Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator obviously is entitled to conform with the Senate rules. But we are as well. So we will continue to go along on this merry chase until we have an opportunity to vote on this measure. We are glad to spend whatever time debating Medicare that the chairman of the committee wants. You can load this up as the rules permit, but the rules also permit us finally to get a rollcall, and we are going to take full advantage of the rules to make sure we do. I will just let the membership understand that now.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield mine back.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the IOU is a payroll tax. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. That is what we are talking about. It is very clear what this issue is. Let's make sure we have solvency in the Medicare system before tax cuts. I thank the Chair.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a motion to instruct on behalf of myself and Senator Daschle and others.

Mr. KENNEDY. My friend and colleague, as we could expect, explained correctly what this motion effectively does. If you vote in favor of the motion, effectively you are saying you are not going to use any of the surpluses of the Federal budget for the Medicare system, No. 1, because that is the recommendation of the Commission. And secondly, before we get overly excited about a reserve fund on the prescription drugs, just read page 90 of the report and you will see that the trust fund is not utilized until there is significant extension of solvency for Social Security. That is defined as 9 or 12 years. That comes to either premium increases or cost benefits of some $686 billion. So it is never going to go into effect. I am all for having an existing fund. But this isn't it. It is right here on page 90, the requirements for the fund.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Lautenberg motion, which would instruct the budget conferees to reserve all Social Security surpluses for Social Security, and for no other purpose. This is what Senate Republicans promised to do in the budget debate just last month. Now, just three weeks later, we are hearing disturbing reports that they are poised to renege on their pledge. The Republican conferees are contemplating a new raid on Social Security. In a move which would reflect a new level of cynicism, the Republican leadership is cutting a trap door in their so-called ``Social Security lock-box.'' Those dollars were raised by payroll taxes expressly dedicated to financing Social Security benefits. However, the Republicans now want to allow that money to be used for any type of ``retirement security'' plan. I hope such reports are wrong. But I fear they might be accurate. This would open the door to risky schemes that use the Social Security surplus to 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. A genuine ``lock-box'' would prevent any such diversion of funds, but not the Republican version. A genuine ``lock-box'' would guarantee that all those dollars would be in the Trust Fund when needed to pay benefits to future recipients. The ``lock-box'' in this budget apparently does not. It is bad enough that the budget passed by Senate Republicans three weeks ago did not provide even one additional dollar to pay Social Security benefits to future retirees, that it did not extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund by one more day. To our Republican colleagues, I say: ``If you are unwilling to strengthen Social Security, at least 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.'' The Republican ``retirement security'' scheme could be nothing more than tax cuts to subsidize private accounts disproportionately benefiting their wealthy friends. Placing 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 50 percent of their annual income. Without it, half the Nation's elderly would fall below the poverty line. It appears that the Republicans may be planning to take these Social Security dollars and to use them instead to finance more tax cuts in the guise of ``retirement security.'' If this occurs, there will be no debt reduction. There will be no strengthening of the Social Security Trust Fund to meet the demands of the baby boomers' retirement. Every one of those payroll tax dollars belongs to Social Security, and should be used solely to strengthen the Trust Fund. If our Republican colleagues have no ulterior motive, the wording of the Budget Resolution should state that principle unambiguously. When instead we see language as vague and open-ended as ``retirement security,'' suspicions are understandably raised. If this gaping trap door is not eliminated, the American people will know that the Republican ``lock- box'' is nothing more than a cynical magician's trick. The millions of senior citizens who depend on Social Security will know that the Republican majority has abandoned them once more.

Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. No, not at this time, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to review the motion to instruct very quickly for the benefit of the Members so they have a keen awareness and understanding of exactly what this motion is to the conferees. This motion is to instruct the conferees to include in the conference report the provisions that would allow the targeted tax relief for low- and middle-income working families which has been presented here during the course of the debate on the budget; and, two, to preserve a sufficient portion of the projected non-Social Security surplus to extend significantly the solvency of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund and modernize and strengthen the program. We are effectively asking that there be the allocation of resources to extend the solvency of the Medicare program. I think the percentage that we had identified earlier during the course of the debate on the budget was 15 percent. What we have indicated here is that it would be important to extend the solvency of the trust fund before using any of the budget surplus to pay for the tax breaks which would give most of the benefits to the wealthiest Americans by enacting new spending above the levels in the Senate- passed version of the budget resolution. Effectively what this instruction is, Mr. President, is very easy to understand. It says given the size and the significance of the budget surplus that we want to have the sufficient allocations of resources for the protection of Medicare. In an earlier instruction on this particular measure, we included an instruction to have sufficient funding set aside for the solvency of the Medicare trust fund before we provide any tax cuts or tax breaks for the American people. That is basically and fundamentally the issue. We in this body make choices and make decisions. This is certainly one of the most important ones that we will make, not only for just this year, but for future years. We are saying, given the kinds of resources that we have available, that we are going to do two things with regard to this instruction; that is, to set aside sufficient resources for the solvency of the Medicare program, and be serious about taking the steps to ensure that there will be the changes in the Medicare program that are responding to the particular needs of the Medicare program. Certainly there are a number of ideas about how we can strengthen the Medicare program. I think one of the most important is the addition of a prescription drug proposal. The President of the United States, in his speech to the American people on the State of the Union, indicated that one of his high priorities with the restructuring of the Medicare system would be for a program to meet the prescription drug needs of the elderly people in this country. We want to make sure that we are going to have sufficiency in terms of the savings of the projected surpluses, and that then we will have an opportunity in the remainder of this Congress for the Congress to work its will on the floor of the Senate. I hope that one of the first areas of priority would be in the area of prescription drugs. As has been pointed out on many different occasions, when the Medicare issue was debated in 1964 it lost narrowly here in the Senate in the spring of that year. It became a primary issue in the 1964 election. There was an extraordinary resonance across the country about the importance of Medicare. There were 18 Members of the Senate that voted one way in 1964 and another way in 1965. They had heard the voices of the elderly people in this country in support of the Medicare program. When we adopted the Medicare program we did not include prescription drugs for one very basic and fundamental reason, and that is because about 95 percent of the private programs at that time did not include prescription drugs. Now they do. The need is out there. We will have an opportunity to do it, and it will be greatly strengthened with this kind of an instruction to the conferees. If we are able to set aside the kind of surplus that was included in the President's recommendations and included in this instruction, then we will know that we will have a sound Medicare system. The Medicare program will have greater solvency, and we will be able to deal with alterations and changes in the Medicare system. And, hopefully, we will be able to address the prescription drug issue. This issue is so basic and so fundamental that it is really the question of a priority. Do we think having broad kinds of tax cuts for the American people is preferable to ensuring the financial security and solvency of the Medicare system? That is the issue that is incorporated in this particular instruction. It is as basic and fundamental as that. Do you believe that with the scarce but sufficient resources that are in the various surpluses that we are going to say let's put a priority on Social Security and Medicare? This instruction says we are going to give the priority to Medicare. And many of us who are supporting this also give high priority when we are going to have that financial security to make sure there is going to be a prescription drug provision. I see my friend and colleague. I would be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield it back.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has made an excellent point and one which I agree with completely. If you look at a profile of who the Social Security recipient is, it is a person that is living alone, $12,000 in income, a woman 76 years of age who has at least one chronic disease and is paying some 19 percent of her income in out-of-pocket health care costs. That is 19 percent out of $12,000--paying that percent of her income out of pocket for health care. If the Senator understands the amount that is being paid out of pocket by even those today that are getting Medicare, it is just about what it was at the time of the enactment of Medicare. So for those that say, well, we really do not have to have this instruction, we are going to be able to consider the Commission's recommendations, that will effectively require $688 billion over the next additional 12 years to get the kind of economic stability that would be included in our particular instruction. And that is only going to be able to be achieved with higher copays, or higher premiums, or higher deductibles. It is going to come out of the pocket or the pocketbook of that senior citizen. I don't understand how we can do that.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct in terms of the size of the Medicare population and correct in terms of allocating these additional resources for Medicare. Let's understand that the amount that we are talking about effectively is money that is being paid in by working families. Those are resources that are being paid in by those working families. All we are saying is that we believe those working families' interests should be protected with the previous instruction on Social Security and this instruction on Medicare before we provide tax breaks for individuals who are not participants in paying into the system like the workers have been in terms of the Medicare system and Social Security. I withhold the remainder of my time. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to an extraordinary young man from Blandford, Massachusetts. Kyle Mangini is a 13-year-old Boy Scout who, while on vacation with his family, saved his 16-year-old cousin, Santiago Garcia, from drowning. Santiago was swimming and suddenly began to drown, sinking to the bottom of the pool. Kyle saw his cousin and immediately realized that he was in great danger. He leaped into the pool and pulled his older, much larger cousin out of the water. Kyle's quick reaction saved precious seconds and probably saved Santiago's life. Santiago was successfully resuscitated by an emergency medical technician. It was Kyle's lifesaving training as a Boy Scout that prepared him for the emergency. Had it not been for Kyle's brave and timely rescue, his cousin Santiago could have suffered serious brain damage or death. Kyle Mangini is a credit to the Boy Scouts and a true profile in courage for the State of Massachusetts. It is an honor to pay tribute to him today, and I ask unanimous consent that an article on his action be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am interested in asking, is there anything in this proposal of the Senator from Delaware that will provide the additional funding for Medicare, as we are attempting to move forward, to try to bring about the reforms? These two members of the Budget Committee are here. I am interested in understanding, as we are trying, in the final hours of the budget debate, to make sure the budget is going to have the additional 15 percent so that we can put it on a sound financial basis. I am wondering if there is any indication in this proposal that the Senator from Delaware wants to make sure of the financial security of Medicare before tax cuts, before we are going to go ahead with tax cuts. Is there anything in this resolution I have just received--maybe the Senator from North Dakota or the Senator from New Jersey can show me anyplace in here where this resolution says, all right, let's move ahead with the reform of Medicare before we go ahead and provide these major tax cuts. Is there anything in this resolution that the ranking minority member can tell the membership? That is really what I think has been the heart of the debate of the proposal of the Senator from North Dakota and others--that we are going to put in place a sound, solid solvency for the Medicare system before we go to tax cuts. And now that we have a new resolution, I am just wondering whether this resolution says we are going to defer the tax cuts, we are going to make sure of the financial stability of the Medicare system and move toward perhaps even a consideration of the Breaux proposal as we consider reforms in the future.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Stevens, Dodd, Jeffords, Kerry and I are introducing legislation to create an Early Learning Trust Fund. With this legislation, we intend to improve the availability and quality of early learning programs so that all children can begin school ready to learn. This is a truly bipartisan bill, and it is a privilege to be working closely with Senators of both parties on this issue that is so critical to the nation's future--the education of our children. Senator Stevens' knowledge of childhood development and brain research is outstanding, and his commitment to this issue is impressive. He understands the impact that early education can have on a child's development. Senator Kerry shares this interest as well. His work on the importance of brain development during the early childhood years has helped educate the Senate on this issue. Senator Jeffords' long standing interest in education and school readiness is exemplary. I have great respect for his leadership as Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on education and many other issues to improve the well-being of children. Senator Dodd's leadership on the Subcommittee for Children and Families has been outstanding. He has always been a champion for children's issues and we are proud to have him as a cosponsor of this legislation. Over 23 million children under 6 live in the United States, and all of these children deserve the opportunity to start school ready to learn. In order for them to do so, we must make significant investments in children, long before they ever walk through the schoolhouse door. Recent brain research documents the importance of the first few years of life for child development. During this time, children develop essential learning and social skills that they will need and use throughout their lives. For children to reach their full potential, they must begin school ready to learn. Ten years ago, the nation's governors developed a set of educational goals to improve the quality of education in the United States. The number one goal was that by the year 2000, all children should enter school ``ready to learn.'' While it is no longer possible to meet this objective by the year 2000, we must do all we can. We cannot afford to let another decade pass without investing more effectively in children's educational development. Quality early education programs help children in a number of ways, and have a particularly strong impact on low-income children, who are at the greatest risk of school failure. Children who attend high quality preschool classes have stronger language, math, and social skills than children who attended classes of inferior quality. These early skills translate into greater school readiness. First graders who begin school with strong language and learning skills are more motivated to learn to read well, and they benefit more from classroom instruction. Quality early education programs also have important long range consequences, and are closely associated with increased academic achievement, higher adult earnings, and far less involvement with the criminal justice system. Research consistently demonstrates that early education programs improve school readiness. But too many children have no access to these programs. Sixty-one percent of children age 3-5 whose parents earn $50,000 or more a year are enrolled in pre-kindergarten classes. But, only 36% of children in the same age group in families earning less than $15,000 are enrolled in such classes. Clearly, many children are not receiving the educational boost they need to begin school ``ready to read, ready to learn, and ready to succeed.'' Our bill provides 10 billion dollars over five years to states to strengthen and expand early education programs for children under 6. By increasing the number of children who have early learning opportunities, we will ensure that many more children begin school ready to learn. The ``Early Learning Trust Fund'' will provide each state with funds to strengthen and improve early education. Governors will receive the grants, and communities, along with parents, will decide how these funds can best be used. The aid will be distributed based on a formula which takes into account the total number of young children in each state, and the Department of Health and Human Services will allocate funds to the states. To assist in this process, governors will appoint a state council of representatives from the office of the governor, relevant state agencies, Head Start, parental organizations, and resource and referral agencies--all experts in the field of early education. The state councils will be responsible for setting priorities, approving and implementing state plans to improve early education. States will have the flexibility to invest in an array of strategies that give young children the building blocks to become good readers and good students. States may use their funds to support a wide range of activities including: (1) strengthening pre-kindergarten services and helping communities obtain the resources necessary to offer children a good start; (2) helping communities make the best use of early learning programs to ensure that their resources are used most effectively; (3) ensuring that special needs children have access to the early learning services they need to reach their full potential; (4) strengthening Early Head Start to meet the learning needs of very young children; and (5) expanding Head Start to include full-day, year-round services to help children of working parents begin school ready to learn. The specific strategy that states decide to adopt is not the central issue-- improving school readiness is the central issue. And this bill will give states the flexibility and funding they need to achieve this goal. Children and families across the country will benefit from the Early Learning Trust Fund. Massachusetts has more than 480,000 children under the age of 6, and a significant number will be helped by this legislation. Far too many children are currently on waiting lists today for assistance like this. We cannot tell these children, ``Wait until you grow up to receive the education you deserve.'' Those on the front lines trying to meet these needs in their communities will receive reinforcements. For example, in Massachusetts, the Community Partnerships for Children provide full-day early care and education to 15,300 three- and four-year-olds from low-income families. The Early Learning Trust Fund will expand and strengthen exemplary initiatives such as this. Investment in early education is strongly supported by organizations across the country, including the Children's Defense Fund, the National Governors' Association, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Services, the National Association for State Legislatures, and the National Association for the Education of Young Children. These organizations agree that investments in children in the early years not only make sense, but make an enormous difference. Our nation's greatest resource is its children. We must do all we can to ensure that they reach their full potential. Improving school readiness is an essential first step. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative. I look forward to its enactment, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Boxer, Senator Durbin, and Senator Schumer in introducing the Children's Gun violence Prevention Act of 1999. The continuing epidemic of gun violence involving children demands action by Congress. The School tragedies in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Kentucky, and Mississippi in the last year are still very much in the nation's mind and on the nation's conscience. We deplore the senseless injury and loss of life, the families torn apart, and the communities in fear. Sadly and tragically, the horrific shootings of last year do not tell the whole story. The fact is: We are losing 13 children every day in this country to gunshot wounds. Think about that--13 children die every single day because of guns. We must do more--much more--to prevent this senseless loss of children's lives. We require aspirin bottles to be child-proof. We know how to make handguns child-proof too--and it is long past time we did so. The legislation we propose today is an important step in meeting our responsibility for the safety of children. We can take common sense, reasonable steps to keep children safer from gun violence by developing and using cutting-edge technology and by educating families and communities about preventing gun violence involving children. This legislation will help all of us to deal more responsibly with this festering crisis. Under this proposal, gun owners must take responsibility for securing their guns, so that children cannot use them. Gun dealers must be more vigilant in not selling guns and ammunition to children. Child-proof safety locks must be used. Other child safety features for guns must be developed. America does more today to regulate the safety of toy guns than real guns--and it is a national disgrace. Practical steps can clearly be taken to protect children more effectively from guns, and to achieve greater responsibility by parents, gun manufacturers and gun dealers. This legislation calls for such steps--and it deserves to be enacted this year by this Congress. I urge the Senate to act quickly on this important legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to bring it to a vote. I ask unanimous consent that a more detailed description of the bill may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are well on our way to doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health. Scientists are discovering new cures and developing new therapies for previously incurable and untreatable illnesses on a regular basis. Breakthrough medications are modern medical miracles that allow people with previously crippling conditions to lead normal lives. Yet too many of our nation's elderly citizens are denied access to these life-saving and life-improving therapies because they lack basic coverage for prescription medications. Today I am introducing the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999,'' the Senate companion bill to H.R. 664, introduced in the House last month by Representatives Tom Allen, Jim Turner, Marion Berry, Henry Waxman, and sixty-one other House Members. This legislation responds to the need for affordable prescription drugs for senior citizens by requiring pharmaceutical companies to make the same discounts available to senior citizens that are offered to their most favored customers. Prescription drugs represent the largest single source of out-of-pocket costs for health services paid for by the elderly. The Prescription Drug Fairness Act will provide significant benefits to elderly citizens struggling to pay for the prescription drugs they need. This Act represents one important way to improve senior citizens' access to affordable medications. Other steps are necessary as well to deal with the overall prescription drug crisis facing millions of elderly citizens. I plan to introduce legislation soon that will offer additional protections. Providing fair access to prescription drugs for senior citizens is a high priority, and I hope to see quick action by Congress on this critical issue this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this month, under the impressive bipartisan leadership of Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan, the Finance Committee approved the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 by a 16- 2 vote. This important legislation sends a strong message that all Americans with disabilities have access to the affordable health care they need in order to work and live independently. The Jeffords amendment endorses that legislation as part of the budget resolution, and will put the Senate on record that now is the time for barriers that prevent disabled people from obtaining employment to come down. Despite the extraordinary growth and prosperity the country is now enjoying, people with disabilities continue to struggle to live independently and become fully contributing members of their communities. We need to do more to see that the benefits of our prosperous economy are truly available to all Americans, including those with disabilities. Children and adults with disabilities deserve access to the benefits and support they need to achieve their full potential. Large numbers of the 54 million Americans with disabilities have the capacity to work and become productive citizens but they are unable to do so because of the unnecessary barriers they face. For too long people with disabilities have suffered from unfair penalties if they go to work. They are in danger of losing their cash benefits if they accept a paying job. They are in danger of losing their medical coverage, which may well mean the difference between life and death. Too often, they face a harsh choice between eating a decent meal and buying their needed medication. The goal of the Work Incentives Improvement Act is to reform and improve existing disability programs so that they do more to encourage and support every disabled person's dream to work and live independently, and be productive and contributing members of their society. That goal should be the birthright of all Americans--and when we say all, we mean all. It is a privilege to be part of this bipartisan effort with Senator Jeffords, Senator Roth, Senator Moynihan, and sixty-six other Senate colleagues. Work is a central part of the American dream, and it is time for Congress to give greater support to disabled citizens in achieving that dream. This legislation is the right thing to do, it is the cost effective thing to do, and now is the time to do it. I urge the Senate to make this commitment a part of the budget resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you.

Mr. KENNEDY. Could I ask the Parliamentarian, an ``aye'' vote would be to?

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