Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as I might use. Mr. President, today, we will pass landmark legislation to open the workplace doors for disabled people in communities across this country. At long last, once this measure is enacted into law, large numbers of people with disabilities will have the opportunity to fulfill their hopes and dreams of living independent and productive lives. A decade ago, when we enacted the Americans With Disabilities Act, we promised our disabled fellow citizens a new and better life in which disability would no longer end the American dream. Too often, for too many Americans, that promise has been unfulfilled. The Work Incentives Improvement Act will dramatically strengthen the fulfillment of that promise. We know that millions of disabled men and women in this country want to work and are able to work. But they are denied the opportunity to do so, and the nation is denied their talents and their contributions to our communities. Current laws are an anachronism. Modern medicine and modern technology are making it easier than ever before for disabled persons to have productive lives and careers. Yet current laws are often a greater obstacle to that goal than the disability itself. It's ridiculous that we punish disabled persons who dare to take a job by penalizing them financially, by taking away their health insurance lifeline, and by placing these unfair obstacles in their path. The Work Incentives Improvement Act removes these unfair barriers to work that face so many Americans with disabilities: It makes health insurance available and affordable when a disabled person goes to work, or develops a significant disability while working. It gives people with disabilities greater access to the services they need to become successfully employed. It phases out the loss of cash benefits as income rises, instead of the unfair sudden cut-off that workers with disabilities face today. It places work incentive planners in communities, rather than in bureaucracies, to help workers with disabilities learn how to obtain the employment services and support they need. Eliminating these barriers to work will help large numbers of disabled Americans to achieve self-sufficiency. We are a better and stronger and fairer country when we open the golden door of opportunity to all Americans, and enable them to be equal partners in the American dream. For millions of Americans with disabilities, this bill is a declaration of independence that can make the American dream come true. We must banish the patronizing mind-set that disabled people are unable. In fact, they have enormous talent, and America cannot afford to waste an ounce of it. Today's action is dedicated to the 54 million disabled American men and women who want to work and are able to work, but who face unfair penalties under current law if they take jobs and go to work. It is dedicated to the 12 million children and their families who will now have the chance to dream of a future of work and prosperity, and not government handouts. Our goal is to remove the unconscionable barriers they face, and free up the enterprise, creativity, and contribution of these Americans. Now, when we say ``equal opportunity for all,'' it will be clear that we mean all. No one in America should lose their medical coverage, which can mean the difference between life and death--if they go to work. No one in this country should have to choose between buying a decent meal and buying the medication they need. The Work Incentives Improvement Act will remove these unfair barriers and continue to make health insurance available and affordable to people with disabilities. Many leaders in communities throughout the country have worked long and hard and well to help us reach this milestone. They are consumers, family members, citizens, and advocates. They see every day that our current job programs are failing people with disabilities; and forcing them and their families into poverty. We have worked together for many months to develop effective ways to right these wrongs. To all of those who have done so much, I say thank you for helping us to reach this long-awaited day. This bill truly represents legislation of the people, by the people and for the people. Nearly a year ago, President Clinton signed an executive order to increase employment and health care coverage for people with disabilities. Today, with strong bipartisan support, the Senate is demonstrating its commitment to our fellow disabled citizens. I especially commend Senator Jeffords, Senator Roth, and Senator Moynihan for their indispensable leadership on this landmark legislation. I also commend the many Senate staff members whose skilled assistance contributed so much to this achievement--Jennifer Baxendale and Alec Vachon of Senator Roth's staff, Kristin Testa and John Resnick of Senator Moynihan's staff, Chris Crowley, Jim Downing, and Pat Morrissey of Senator Jeffords' staff, and Michael Myers and Connie Garner of my own staff. For far too long, disabled Americans have been left out and left behind. Today, we are taking long overdue action to correct the injustice they have unfairly suffered.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank all of our colleagues for the program and for their support. Yesterday when the President was here, he indicated he would like to have this legislation on his desk by the Fourth of July. This really is a declaration of independence for the disabled. He mentioned if we were not able to meet that time limit, we ought to do it the 26th of July which will be the ninth anniversary for the Americans With Disabilities Act. I think either date will be entirely appropriate for the celebration in this country of the Fourth of July. I can't think of a better Fourth of July for millions of our fellow Americans than the successful signing into law of this legislation. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time does each side have?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Three minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is another case where the seniors and the young people of this country ought to look beyond the words to the real meaning of the program. We will have an opportunity to debate a Patients' Bill of Rights in the next few days, I hope. But we will have what is effectively a ``Patients' Bill of Wrongs.'' It will be introduced by our good friends on the other side of the aisle as a ``Patients' Bill of Rights'', but it does not provide the protection. And here we have another example of this, where we have an illusion that we are protecting Social Security. They say it, but they do not mean it, because the legislation effectively denies it. In reality, this Republican ``lockbox'' does nothing to extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund for future beneficiaries. In fact, it would do just the reverse. The sponsors of the legislation deliberately designed their ``lockbox'' with a ``trapdoor.'' Their plan would allow Social Security payroll taxes to be used instead to finance unspecified ``reform'' plans. This loophole opens the door to risky tax cut schemes that would finance private retirement accounts at the expense of Social Security's guaranteed benefits. Such a privatization plan could actually make Social Security's financial picture far worse than it is today, necessitating deep benefit cuts in the future. As has been pointed out by my good friends from New Jersey, South Carolina, and others here, this loophole undermines the protection of these resources that should be allocated to protect our senior citizens. No matter how many times those on the other side say that this really does give them the insurance and that it really does provide the protection, as has been pointed out by speaker after speaker after speaker, it fails to meet the fundamental and basic test. Because of the ``trapdoor,'' the Republican ``lockbox'' fails to provide protections for our senior citizens. It does not deserve the support of the Members of this body. This Republican ``lockbox'' is an illusion. It gives only the appearance of protecting Social Security. In reality, it does nothing to extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund for future beneficiaries. It would, in fact, do just the reverse. The sponsors of the legislation deliberately designed their ``lockbox'' with a ``trapdoor''. It would allow payroll tax dollars that belong to Social Security to be spent instead of risky privatization schemes. It is time to look behind the rhetoric of the proponents of the ``lockbox.'' Their statements convey the impression that they have taken a major step toward protecting Social Security. In truth, they have done nothing to strengthen Social Security. Their proposal would not provide even one additional dollar to pay benefits to future retirees. Nor would it extend the solvency of the Trust Fund by even one more day. It merely recommits to Social Security those dollars which already belong to the Trust Fund under current law. At best, that is all their so-called ``lockbox'' would do. By contrast, the administration's proposed budget would contribute 2.8 trillion new dollars of the surplus to Social Security over the next fifteen years. By doing so, the President's budget would extend the life of the Trust Fund by more than a generation, to beyond 2050. There is a fundamental difference between the parties over what to do with the savings which will result from using the surplus for debt reduction. The Federal Government will realize enormous savings from paying down the debt. As a result, billions of dollars that would have been required to pay interest on the national debt will become available each year for other purposes. President Clinton believes those debt service savings should be used to strengthen Social Security. I wholeheartedly agree. But the Republicans refuse to commit these savings to the Social Security Trust Fund. They are short- changing Social Security, while pretending to save it. Currently, the Federal Government spends more than 11 cents of every budget dollar to pay the cost of interest on the national debt. By using the Social Security surplus to pay down the debt over the next fifteen years, we can reduce the debt service cost to just 2 cents of every budget dollar by 2014; and to zero by 2018. Sensible fiscal management now will produce enormous savings to the government in future years. Since it was payroll tax revenues which make the debt reduction possible, those savings should in turn be used to strengthen Social Security. That is what President Clinton rightly proposed in his budget. His plan would provide an additional $2.8 trillion to Social Security, most of it debt service savings, between 2030 and 2055. As a result, the current level of Social Security benefits would be fully financed for all future recipients for more than half a century. It is an eminently reasonable plan. But Republican Member of Congress oppose it. Not only does the Republican plan fail to provide any new resources to fund Social Security benefits for future retirees, it does not even effectively guarantee that existing payroll tax revenues will be used to pay Social Security benefits. They have deliberately built a trapdoor in their ``lockdoor.'' Their plan would allow Social Security payroll taxes to be used instead to finance unspecified ``reform'' plans. This loophole opens the door to risky tax cut schemes that would finance private retirement accounts at the expense of Social Security's guaranteed benefits. If these dollars are expended on private accounts, there will be nothing left for debt reduction, and no new resources to fund future Social Security benefits. Such a privatization plan could actually make Social Security's financial picture far worse then it is today, necessitating deep benefit cuts in the future. A genuine lockbox would prevent any such diversion of funds. A genuine lockbox would guarantee that those payroll tax dollars would be in the Trust Fund when needed to pay benefits to future recipients. The Republican ``lockbox'' does just the opposite. It actually invites a raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. Repubican retirement security ``reform'' could be nothing more than tax cuts to subsidize private accounts disproportionately benefitting their wealthy friends. Pacing Social Security on a firm financial footing should be our highest budget priority, not further enriching the already wealthy. Two-thirds of our senior citizens depend upon Social Security retirement benefits for more than fifty percent of their annual income. without it, half the nation's elderly would fall below the poverty line. To our Republican colleagues, I say: ``If you are unwilling to strengthen Social Security, at last do not weaken it. Do not divert dollars which belong to the Social Security Trust Fund for other purposes. Every dollar in that Trust Fund is needed to pay future Social Security benefits.'' While this ``lockbox'' provides no genuine protection for Social Security, it provides no protection at all for Medicare. The Republicans are so indifferent to senior citizens' health care that they have refused to reserve any of the surplus exclusively for Medicare. They call this legislation the ``Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act,'' but in fact they do nothing to financially strengthen Medicare. Rather than providing a dedicated stream of available on-budget revenue to Medicare, their proposal pits Medicare against Social Security in a competition for funds that belong to the Social Security Trust Fund. We all know that the dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund are not even sufficient to meet Social Security's obligations after 2034. There clearly are no extra funds available in Social Security to help Medicare. Their plan will do nothing to ease the financial crisis confronting Medicare. The Republican proposal for Medicare is a sham--and they know it. By contrast, Democrats have proposed to devote 40 percent of the on- budget surplus to Medicare. Those new dollars would come entirely from the on-budget portion of the surplus. The Republicans have adamantly refused to provide any additional funds for Medicare. Instead, they propose to spend the entire on-budget surplus on tax cuts disproportionately benefitting the wealthiest Americans. According to the most recent projections of the Medicare Trustees, if we do not provide additional resources, keeping Medicare solvent for the next 25 years will require benefit cuts of almost 11 percent-- massive cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars. Keeping it solvent for 50 years will require cuts of 25 percent. The conference agreement passed by House and Senate Republicans earmarks the money that should be used for Medicare for tax cuts. Eight-hundred billion dollars are earmarked for tax cuts--and not a penny for Medicare. The top priority for the American people is to protect both Social Security and Medicare. But this misguided budget puts Medicare and Social Security last, not first. Democrats oppose this ``lockbox'' because we want real protection for Social Security and Medicare. Our proposal says: save Social Security and Medicare first, before the surpluses earned by American workers are squandered on new tax breaks or new spending. It says: extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund, by assuring that some of the bounty of our booming economy is used to preserve, protect, and improve Medicare. Our proposal does not say no to tax cuts. Substantial amounts would still be available for targeted tax relief. It does not say no to new spending on important national priorities. But it does say that protecting Medicare should be as high a national priority for the Congress as it is for the American people. 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 costs, Medicare now covers only about 50 percent of the health bills of senior citizens. On average, senior citizens spend 19 percent 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. By 2025, if we do nothing, that proportion will have risen to 29 percent. 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. This problem demands our attention. Those on the other side of the aisle have tried to conceal their own indifference to Medicare behind a cloud of obfuscation. They say their plan does not cut Medicare. That may be true in a narrow, legalistic sense--but it is fundamentally false and misleading. 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 directly legislated those cuts. No amount of rhetoric can conceal this fundamental fact. The authors of the Republican budget resolution had a choice to make between tax breaks for the wealthy and saving Medicare--and they chose to slash Medicare. I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to establish genuine lockboxes for both Social Security and Medicare. H.R. 1259 creates only the illusion of protecting these two landmark programs. It provides inadequate protection for Social Security and no protection at all for Medicare. We can do better than this. I thank the Senator from New Jersey and yield back my remaining time to him. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to join my friend, the Senator from Illinois, in his presentation, as well as the Senator from New York, and urge that Members in this body begin debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation that we, hopefully, will have an opportunity to consider; that is, how we will ensure that medical decisions are made by those in the medical profession, rather than the accountants and the insurance companies. The Senator has made that case with an excellent example this afternoon. I wonder whether the Senator realizes it has been over 2 years we have had legislation pending before the Senate. The Human Resources Committee has the jurisdiction, and we were effectively denied--I know the people who are watching or listening are not really interested in these kinds of activities. We have to have the hearings in the committee. Then we have to try to work the will of the committee and report it out to the Senate. This legislation has been before the Senate for 2 years, but we were not even permitted to have a hearing under the leadership of our friends on the other side, the Republican leadership. We were denied the opportunity to debate these questions when we tried to bring this up in the last Congress. I gather from what both Senators have said, they believe, as I do, that this is one of the fundamental and basic issues of central concern to families all over this country. If we can spend 5 days dealing with the Y2K issue, we can certainly afford to spend a few days--perhaps not even the 5 days, 4 days--on an issue that is so important to families, families who may have an emergency, families who may want to have clinical trials for the mother, the grandmother, or the daughter, to deal with problems of cancer. Or the whole issue of specialty care, to make sure those who need the kinds of prescription drugs necessary to deal with a particular illness and sickness would be able to get them. I wonder if the Senator would agree with me that included in Senator Daschle's legislation is a series of recommendations that were made by a bipartisan panel to the President, with Members who were nominated by the leaders of both parties and by the President of the United States. It had to be unanimous. They made a series of recommendations. Those recommendations have been included in Senator Daschle's Patients' Bill of Rights. The only difference was the panel recommended they be voluntarily accepted. We have seen that the companies are unwilling to accept those. The leader has said if they are not going to accept them voluntarily, we will include them, but they reflect a bipartisan panel. Secondly, they include some other recommendations that have been recommended by the insurance commissioners. They are not a notorious group favoring the Democrats or Republicans. I imagine, if you looked over the field, most of them are actually Republicans. They made some recommendations. Those effectively have been included. Finally, there are the kinds of protections that have been included in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. We don't hear a murmur from the other side about those protections not being effective. If that is the basis of this legislation, and it has the support of 130 groups that have responsibility for treating the American families in this country, why in the world shouldn't we have an opportunity to debate it? On the other hand, our Republican friends haven't a single group, not one, that represents parents, children, women, or disabled that support their program. Can the Senator explain to me why, if that is the case, we are being denied? Does the Senator agree it is completely irresponsible to deny the Senate the full opportunity to debate these measures?

Mr. KENNEDY. I express appreciation for the very excellent commitment of our leader on this issue. He has been tireless in the pursuit of the protections of our fellow citizens in the health area. I see the Senator from New York on his feet. I will ask one or two questions and then I will yield. Is one of the points the Senator from Illinois thinks worth debating, with the approach that has been taken by our Republican friends, the limited number of people who are actually being covered? As one who was the author of the HMO legislation in the 1970s, we passed it five times here in the Senate before we finally got the House to pass it. Then it was passed and it was on a pilot program. But the concept at that time was we were going to change the financial incentives from having more and more tests and more and more treatment to having a capitation payment that said to the health delivery system you have this amount of money to take care of this patient, so they have an incentive to work for preventive health care, keep the person healthy. They get more resources the healthier the person is and the longer the person stays healthy. But we have seen abuses where they have cut back on more and more of the coverage. That has stimulated this whole program. The fact remains, under the Republican proposal we find out that somewhere above a quarter, about 30 percent of all of those who are covered, and even a lesser percent of HMOs, which is really the problem, are actually covered. Would this not be an issue that ought to be debated out here, that the Members of this body ought to be able to make some call about? I do not think that is a very complex issue. Do we want to cover 30 percent or do we want to cover 100 percent? How long do you think that issue would really take, for people to understand it and be able to express a view? It does not seem to me that would take a very long time. People can make that judgment. People ought to be able to make that judgment. Does the Senator agree?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Just a final point. Does the Senator agree with me that now the insurance industry has spent somewhere around $15 million to misrepresent and distort the Patients' Bill of Rights, which has been introduced by our leader, Senator Daschle, and of which many of us are cosponsors? They have spent that last year doing that, when people thought we were supposed to take it up. If you ask across the spectrum of America about the importance of this issue, the American people still want action taken. They still want to have these protections for themselves and for their families. I think this is a clear indication. I think our friends on the other side ought to understand that Americans understand this issue. I think parents understand it. I think mothers and grandparents understand it best. Those who are opposed to it can distort and misrepresent and advertise, as they have done in the past, but American people know what this issue is all about. Does the Senator not agree with me on that, and that the American people want action by this body?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely.

Mr. KENNEDY. As the good Senator knows, we have such coverage for all Members of the Senate. Federal employees have it, over 11 million have it, and other groups have that as well. We find that it is suitable for Members of Congress and for the administration, other Federal employees. I underline that I do not think we have health insurance worth its name if it doesn't meet the standard that the Senator from New Mexico has outlined here. I think it is basic and fundamental. There may have been troubles with the Clinton health insurance program, but the President has recently announced that he will issue an executive order to provide mental health parity. I say to the good Senator, my friend--I have heard him speak eloquently, as well as our friend Senator Wellstone, and others speak on this issue--I pledge to him that I look forward to working with him. I think it is enormously important. I commend the Senator for what was initiated previously when we were dealing with this issue in related form on the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation a few years ago. We want to see that and other legislation actually implemented. I commend him and look forward to working with him. Finally, I would like to state my support for the efforts of my good friend and colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, who has long been a champion of the need for better and more comprehensive approaches to suicide prevention. Suicide claims over 30,000 lives each year in this country; it is the eighth leading cause of death overall and the third major cause of death amongst teenagers from 15-19. It is an issue clearly associated with mental health parity. If better access to mental health services were available for all persons who have psychiatric conditions, the suicide rate would be dramatically reduced. It is time to provide mental health parity and to prevent these unnecessary family tragedies. I thank the Senator. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. It was not that long ago when we had 5.5 million children who were disabled who never went to schools in our country. We have made some progress in opening up the schools of our country. We debated the issue of trying to give help and assistance to local communities. I am a strong supporter of it. I know the Senator from Nevada is. I know there are others on both sides of the aisle who feel that way as well. We have made some progress on other issues. I cannot speak further without recognizing the good work of the Senator from New Mexico in regard to mental illness. For many years, those afflicted by the challenges of mental illness were kept aside in our own communities, and in terms of debate and discussion, there has been a general reluctance to talk about some of their special needs. The Senator is quite correct. The willingness to talk about these issues has been in a more recent time. I can even speak of that with regard to my own family with a sister who is mentally retarded and having seen the evolution and the changes which have taken place in how people react and respond to those who are mentally retarded. We have come a long way, but the Senator is quite correct, by and large, these individuals and the communities are hard pressed with the day-to-day activities and do not have a great deal of time to come here, although I note both Senator Reid and Senator Domenici would say that when they do come here and when they do speak, there are a few more eloquent voices and compelling voices for the cause of social justice.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am finished. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I appreciate that. As a matter of fact, they are having the International Special Olympics on June 27 and 28 in North Carolina this year. There will be more than 130 countries participating in those games. That cause still goes on. It is a great tribute not only to the athletes but to the parents, the teachers, to the volunteers, and States all over the country that have been supportive of that program. I know the Senator has been a supporter of the program, and I think any of those individuals who watch those programs cannot leave the field without feeling an extraordinary sense of inspiration. That is, I believe, enormously moving.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. I like to believe there is a greater understanding and awareness of the challenges that disabled Americans have faced in more recent years than there had been for the first 200 years of our country. Over the last 8 or 10 years, we have had some important changes in attitude on these issues. By and large, the Senator is correct that this has not been an issue that has been in the forefront of legislative or executive action.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that Connie Garner be given the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the energy and water appropriations bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. In the GAO report is an analysis of this program. But they also looked at U.S. private and social insurance programs to find out, are there American companies that are trying to deal with this with employees, and are there other States trying to do it? Look at this. We can look at the percentages of working-age persons with disabilities. We will see West Virginia is 12.6; then 11, in Louisiana; 10 in Maine; Oklahoma, 10.2; Oregon, 10. Now, take the percent working and the percent not working. The percent working is 20 percent--24, 28, 23, 23. Maine has 37 percent working; Oklahoma, 34; and Oregon has 42 percent working--42 percent working. Then we look at the percent not working--57 percent. Some other States are almost 80 percent. Don't you think we ought to look at the States that have large numbers of people with disabilities who are working and find out how they are getting people to work? And find out what is not happening in States where they are not getting them to work? That is what we did in this legislation. What we are finding out is, in those States, in the private sector, they are maintaining the insurance aspects of the health care and also providing the financial incentives to be able to go to work. That is just in some of our States. We are hopeful we can move with these incentives to get to every State. Some States are making dramatic improvements, and others are not. The lessons are very clear, and we have included that in the legislation. If we look at what is happening in other countries, in two countries we find the absolutely extraordinary results they have from having similar incentives and disincentives that we have tried to incorporate in this legislation and that are referred to by the GAO as being very successful. I would like to believe the importance of this is to make sure those Americans with some disability are going to be included in the great American dream, that we decided as a nation we not only are not going to discriminate but we are going to encourage policies that will make it possible for those with disabilities to be part of the American dream. What we are attempting is to do it in ways that have demonstrated effectiveness. The principal reasons they have been effective are along these lines. They have been happening because we have seen new medical technology which has been very helpful when carefully and effectively pursued. I think we all understand the costs of medical technology. In this particular area, there are some great opportunities for people, by the use of medical technology, to get back to work. It is working, and it is effective; it is cost effective. We are also finding, for one reason or another--I will not take the time now--a number of those going on the disability rolls have been younger individuals than we were considering probably 20 years ago. Another interesting corollary is, most of those individuals have a higher achievement in completion of high school and college, for reasons I will not bother taking up the time of the Senate with at this time. We are talking about younger individuals who are more adaptable for these training programs, newer kinds of technology out there, and where that is accessible, more effective training programs such as we passed last year with our one-stop shopping and incentive programs, with financial incentives in the private sector that are going to be effective programs getting people working. We have brought all of these elements together. We followed the examples that have been pointed out to us as effective and incorporated those in this legislation. We believe this will have a dramatic and positive impact, most importantly on the ability of individuals to go to work and be useful and productive, constructive members of our society and live happier lives in their own personal situations and the members of their family, be more productive in the general economy, in what they are able to add to the economy, without these false disincentives out there, reducing the financial burden on the trust funds which are paying out to the community, and ultimately seeing a dramatic reduction in burden to the States' financial situation for funding as well as to the Federal Government. This, we believe, is a win-win-win situation all the way along the line. I could take further time. I know there are others who want to speak to the underlying measure. But we believe very deeply in this legislation, which has been carefully thought through by individuals who will be most affected by it. That has been enormously important. Very often we draft and shape legislation in a way we think is best, but this is legislation that has emerged from the grassroots level. We understand the difficulty of getting everyone to agree to different proposals. We have harmony among the community that represents 300 different organizations. It is an extraordinary initiative, an extraordinary result that is so powerful in terms of what we hope to achieve. This is really a service to the country. We want the kind of America that is going to say to those individuals who are faced with some physical or mental challenges that we will make sure they will be able to participate to the extent their abilities, their interest, their courage, and their determination permit them. We want to eliminate or knock down those barriers which one way or the other inhibit their ability to move forward. We have been attempting to do that in a number of ways, but there is nothing that is going to do more in opening up the dreams and the hopes of these individuals and their families than this piece of legislation. The Americans With Disabilities Act is important in trying to eliminate discrimination against the disabled. The Work Incentives Improvement Act will do the job in terms of eliminating the significant financial disincentives out there that basically inhibit so many of our fellow citizens, who have the ability and dedication and commitment and desire, from moving forward. That is why this legislation is so important. At another time, I will go through some of the other provisions of the legislation. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to take this one step at a time, and I think there is very little reason, given the expressions of the majority leader and the Senator from Texas, why the Senate--not only the Senator from Massachusetts, but Senator Roth, Senator Jeffords and Senator Moynihan, and myself, who are the principal cosponsors, be given assurance that this would be ready. We are quite available through the afternoon to be able to take that. I want to say at this time that I would like to proceed in that way, without indicating exactly what our course of action would be. There is no reason why we should be denied further opportunity to consider this legislation. I personally would be inclined to move ahead with a short timeframe for consideration of the amendment. But I am hopeful, as I said, that we may be able to work this out. So that is my intention. I am going to file this, if I may, at the desk and conform to the request of the floor managers. Mr. President, I raise this issue, and it is a rather unusual process and procedure. I know the Senate has its responsibilities, but there is also a responsibility to the millions of Americans with disabilities. They have been waiting for some period of time as well. The fact is that this legislation has 78 cosponsors. I don't know of a piece of legislation that is before the Senate that has that degree of support from Republican and Democrat alike, and from over 300 organizations. We have a variety of different important pieces of legislation, but for my money, this legislation was more important to consider than Y2K or, with respect, the legislation that we have before us even at the present time, because it has such overwhelming support. There is no reason why we should not move ahead on this legislation. Millions of Americans are waiting for us to take action. The overwhelming majority of the Members of this body feels strong support for this, and that is a compelling reason to move forward with the legislation. Mr. President, we have seen this legislation pass out of the Finance Committee 16-2, and one of the Members who had expressed opposition has since indicated that the changes that have been made in the legislation sent to the desk have effectively addressed those concerns. So here we have the overwhelming, overwhelming, overwhelming sentiment of those on the Finance Committee in favor of it. It is virtually unanimous in the House Commerce Committee. We don't have pieces of legislation like this. We have had differences on some pieces of legislation between Republicans and Democrats but not on this one, because the legislation is so compelling. We ought to be moving forward, and we ought to be moving forward now. There are 175 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. The reason this legislation has such incredible support is because the legislation, perhaps more than any legislation I have seen in recent times, is really a reflection of the grassroots efforts to address this problem. The overwhelming majority of Americans who have some disability want to work and have the ability to work. But because of the way that the support systems are set up in terms of health insurance, they are prohibited from doing so because they will lose the health benefits they so desperately need. They are effectively disincentivized from going to work. This legislation understands that particular dilemma and addresses it. It is one of the most important pieces of legislation we are going to have in this Congress. At the outset, I want to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords. He has been an enormously important leader in this body on issues involving the disabled. I welcome the opportunity to work with him on this and other legislation. We have a number of members on our committee who have taken special interest in the care of the needy and disabled; Senator Harkin and Senator Frist come to mind, as do others. We have had the overwhelming support of the members of our committee, most of whom were very much involved 9 years ago in the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act to strike down the walls of discrimination which had existed and exist even today in our society against those who have some disability. We have made monumental progress in terms of knocking down the walls of discrimination. As I will show in a few moments, even though we have had some success in knocking down the walls of discrimination, we still see that many of those who have disabilities are unable to go back to work because of the loss of any health insurance, and it has been because of that particular dilemma that this legislation was developed. We will get into the sound reasons for doing so, and the most compelling reason; and that is to let all Americans know that if someone has a disability it does not mean that they are not able to perform and live independently in so many instances, and be constructive, positive, and contributing members of our society. We will go through why and how this legislation does that. I want to indicate at this time that the leadership of our colleagues--Senator Roth on the Finance Committee and Senator Moynihan on the Finance Committee--was essential in getting that legislation through. We worked very closely together. The legislation itself is really a reflection of their strong work and their strong commitment, as well as that of Senator Jeffords. It seems to me this is the time to act. We will hopefully get some agreement by the leadership to call this legislation up. The appropriate way to have this legislation called up would be with our good colleagues and friends, Senator Roth and Senator Jeffords, to offer this as independent legislation. We will move forward and pass it at that time. That is what I am hopeful we will be able to do. But quite frankly, we have been unable to get those kinds of assurances. I think the delay in bringing this legislation to the floor has gone on long enough. We ought to be about the business of the substance of this legislation. We know there can be those who are opposed to it, or are concerned about it. But I believe we need a time for accounting. We need a time for yeas and nays. That is what this business is ultimately about. It is about choices. It is about priorities. It is about whether we are going to take action. We strongly believe we should take action, and we should take action now. We have waited now some 2\1/2\ weeks since we had the understanding that this was going to be called up. Then it was temporarily shelved and put aside. We have waited and waited for those who have been concerned about it to express their concern. We have tried to work through some of their concern. One of their concerns is about the offsets. We tried to work through that, but it is time to take action. This is the vehicle by which we can at least get action by the Senate of the United States. I believe we should move ahead. Former majority leader Bob Dole stated in eloquent testimony before the Finance Committee that this issue is about people going to work-- ``it is about dignity and opportunity and all of the things we talk about when we talk about being Americans.'' Senator Dole has been a strong supporter of this legislation, and we welcome his support for this program. We know a large portion of the 54 million disabled men and women in this country want to work and are able to work. But they are denied the opportunity to do so. The Nation is denied their talents and their contributions to our community. These are the results of a Lou Harris 1998 poll of the 54 million Americans with disabilities: Seventy-two percent of working-age people with disabilities who are not working now say they want to work. There is a great desire for work by those individuals, but still they are effectively denied in a practical way the opportunity to do so. Removing these barriers to work will help large numbers of disabled Americans to achieve self-sufficiency. We are a better and stronger and fairer country when we open the golden door of opportunity to all and enable them to be equal partners in the American dream. For millions of Americans with disabilities, this bill can make the American dream come true. When we say ``equal opportunity for all,'' it will be clear that we truly mean all. How large are the gaps? This chart is the comparison between persons with and without disabilities on ``indicator'' measures in 1998. Employment: Working either full time or part time, persons with disabilities, 29 percent. Persons with no disabilities, approximately 80 percent. The gap between those with disabilities and without disabilities who work is some 50 percent. If we look at the income for households, you will see that of those persons with disabilities who are working, many of them are working in low-income jobs--34 percent have incomes of $15,000 or less compared to only 12 percent of those persons with no disabilities. Again we find the extraordinary disparity. It is long past time to banish the mind-set that the disabled are unable. In fact, they have enormous talents and abilities, and America cannot afford to waste an ounce of it. For too long, Americans with disabilities have faced a series of unbearable penalties if they take jobs or go to work. They are in danger of losing their medical coverage, which can mean the difference between life and death. They are in danger of losing their cash benefits, even if they earn only modest amounts from work. No disabled American should face the harsh choice between buying a decent meal and buying the medication they need. The Work Incentives Improvement Act will begin to remove these unfair barriers facing people with disabilities who are able to work and who want to work. It will continue to make health insurance available and affordable when a disabled person goes to work or develops a significant disability while working. It will gradually phase out the loss of cash benefits as income rises--instead of the unfair sudden cut-off that so many workers with disabilities face today. We have the important demonstration program in here that will effectively see the phasing out of the kind of income these individuals are entitled to--the phasing out of 50 cents for every new dollar they make over a period of time. They would be able to increase their income, and we would see a diminution of the amounts actually being contributed by the States and Federal Government as they continue in the employment. This would, obviously, be an incentive for them to move ahead on the economic ladder, rather than being the disincentive that it is now, which would have a termination of benefits which they receive once they move above $500, which effectively locks the disabled into part-time jobs and jobs that pay very little. It makes a good deal of common sense. It places work incentive planners in communities rather than in bureaucracies, and helps workers with disabilities learn how to access employment services and support the services by help and assistance to the States and communities. The States and communities themselves would have some flexibility in being able to raise some fees in the administration of these programs. We provide a very modest amount for that. Finally, all Americans get a fiscally responsible bill. This is based on the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates which incorporate CBO estimates that S. 331 would cost $838 million over 5 years, to be offset by the bill's revenue provisions totaling $906 million, for a net savings of $68 million over the 5 years. This does not even begin to take into consideration two very important factors; that is, what will actually be paid in, in terms of taxes to the Federal Treasury, in terms of revenues that the taxpayers will pay, and also the basic savings that will be there under the Social Security trust fund. This chart shows where we are. We have 7.5 million individuals that qualify for Federal participation in some disability program-- individuals who are eligible for some kind of payment. One-half of 1 percent now are. If, out of the 7.5 million, we are able to get 210,000 working, we would save the trust fund $1 billion a year. That does not come through CBO or OMB because of the way the Budget Act works. This is the extrapolation we have in terms of working with the Social Security agency. It represents $1 billion saved with 210,000 working instead of the 70,000 that are working a year. Ours is $800 million over 5 years. This makes a good deal of sense. We believe it is economically sound. These are savings we will have. When we hear about costs of the bill, these are the savings we will have. As I mentioned, it does not even take into consideration what will actually be paid in, in terms of taxes for those individuals, which will be certainly more than those figures. We worked very assiduously with a lot of the different groups on this program. When we think of citizens with disabilities, we tend to think of men, women and children who are disabled from birth. However, fewer than 15 percent of all people with disabilities are born with their disabilities. A bicycle accident or a serious fall or a serious illness can suddenly disable the healthiest and most physically capable person. This is enormously important. This legislation is not just for our fellow Americans that may be born with some disability, but for all Americans. In the long run, this legislation may be more important than any other action we will take in this Congress. It offers a new and better life to large numbers of our fellow citizens. Disability need no longer end the American dream. That was the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act a decade ago, and this legislation dramatically strengthens our fulfillment of that promise. I will not take the time this afternoon to go through a diary I have, ``A Day in the Life of People Who Want To Work.'' We have broken down by States and included letters from individuals who have written about what this particular legislation means in terms of their lives today, how their lives would be changed, how their lives would be altered with this particular legislation. It is enormously powerful and moving. If necessary, if we have to convince our colleagues about this legislation, I will take some time and go through some of the letters. I will mention very briefly the human aspect of this legislation. This legislation is for Alice in Oklahoma who is disabled because of multiple sclerosis and receives SSDI benefits. She needs personal assistance to live and work in her community. But to do so, she must use all of her savings and half or all of her wages to pay for personal assistance and prescription drugs. As a result, she is left in poverty. This bill is for Tammy in Indiana who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair. She works part-time at Wal-Mart, but her hours are restricted because if she works too much she will lose her health benefits. Her goal of becoming a productive citizen is denied by the unfair danger of losing the health care she needs. This is for Jay in Minnesota on SSDI who wants to work. However, the job he is qualified for offers no health care. If he accepts the job, he will join the ranks of the uninsured. This bill is for Abby in Massachusetts who is only 6 years old and has mental retardation. Her parents are very concerned about her future and her ability to work and still have health insurance. Already she has been denied coverage by two insurance firms because of the diagnosis of mental retardation. Without Medicaid, her parents would be bankrupted by her medical bills today. If Abby eventually enters the workforce, she will have to live in poverty or lose Medicaid coverage under current law. Under this bill, all that would change. She and her parents will have a chance to dream of a future that includes work and prosperity, rather than a future of government handouts. This bill is for many other citizens whose stories are told in this diary. This diary alone should be enough to shock and shame the Senate into action. Our goal in this legislation is to banish the stereotypes, to reform and improve the existing disability programs so that they genuinely encourage and support every disabled person's dream to work and live independently and be a productive and contributing member of the community. That goal should be the birthright of all Americans. With this legislation, we are taking a giant step toward that goal. A story from the debate on the Americans With Disabilities Act illustrates the point. A postmaster in a town was told he must make his post office accessible. The building had 20 steps leading to a revolving door at the entrance. The postmaster questioned the need to make such costly changes. He said, ``I've been here for 35 years and in all that time I have yet to see a single customer come in here in a wheelchair.'' As the Americans With Disabilities Act shows, if you build the ramp, people will come and they will find their field of dreams. This bill expands the field. The road to economic prosperity and the right to a decent wage must be more accessible to all Americans, no matter how many steps stand in the way. That is our goal in this legislation. It is the right thing to do. It is the cost-effective thing to do, and now is the time to do it. For too long, our fellow disability citizens have felt left out and left behind. A new and brighter day is on the horizon for them and today we finally will make it a reality. I will describe a few other reasons for the importance of this legislation, including the cost of this legislation and what is happening currently. I will refer to the work in the Work Incentive Improvement Act and a report. 7.5 million disabled receive cash payments from SSI and SSDI. Disability benefit spending totals $73 billion a year. That is what we are spending at the present time under this program--$73 billion a year, making disability programs the fourth largest entitlement expenditure in the Federal Government. If only 1 percent, or 75,000, of the 7.5 million were to become employed, Federal savings in disability programs would total $3.5 billion over the worklife of the beneficiaries. Do we hear that? If we get to 1 percent, we will be effectively saving $3.5 billion over the life of those beneficiaries. That is if we just get to 1 percent, let alone the goal of those of us who believe in independent living. I will quote from the General Accounting Office: The two largest Federal programs providing cash and medical assistance for people with disabilities grew rapidly between 1985 and 1994, with the enrollment of working age people increasing 59 percent from 4 million to 6.3 million. The figures I just read are the most current figures--7.5. . . . the inflation-adjusted cost of cash benefits growing by 66 percent. Administered by SSA, DI and SSI paid over $50 billion in cash benefits to people with disabilities in 1994. So we are up now to $77 billion. In 1994 it was $50 billion. Now, this last year, in a period of 4 years it is up to $77 billion. That is a $27 billion increase. The flow line of these expenditures is going right up through the roof without any further indication of effectively reducing their unemployment, improving the ability of these individuals--who want to work and who have the ability to work if they are able to continue with their health insurance--to be contributing members of the community. It can have a dramatic, significant impact in lowering the continued escalation in expenditures under this fund. For those individuals here who fail to understand what we are doing, what is happening, I hope they will refer to an excellent GAO report. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. I have talked to the majority leader today, as well as our own leaders, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid, and Senator Gramm of Texas, who had effectively put a hold on the legislation and had indicated that request, that we file the legislation so it would conform to the request of the floor managers. It would be at the desk. It is at least my impression that, given the agenda that has been announced by the majority leader, we would not conclude this legislation today and we will be moving on to the Y2K, and what they call the Social Security lockbox, later in the week, and we would have an opportunity and a good-faith effort to see if there could be an agreement to consider this legislation independently--which, as the Senator from New Mexico understands, is desirable for a number of different reasons--but to do it with a precise time for the scheduling. That, I believe, is the preferable way to do it. But we didn't want to foreclose our opportunity, if we were unable to do so, to at least be able to exercise some judgment and move ahead with the legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am glad to yield to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will not take much time. The Senator has it absolutely right. We built in the program the ability to provide the medical and some income for people who have the disabilities and said that if they make over $500, they lose the insurance and they lose the additional kind of insurance, that they would be able to receive income, and they are just dropped out. Very few of the families can be assured they can get a job after a training program where they would be able to offset their total medical expenses if they are able to get health insurance. They probably are not able to get it because they have a disability. The fact of the matter is, the insurance companies, by and large, do not include them. I have a son who lost his leg to cancer and is a very healthy young person, but there is not a chance in the world he can get insurance. He has insurance only as a part of a much larger group. That happens to individuals who have any kind of disability. So they are out behind the 8-ball. What we are saying is, continue their health care. OK, we can phase out or eliminate their income. They would be willing to take a chance on that. They will go out and try to pull their own weight. They are glad to do it. They will do it, and they will do it very well. They have a desire to do it and the ability to do it. We have provided these incentives and training programs to enable them to be more creative to do it. There are more examples in a number of the States about how to do it. There are a number of examples in different countries on how to do it. We are going to do it in ways that are financially responsible. The Senator made an excellent statement. I thank him for his sponsorship, as well as the Senator from Nevada. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as all of us understand, we are considering a very important appropriations bill. The floor managers, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid, have a responsibility to see that we meet the responsibilities of the Senate and the appropriations procedures by making sure this legislation is considered and that Members have an opportunity to address it and move towards conclusion. I respect that, and I have great respect and friendship for the two Members. I rise today to raise an issue which is not related to the underlying measure but is related to a very significant issue that is affecting many individuals across this country, and that is the issue of whether we are going to free members of our community, referred to as the disability community, who are facing some physical or mental challenge, whether or not we are going to free them from the kinds of governmental policies that discourage them from employment but really, beyond employment, from living a full and constructive and positive and independent existence, which I think all of us want to be able to achieve.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Alaska, Senator Ted Stevens on reaching his 12,000th vote. He is a remarkable colleague and I admire the outstanding leadership that he has shown on so many issues. Senator Stevens is a person of great integrity and energy and works tirelessly for his state of Alaska. I have worked closely with him on many occasions and it is with admiration that we celebrate his 12,000th vote. His accomplishments as Chair of the Appropriations Committee are too numerous to list. Handling the nation's spending is a complex, difficult task, yet, Senator Stevens handles this responsibility with finesse and great skill. Senator Stevens is active on a range of issues that are of great importance nationally and to his home state of Alaska. He is a great advocate for fishing families, a great protector of Native-Americans, and a leader on promoting quality health care and research. His leadership on national defense is also remarkable. Senator Stevens holds a special place in his heart for children and his advocacy on behalf of early education will help us achieve the nation's school readiness goals. He was one of the first in the Senate to recognize the importance of new brain research documenting the vital role of early stimulation during the first three years of life, and he is a leading advocate for early education. Working to ensure that every child reaches his or her full potential, Senator Stevens has introduced legislation that will improve the quality and accessibility of early programs for millions of children under the age of 6. He is committed to making sure that children receive the educational boost they need to start school ready to read and ready to learn. With Senator Stevens leadership, I know we will make school readiness a reality for every child in this country. Senator Stevens also recognizes the importance of the family and the central role that parents play in their children's lives. While others talk about putting families first, Senator Stevens acts on that commitment by including funds on his appropriations bills for this purpose. Recently, he introduced an amendment to the Juvenile Justice bill that will provide essential funds to strengthen supports for parents. Put simply, Senator Stevens is a credit to Alaska, the Senate, and this country. He is a great Senator and a good friend. We are fortunate to be able to celebrate his 12,000th vote with him, and look forward to many more votes in the future from this great Senator from Alaska.