternative is a clear statement that Congress should preserve and protect Medicare for today's elderly and their children and grandchildren. Rejection of our alternative is an equally clear statement--in favor of new tax cuts for the rich, paid for by harsh and unacceptable cuts in Medicare. In 1935, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act, he said it was ``a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete.'' The creation of Medicare 30 years later added significantly to that structure. On the threshold of a new century, the time has come to add again to that structure. We can modernize Medicare and prepare for the 21st century--the century of life sciences. We can prepare for the massive influx of retirees from the baby boom generation, if we devote the resources needed to do so. The surplus was generated in part by Medicare savings, and it is only right that a responsible portion be invested in modernizing and strengthening the Medicare. We know how the American people want us to vote. Congress should listen to their voice. The opponents of Medicare were wrong in 1965, and they are wrong in 1999.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Duck, a Labor Department detailee with my office, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment by the failure of the parties to move forward with the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Peace Agreement was endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland, and it offers the only realistic hope for lasting peace for the two communities. We cannot let it fail. It is hard to understand why this moment was not seized. The Good Friday Peace Agreement is the only way forward--the only way to bring the two communities closer together to build a better future for the people of Northern Ireland. Decommissioning was not a precondition for the formation of the Executive, but it should take place along with other provisions of the agreement. The Way Forward proposal outlined a clear timetable for addressing the issue. It required clear progress on decommissioning in the coming weeks. General De Chastelain would review progress on decommissioning in September, in December, and again in May 2000. He would need to say publicly that everyone is cooperating. Without significant progress, the Executive would be disbanded. It is tragic that the opportunity to form the Executive was missed. The Agreement is the mandate of the people, and must be implemented. It offers the Unionists their key demands--their constitutional position, the principle of consent, an end to violence. I would hope that once out of the marching season and after a period of reflection and the review by the governments and parties of the working of the agreement--not a review of the agreement itself--that wiser counsels will prevail in September. I share the frustration expressed by President Clinton that a breakthrough of this potential is being stalled by a dispute on sequencing, which should weigh very little compared to the historic agreement on areas of substance reached in the negotiations. I applaud the determination of the two Prime Ministers and President Clinton to persist in their efforts, with the support of Senator Mitchell, to overcome this last hurdle. Despite this latest impasse, all who care about peace must redouble their efforts to find a solution. We must focus our energy on increasing the political dialogue and securing full implementation of the agreement. A way must be found to build trust between the two communities of Northern Ireland. It is clearly the will of the people of Northern Ireland. The Governments of Ireland and Great Britain and the United States must continue to work together to revitalize the peace process. We cannot let it fail. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday, the House of Representatives with very little discussion and debate voted themselves a $4,600 pay increase. The Senate passed a similar measure earlier this month. Fair is fair. If Members of Congress deserve a raise, then surely the hard- working, lowest paid workers across this country deserve an increase in the minimum wage as well. Shame on this Congress when we vote ourselves a $4,600 pay increase, yet do nothing for the lowest paid workers in America. I intend to do all I can to see that Congress acts to raise the minimum wage as soon as possible. When President Clinton signs the law to raise the pay for the 535 Members of Congress, he should also have on his desk the bill to raise the pay for the 11 million Americans who work for the minimum wage. The case for an increase in the minimum wage is overwhelming. Since 1991, congressional pay has increased $39,400. In the same amount of time, a minimum wage worker has seen a pay increase of only $1,870. Legislation to raise the minimum wage--the Fair Minimum Wage Act--has been installed for many months by this Republican Congress. Our proposal will raise the federal minimum wage from its present level of $5.15 an hour to $5.65 on September 1, 1999 and to $6.15 an hour on September 1, 2000. Speaker Hastert said last March, ``I feel Members of Congress come here, they do their work. I know there are Members that have three or four kids in college at a time. I'm not crying crocodile tears, but they need to be able to have a life and provide for their family.'' I say minimum wage workers have a life, too. They need to provide for their families, too. They need to put their children through college, too. Under our proposal, a minimum wage worker would earn an additional $2,000 a year. That amount will pay for 7 months of groceries to feed the average family. It will pay to house an average family for 5 months. It will pay for 10 months of utilities. It will cover a year and a half of tuition and fees at a 2-year college. It will provide greater opportunities for all those struggling at the minimum wage to obtain the skills they need for better jobs and better careers and better support for their families. We know that 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. A full day's work should mean a fair day's pay. But for millions of Americans who earn the minimum wage, the pay is unfair. Opponents complain that increasing the minimum wage hurts small business and causes job losses. But these claims have been proven wrong. In fact, since the most recent increases in the federal minimum wage--a 50-cent increase in October 1996 and a 40-cent increase in September 1997--employment has risen in virtually all sectors of the economy. Over 8 million new jobs have been added to the workforce, including 1.1 million retail jobs, 350,000 restaurant jobs, and more than 4 million jobs in the service industry. The increases boosted the earnings of 9.9 million low-wage workers directly, and millions more indirectly, but far from enough. As Business Week has stated: [H]igher minimum wages are supposed to lead to fewer jobs. Not today. In a fast-growth, low-inflation economy, minimum wages raise income, not unemployment. . . . A higher minimum wage can be an engine for upward mobility. When employees become more valuable, employers tend to boost training and install equipment to make them more productive. Higher wages at the bottom often lead to better education for both workers and their children. Even Business Week agrees, ``It is time to set aside old assumptions about the minimum wage.'' The national economy is the strongest in a generation, with the lowest unemployment rate in almost 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 an unprecedented expansion, with impressive efficiencies and significant job creation. The stock market has soared. Inflation is low, unemployment is low, and interest rates are low. But despite this unprecedented economic growth, too many workers are not reaping the benefits of this prosperity. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage should be at least $7.49 an hour today, not $5.15. This unconscionable gap shows how far we have fallen short over the past 30 years in granting low-income workers their fair share of the country's extraordinary prosperity. Since 1968, the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has gone up by over 150 percent--while the purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down by 30 percent. Shame on Congress for allowing that decline. As the economy reaches new heights, so do CEO salaries, often reaching tens of millions of dollars a year. At that rate, it takes a CEO barely 2 hours to earn what a minimum wage worker earns in an entire year. The rise in income inequality between the country's top earners and those at the bottom makes our Nation weaker, not stronger. In a strong economy, we can clearly afford to give low income workers a rise. Our national wage total is over $4.2 trillion. That is what American employers are paying in wages today. The increase of one dollar that we proposed would raise the national wage total by only one-fifth of 1 percent. That is a drop in the bucket in the overall American economy, but a significant benefit for low-income workers. According to the Department of Labor, 59 percent of minimum wage earners are women. Nearly three-fourths are adults. Forty percent are the sole breadwinners in their families. Almost half work full time. They are teachers' aides and child care providers, home health care assistants and clothing store workers. They care for the elderly in nursing homes. They stock the food shelves at the corner store. They clean office buildings in thousands of communities across the country. The minimum wage is a women's issue. It is a children's issue. It is a civil rights issue. It is a labor issue. It is a family issue. Above all, it is a fairness issue and a dignity issue. It is time to raise the federal minimum wage again. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. This chart over here indicates clearly what has happened to the unemployment rate with previous increases in the minimum wage. For years, we have often heard that an increase in the minimum wage would see an increase in unemployment. In 1996, we had an increase in the minimum wage to $4.75 an hour, and we have seen the gradual decline in unemployment. Then we raised it to $5.15 an hour in September 1997, and we continue to see the decline in unemployment. This chart over here indicates how long an average CEO has to work in order to make what a minimum-wage worker earns over the year. By 10:06 a.m. on the first working day--say, for January 1st--the average CEO has made what will take a minimum-wage worker to earn by 5 p.m. on December 31. In just over 2 hours, the average CEO has made what a minimum-wage worker will make by the end of the year. Finally, this chart over here shows what the poverty line is for a family of three. The lower line here shows what the annual minimum-wage earnings are. What we see in 1999 is the continuing decline in the value of the minimum wage as minimum wage earners fall further below the poverty level. It is time those men and women who work hard--play by the rules, work 52 weeks of the year, 40 hours a week, 8 hours a day--are not going to have to live in poverty. We are going to insist this issue be before the Senate in these next very few days or weeks.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield temporarily, as I understand, the Senator is going to make a motion to reconsider and lay on the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. May we have order, Mr. President? Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. We have done very well during the course of the morning. We have had good attention, a good exchange, and good debate. This is an important amendment. If we could make sure the Senator could be heard and the Senators give their full attention, we would be very appreciative.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. KENNEDY. Did we yield 7 minutes to the Senator?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator pointed out for those who might be watching that if they had cancer, this amendment, if agreed to, would at least assure them of coverage. Of course, two-thirds of those individuals will not be in the plans that would be covered by this proposal. So two-thirds of those who have cancer, on the face of it, would not be protected. Contrast this with the amendment the Senator from Connecticut offered, which would have applied to all private health plans and would have included all diseases.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 1 minute.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we have 2\1/2\ minutes. How much remains on the other side?

Mr. KENNEDY. I will withhold the remainder of my time to respond to some of the points made on the opposite side. Privilege Of The Floor

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