Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor. If the Senator has a question, I will be glad to yield for a minute to respond. I want to have our colleagues talk about this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. I did not want to be discourteous to the Senator. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. KENNEDY. Good. So if I understand--the Senator can obviously answer any way he wants to--you believe that decisions with regard to health care ought to be decided by the doctors and their patients?

Mr. KENNEDY. When we came to the scope amendment, would you agree then that we ought to apply whatever we are going to do with the 48 million self-insured to the other \2/3\ of Americans left out under the Republican plan?

Mr. KENNEDY. I am asking, is that not correct?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I will not yield at this time. You would not yield last evening when I was trying to ask Republicans about particular provisions. How many times did we hear from the other side: Let's rely on the Congressional Budget Office, they know what is best. We were just with the President of the United States. He said every time he sat down with the Republican leadership, they said: We will not do anything unless we get the CBO figures. We have given you the CBO figure. The majority leader agrees with the CBO figure. Let's put that aside. The second issue is coverage. The issue is whether more people will lose their health insurance coverage because we are going to do all of the things that Senator Gramm talked about. I yield to no one on the passage of health care in order to expand coverage. The idea that the groups in support of this particular proposal would support a proposal which means that 2 million Americans would lose coverage is preposterous on its face. On the one hand, they are so busy over here saying: Look who is supporting your program, the AFL-CIO. Do you think they are going to support legislation--I yield myself 2 more minutes--that will cause 2 million Americans to lose coverage? Are we supposed to actually believe that? Or all the many groups--I will not take the time to enumerate them-- that support a comprehensive program to expand coverage? That is poppycock. That is baloney. They even understand that in Texas. It is baloney. The idea that 180,000 women are going to lose breast cancer screening, 52,000 a year are going to lose mammograms, 135,000 women in this country are going to lose Pap tests when the American Cancer Society supports us lock, stock, and barrel--come on, let's get real. Whom do you think you are talking to, the insurance companies again? Can you imagine a preposterous statement and comment like that coming from the Senator from Texas? That just goes beyond belief. I will make a final comment or two about freedom. We heard a lot about freedom. Remember that, we heard all yesterday afternoon about freedom? We heard about freedom this morning. We heard about freedom: We are for freedom. The other side is not for freedom, but we are for freedom. Support our position, you will be for freedom. The insurance companies want freedom from accountability. That is what they want, freedom to undermine good quality health care for children, for women who have cancer, for the disabled. That is what they want--freedom from accountability and responsibility. That is baloney, too. We want accountability. I am surprised to hear from the other side all the time about how they want personal responsibility and accountability. I ask for another 2 minutes. They always want personal responsibility and accountability with the exception of HMOs. Sue your doctors, fine, but not your HMOs, not your insurance companies, not those that have paid $100 million and effectively bought this Republican bill--yes; that is right--those provisions are dictated by the insurance companies. That is what we have. The American people are too smart to buy that. I know there are others who want to speak. I yield back my time. Amendment No. 1237 To Amendment No. 1236 (Purpose: To provide coverage for certain items and services related to the treatment of breast cancer and to provide access to appropriate obstetrical and gynecological care, and to accelerate the deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed)

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. Are we still recessing at 12:30?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the time situation?

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

Mr. KENNEDY. It is our intention to respond to these arguments briefly and then offer an amendment. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, as we see in this institution, there are amendments which are offered that are poison pill amendments. They are amendments that effectively kill legislation. That is really the purpose of this; we ought to be very clear about it. Senator Gramm of Texas has indicated if that amendment is accepted, this whole debate comes to a halt and it ends any possibility of a Patients' Bill of Rights. That is what we are faced with at this time. We will have an opportunity to judge whether the Senate wants to end any consideration of a Patients' Bill of Rights--or whether this is an issue that ought to be considered--when we vote on that particular amendment. We will have a chance to vote on the various amendments we have outlined and presented in different forms. We will continue to discuss these amendments over the course of this debate. One of the techniques used in this institution--perhaps less so now than in the past--is to present the opposition's arguments with distortion and misrepresentation, and then differ with the distortions and misrepresentations. We saw a classic example of that with my good friend, the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm. He went through this whole routine about what was in this bill and then he, in his wonderful way, differed with it, like only he had common sense and understanding of what is in that legislation. Before responding to that, I start out with the basic core issues, which have been raised again and again by those who are opposed to our bill: One, costs; and, two, coverage. When all is said and done and after we have listened to the distortions and misrepresentations of our good Republican friends, here is, majority leader Trent Lott on NBC ``Meet the Press'' saying: By the way, the Democrat's bill would add a 4.8 percent cost. This is the Republican majority leader agreeing with the Congressional Budget Office figures. Maybe the other side gets a great deal of satisfaction--they certainly take a lot of time to distort and misrepresent the facts. But let's look at 4.8 percent--or even 5 percent--impact on a family's premium over 5 years. The family's premium might be $5,000 a year. Looking cumulatively at 5 percent--1 percent a year--that would be $250 for the total of 5 years, $50 a year. You can misrepresent the figures, you can distort the figures, you can frighten the American people, which is a common technique; it was done on family and medical leave. Do you remember that argument put out by the Chamber of Commerce about the cost of family and medical leave to American business? They still cannot document it. Do you remember, when we had the minimum wage debate, claims about the cost to American business? They still cannot document it. As a matter of fact, Business Week even supports an increase in the minimum wage. Now on the third issue, here it comes again, the bought-and-paid-for studies by the insurance industry. That is what these studies are all about. They are bought and paid for by the insurance companies, and they distort and misrepresent.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. On that point, will the Senator yield? Just on the point of the representation you just made. It is virtually the same amendment that was offered in the committee.

Mr. KENNEDY. The scope of your legislation only includes a third of all the people who have private health coverage.

Mr. KENNEDY. All of the protections for the patients? I know the Senator understands his State well, but does the Senator know of any other State that provides these kinds of protections?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. It is not a surprise. It is the same amendment, effectively.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. KENNEDY. Do I have 1 minute left?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this vote is directly related to whether the Senate is really interested in covering all Americans who have insurance or whether whatever passes applies to only the 48 million persons who are included in the Republican bill. In the House of Representatives, all of the leading Republican legislation applies to all patients with insurance through their private employers--the whole 123 million here. The proposals put forward by the House Republicans who happen to be doctors also cover the people in the individual market. But not the Senate Republican bill. It is an extraordinary irony, but HMOs are found in all of these other categories--under the 75 million, the 15 million, the 25 million--not in self-funded employer plans. So the Republican bill does not even cover the individuals who first raised the whole question of whether their current coverage is adequate. Whatever we are going to do, Republican program or Democrat, let's make sure we provide protections to all patients. Every category here on this chart. That is what our amendment does. But their amendment would leave out more than 100 million Americans like Frank Raffa, a fire fighter for the city of Worcester, Massachusetts. He puts his life on the line every day, but he and millions of others are left out and left behind with the Republican program. Let's make sure we are going to cover all of them, all the workers in this country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join as a cosponsor of Senator Dodd's ``Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions'' (FIRST) Insurance Demonstration Project Act. From his work on the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to his countless efforts to improve the quality and accessibility of child care, Senator Dodd has been a tireless advocate for families and children, and I commend his leadership on this important new initiation. Millions of families have benefited from the Family and Medical Leave Act, but we must do more to support working families. Nearly two-thirds of employees cannot afford to take family or medical leave when a new child is born or a family member becomes ill. According to a survey by the National Partnership for Women and Families, 64 percent of Americans believe that the time pressures on working families are getting worse, not better. Two-thirds of women and men under the age of 45 believe that they will need to take a family or medical leave in the next 10 years. But, many of these families won't be able to afford it. We should stop paying lip service to family values and find a way to help families afford family leave when they need it. This bill will provide grants to states and local communities to experiment with methods of wage replacement for workers who take family leave. States will use the grants for demonstration projects implementing wage replacement strategies to allow more employees to spend time with their families when family needs require it. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, businesses with 50 or more employees must provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to employees to care for a newborn or newly-adopted child, or to care for a child, a spouse, or a parent who is ill. The Act has helped millions of workers care for their families, but too many obstacles prevent too many workers from taking leave. Forty-one million people, nearly half the private workforce, are not protected by the law because their company is too small to be covered, or because they haven't worked there long enough to qualify for the leave. Others are covered and entitled to a leave, but cannot benefit from the Act because they cannot afford to take an unpaid leave of absence. Although some workers are fortunate enough to receive wage replacement during periods of family or medical leave, most hard-working low-wage earners do not receive this benefit. Low-income employees are less likely to receive wage replacement than more highly educated, well-paid employees. Women, minorities, and younger employees are less likely than men, white Americans, and older workers to receive wage replacement benefits when taking family leave. As a result, 40 percent employees without full wage replacement cut their leaves short, 39 percent put-off paying bills, 25 percent borrow money, and 9 percent turn to public assistance to cover their loss wages. Taking unpaid leave often drives low-wage earners into poverty. Workers who need to care for an ill family member, an elderly parent, or a new baby should not be plunged into poverty. Our bill will help families take needed leave by allowing states to implement alternative funding programs. For example, states may choose to expand state or private Temporary Disability Insurance plans to provide partial or full replacement of wages for those taking time off form work to care for a new child. States may also expand their Unemployment Insurance Compensation to make leave from work economically feasible. The FIRST Act is an important step in the right direction. This bill will provide states with $400 million for fiscal year 2000 to fund demonstration programs, assisting states which are already working to establish wage replacement leave programs. I am proud that Massachusetts is moving forward to address this problem. A bill to establish a Family and Employment Security Trust Fund has already been introduced, providing family leave replacement through the unemployment insurance system. Thousands of workers in Massachusetts will be able to care for their families without falling into poverty--including low-income employees living from paycheck to paycheck. Groups in Maryland, Vermont, and Washington are taking the lead with similar legislation. We need to put families first and this bill does that. I urge my colleagues to support this needed initiative.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join as a cosponsor of Senator Dodd's ``Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions'' (FIRST) Insurance Demonstration Project Act. From his work on the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to his countless efforts to improve the quality and accessibility of child care, Senator Dodd has been a tireless advocate for families and children, and I commend his leadership on this important new initiation. Millions of families have benefited from the Family and Medical Leave Act, but we must do more to support working families. Nearly two-thirds of employees cannot afford to take family or medical leave when a new child is born or a family member becomes ill. According to a survey by the National Partnership for Women and Families, 64 percent of Americans believe that the time pressures on working families are getting worse, not better. Two-thirds of women and men under the age of 45 believe that they will need to take a family or medical leave in the next 10 years. But, many of these families won't be able to afford it. We should stop paying lip service to family values and find a way to help families afford family leave when they need it. This bill will provide grants to states and local communities to experiment with methods of wage replacement for workers who take family leave. States will use the grants for demonstration projects implementing wage replacement strategies to allow more employees to spend time with their families when family needs require it. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, businesses with 50 or more employees must provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to employees to care for a newborn or newly-adopted child, or to care for a child, a spouse, or a parent who is ill. The Act has helped millions of workers care for their families, but too many obstacles prevent too many workers from taking leave. Forty-one million people, nearly half the private workforce, are not protected by the law because their company is too small to be covered, or because they haven't worked there long enough to qualify for the leave. Others are covered and entitled to a leave, but cannot benefit from the Act because they cannot afford to take an unpaid leave of absence. Although some workers are fortunate enough to receive wage replacement during periods of family or medical leave, most hard-working low-wage earners do not receive this benefit. Low-income employees are less likely to receive wage replacement than more highly educated, well-paid employees. Women, minorities, and younger employees are less likely than men, white Americans, and older workers to receive wage replacement benefits when taking family leave. As a result, 40 percent employees without full wage replacement cut their leaves short, 39 percent put-off paying bills, 25 percent borrow money, and 9 percent turn to public assistance to cover their loss wages. Taking unpaid leave often drives low-wage earners into poverty. Workers who need to care for an ill family member, an elderly parent, or a new baby should not be plunged into poverty. Our bill will help families take needed leave by allowing states to implement alternative funding programs. For example, states may choose to expand state or private Temporary Disability Insurance plans to provide partial or full replacement of wages for those taking time off form work to care for a new child. States may also expand their Unemployment Insurance Compensation to make leave from work economically feasible. The FIRST Act is an important step in the right direction. This bill will provide states with $400 million for fiscal year 2000 to fund demonstration programs, assisting states which are already working to establish wage replacement leave programs. I am proud that Massachusetts is moving forward to address this problem. A bill to establish a Family and Employment Security Trust Fund has already been introduced, providing family leave replacement through the unemployment insurance system. Thousands of workers in Massachusetts will be able to care for their families without falling into poverty--including low-income employees living from paycheck to paycheck. Groups in Maryland, Vermont, and Washington are taking the lead with similar legislation. We need to put families first and this bill does that. I urge my colleagues to support this needed initiative.