Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. KENNEDY. Doesn't the Senator draw a distinction between the mandatory requirements that we have for the public school system for our 55 million children and those who are going to higher education, which is basically not a mandated requirement? That is an optional requirement and, therefore, historically higher education has always been treated differently.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself a minute just in response to the Senator from Indiana. This is a basic substitute to the Coverdell amendment. We have an opportunity to say it is more beneficial to the children that are going to our public schools to support our amendment that is going to increase the number of qualified teachers than to support the Coverdell amendment which is primarily going to benefit the parents who are sending their children to private schools, No. 1. Secondly, I hope that my friend and colleague would read my amendment more carefully, because it does target the teachers into the underserved areas, and also it targets teachers into the areas where the State finds that there are critical shortages in terms of the type of specialty needs--for example, in subject matters, for example, in math and science, and others, and does it, I think, more creatively than we have done in the higher ed bill. I yield myself another minute. It is clearly responding to what our Human Resources Committee has had hours of hearings on, and that is the importance of having high- quality teachers for our expanded school-age population. I am a strong supporter of what we have done in the higher ed bill, but it is not going to be enough to be able to meet the needs of the Nation. And every study we have done has pointed this out. If you want to try and benefit public schools and teachers, my amendment is the way to do it. If you want to abandon public schools and move towards the support of families that are sending their children to private schools, then the Coverdell bill is the way to do it. I withhold the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to reread the amendment. If he looks at the loan forgiveness for the teachers, on line 8 it talks about the title I programs which are targeted to the poorest schools. At paragraph (2), line 12, it makes reference to teachers who teach math, science, foreign languages, and that the State educational agency determines it. So I do realize that we have supported a good program that is coming out of our Human Resources Committee. But the Budget Committee put hands down, thumbs down, on a very similar program that was advanced by the President of the United States. We have real money here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. And this is an opportunity that if you want to do something about increasing the number of qualified teachers, our amendment does it. If you do not want to do that, and you want to benefit the private schools, you will vote against this. I urge the Senate to oppose the anti-education Republican tax bill. Improving education can and must be a top priority for Congress and the nation. But this Republican bill flunks the test. They call it their ``A+'' bill. But, it's anti-education, and it deserves an ``F.'' This Republican bill and its proposed Republican amendments are bad tax policy, bad education policy, and bad disability policy, and it clearly deserves the veto that President Clinton has pledged to give it. It is the nation's public schools that need help. So what do our Republican friends to? They proposed legislation that aid private schools. That makes no sense at all. Our goal is to strengthen public schools, not abandon them. Our goal is to help all children get a good eduction--not just the ones with wealthy parents. It is clear that our Republican friends are no friends of public schools. They have an anti-education agenda. They want tax breaks for the wealthy who send their children to private schools. They want to cut the budget for public schools. They want to dismantle the federal role in education. They want to eliminate civil rights protections for children with disabilities. The Republicans have put the cards on the table--and it's a losing hand for education. Over the course of the limited debate on this bill, we will discuss good ideas that will help improve public schools such as rebuilding the nation's schools, reducing class size, forgiving student loans for college graduates who teach in high-need areas, and increasing funding for children with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to support these very important Democratic amendments. I also urge my colleagues to oppose Republican amendments to that undermine public education, and make a bad bill worse. I understand that we will be voting on a new version of a block grant for education, sponsored by Senator Gorton. It is clear that this amendment will undermine the federal commitment to improve the nation's schools. There have been no hearings on this proposal and no committee review of the proposal. It would be irresponsible for the Senate to support this proposal to revamp the federal role in education after a total of only 30 minutes of debate. The proposed Gorton amendment hurts students and goes against the nation's commitment to helping poor and educationally disadvantaged students who need our strong support. It also undermines the partnerships that have been created by federal, state, and local education agencies to improve all schools for all children. We all agree that education is a local responsibility. But the states and the federal government are important partners in helping to improve education for all children. We all need to work together to improve the nation's public schools. This amendment rejects that basic principle. It destroys carefully crafted and widely supported federal programs. And it undermines accountability for improving the achievement of all students. Currently, federal funds are offering a helping hand to local school districts in meeting high priority responsibilities important to the nation as a whole. The funds help schools and school districts improve reading and math skills of disadvantaged students, help teachers get the extra skills they need to teach all children to higher standards, help communities create safe and drug-free schools, and help communities modernize their schools. This amendment creates a ``General Education Block Grant'' by combining funds from 20 targeted programs. Then it limits the use of those funds to only 8 activities. It denies local communities the funds to make schools safe and drug-free. It denies local communities the funds to improve skills of math and science teachers. It denies local communities the funds to continue their efforts to set high academic standards for all children. In addition, in response to growing needs of schools in communities across the country to address problems such as low student performance, rising enrollments, and lack of adequate modern technology, the amendment would cap spending at 2.3 percent per year for the next five years. These limits are far below the necessary increases we made over the last two years of 15 percent and 12 percent. It would be irresponsible for Congress to do so little to help communities address their growing and pressing educational needs. Contrary to arguments made by proponents of the amendment, federal education laws are more flexible and school-friendly than ever before. States and local education agencies are working in closer and more effective cooperation. The result is that schools are doing a better job of helping all children meet higher standards of achievement. The federal-state-local partnership in education isn't broken, and this amendment can't fix it. Congress should be doing all it can to strengthen that partnership, not destroy it. As a nation, we have made a commitment to help all students have the opportunity to get a good education. We have a responsibility to make sure that public tax dollars are well spent. This amendment provides no accountability for how these dollars are spent. Reforming the federal role in education does not mean abdicating that role. This amendment is the wrong direction for the nation's children and the wrong direction for education. It is not an attempt to offer a helping hand to local schools. It is simply a thinly-veiled attempt to dismantle the federal role in education. We should support efforts to improve education for all students, not undermine them. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gorton block grant amendment. Another problematic amendment that I understand will be introduced later in the debate is the Gregg amendment to allow states and school districts to strip civil rights protections for students with disabilities. The proposed Gregg amendment would repeal the critical civil rights protections included in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that ensures that children with disabilities are not denied educational services. Prior to the enactment of IDEA, over half the children with disabilities in this country were receiving an inadequate education or no education at all. Under the proposal, children with disabilities could be unilaterally thrown out of school, even if the child was being ``disciplined'' for a behavior caused by the child's disability. This proposal is not in the interest of children with disabilities and it is not in the interest of the nation. In fact, a similar amendment was rejected on the Senate floor last year during consideration of the reauthorization of IDEA. The Senate did not support the proposed policy last year, and we should not support it now. Proponents of the bill claim that under current law, schools cannot discipline children with disabilities when they break the rules. That is simply not true. IDEA allows school officials to discipline a child with a disability when discipline is warranted. IDEA already allows immediate action against a child with a disability who brings a weapon to school, who knowingly possesses, uses, or sells illegal drugs or controlled substances, or whose behavior is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others. In addition, if the behavior resulting in the disciplinary action is not the result of a child's disability, IDEA allows the school to apply any relevant disciplinary procedures that they would apply to a child without a disability. Police, prosecutors, and groups representing school officials and children with disabilities all support pursuing policies that ensure that our schools are safe and conducive to learning, and to help all children, including children with disabilities, learn personal responsibility. But, discipline should never be used as an excuse to exclude, segregate, or deny services to children with disabilities. The goal of public education is to give all children the opportunity to pursue their dreams. We must be committed to every child--even the ones who aren't so easy to teach. This amendment would undermine that goal and put children with disabilities on the street. It's bad policy and we should overwhelmingly reject it. These amendments simply make the bad underlying bill even worse. The underlying bill uses tax breaks to subsidize parents who send their children to private schools, and it is a serious mistake. It diverts scarce resources away from public schools that have the greatest need. The regressive Republican tax bill does nothing to improve public schools. It does nothing to address the serious need of public schools to build new facilities and repair their crumbling existing facilities. It does nothing to reduce class sizes in schools. It does nothing to provide qualified teachers in more classrooms across the nation. It does nothing to help children reach high academic standards. It does nothing to provide after-school activities to keep kids off the street, away from drugs, and out of trouble. It does nothing to improve the quality of education for children in public schools. Tax breaks for private schools are not the answer to the serious problems facing the nation's public schools. This bill would spend $1.5 billion of public tax dollars over the next 10 years on subsidies to help wealthy people pay private school tuition and other private school expenses. According to the Joint Tax Committee, the bill will cost $1.5 billion over the next 10 years, and half the benefits will go to the 7 percent of families that have children in private schools. That's unacceptable, when public schools are desperate for additional help. The Joint Tax Committee also estimates that while 83 percent of private school families will use this tax break, only 30 percent of public school families will use it. The bill disproportionately benefits private school families, and it disproportionately benefits the wealthy. The majority of the tax benefits will go to families in the highest income brackets, who can already afford to send their children to private school. Working families do not have enough assets and savings to participate in this scheme. This regressive bill does not help families struggling to pay day-to-day expenses during their children's school years. This so-called education bill does nothing for education. It simply provides a tax shelter for the rich. Congress should be building new schools--not building new tax shelters for the wealthy. Congress should be reducing class size--not reducing aid to public schools. We know what it takes to achieve genuine education reform. The place to start is by resoundingly rejecting this defective bill, and then amending it in ways that will genuinely help the nation's schools. The challenge is clear. We must do all we can to improve teaching and learning for all students across the nation. We must continue to support efforts to raise academic standards. We must test students early, so that we know where they need help in time to make that help effective. We must provide better training for current and new teachers, so that they are well-prepared to teach to high standards. We must reduce class size, to help students obtain the individual attention they need. We must provide after-school programs to make constructive alternatives available to students. We must provide greater resources to modernize and expand the nation's school buildings to meet the urgent needs of schools for up- to-date facilities. We cannot stand by and let this regressive tax policy pass to help private schools at the expense of public schools. Parents across the country want real solutions--not token gestures in the name of education. We should not waste $1.5 billion of public tax dollars on a do-nothing tax break program. I hope that my colleagues will join me today in opposing this bill. We should be doing all we can to help public schools--not abandon them. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. As described by the Senator?

Mr. KENNEDY. With that understanding, I yield back all time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this week marks the fourteenth annual observance of ``Tuftonia's Week'' in Massachusetts. During this remarkable week, Tufts University alumni from around the world return to Medford to honor their alma mater and call attention to the leadership of so many Tufts graduates in contributing to public service in their own communities. In fact, the theme of Tuftonia's Week is community service. The university will honor the large number of Tufts graduates across the country who are volunteering in their communities and helping to improve the lives of others in their neighborhoods through the TuftServe program. Since 1995, Tufts alumni have contributed over 300,000 volunteer hours to make their communities better places. 78,000 students have graduated from Tufts since the college was founded in 1852. Today, the university enrolls 8,500 students from all 50 states and 90 foreign countries. Tufts deserves great credit for its leadership among the nation's universities in emphasizing service-learning and in providing opportunities for students to combine community service with their academic curriculum. Every American should have the opportunity to participate in projects that help others and improve their community, and I congratulate Tufts for giving its students such an opportunity. I commend Tufts' President, John DiBiaggio, and the rest of the Tufts community for their impressive leadership in both education and community service.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I urge our colleagues to support the Nickles amendment. I have outlined, as the Senator has, and, while I disagree with some of his statements, I think the Senate ought to go on record in favor of it. But I also invite others to support the amendment offered by myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer and others, which basically says the Senate should pass a patients' bill of rights. Our amendment and the rights embodied in it is commonsense. As we know around here, if you don't have a remedy for a right, you don't have a right. We have a Bill of Rights that we have enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. We have that to ensure all of our rights. All we are saying now is let us go on record in support of the rights that are included in this sense of the Senate. This amendment says that we will protect women from being thrown out of the hospital hours after a mastectomy and against the advice of their physician. We will assure that women are going to be able to get direct access to the gynecological and obstetrical care they need. These are rights that many plans say they already offer. With this amendment, we will make sure that they are realized. We will make sure that children with special needs have access to qualified pediatric specialists. We will make sure that we protect the rights of persons with disabilities. These rights are written in some of the various insurance policies, but too often they are not realized. We want to make sure that every American, if they have a heart attack or a stroke, can go to the nearest emergency room. Here are the basics, and they have been undisputed. No one has challenged that. Let's get aboard and say let us, in this Congress-- Republicans and Democrats--draft legislation that will protect those consumers. That is what the President's commission did unanimously. It said these ought to be the rights of every single American. We have a chance this afternoon for the Senate of the United States to say ``yes.'' Every good plan already provides these rights. Consumers need protections against those insurance companies who put profits ahead of patients. Many organizations representing patients and doctors are on our side. Only those who profit from the current abuse are opposed to us. I hope the Senate will go in favor of this resolution. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. KENNEDY. To get the amount. That makes a good deal of sense to me. Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my friend from Oklahoma sets up a strawman and then knocks it down. There are not going to be any additional costs for those insurance companies and those HMOs that are doing a good job. Massachusetts' HMOs, for example, are the best in the nation. I have the highest regard for them. But there may be an extra cost for HMOs that are shortchanging the consumer--the Senator is right--but not for those that are doing what they have represented to the consumers. In other words, if they are doing a good job, they have nothing to fear. That is why we have the support of a number of HMOs at the present time. This sense of the Senate focuses on the ones that are not doing a good job. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. President, I disagree with some of Senator Nickles' findings, but I have no quarrel with the general words, and I urge the Senate to support his amendment and then go ahead and support our sense-of-the- Senate amendment, because the sense-of-the-Senate amendment incorporates the basic kind of protections that are essential in order to protect working families in this country. I might differ with some of the particular words that the Senator has provided in his resolution. I was just handed the resolution a moment or two ago. It says: Sense of the Senate. It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying this resolution assume that the Senate will not pass any health care legislation that will-- (1) make health insurance unaffordable for working families. How can you differ with that? I am not for making health insurance unaffordable. And: (2) divert limited health care resources away from serving patients to paying lawyers and hiring new bureaucrats. . . I certainly agree with Senator Nickles on that one. And: (3) impose political considerations on clinical decisions. . . That is basically what we are talking about in our amendment. Restoring the patient-provider relationship. I hope the entire Senate will support the Nickles amendment, and then we get back to our amendment, the real enchilada, the real McCoy. The essential protections we have spoken of today are included in the sense of the Senate advanced by myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer and Senator Sarbanes. Our amendment asks the Senate to pass legislation to ensure that women in this country are going to get the gynecological and obstetrical care they need. It identifies and ends the evils of forced drive-through mastectomies. It says that a person who has a medical emergency does not have to drive past the nearest emergency room to a more distant one in the plan. It says that we will eliminate the use of gag clauses, and respect our medical professionals and the decisions they make. And it says that health plans will be held accountable for their decisions that deny care for patients and result in serious illness or death for those individuals. Why should we continue to shield negligent plans? This Senator listened carefully, and neither the Senator from Oklahoma nor the Senator from New Mexico nor the Senator from Pennsylvania have addressed for one single moment the six essential elements of our sense-of-the-Senate resolution--the elements of which are strongly endorsed by the American Medical Association, the National Breast Cancer Association, Families USA, Consumer's Union, the emergency physicians, groups representing people with mental and physical disabilities, pediatricians across this country and a great number of consumer and patient groups that understand exactly what is at risk. We are going to vote. We are going to vote not only this afternoon, but we are going to vote continuously in this Congress until we pass this legislation. This afternoon is the first time. But I certainly hope that Senator Nickles' amendment will be supported, and I hope, if I can have the attention of the Senator from Oklahoma, that he will accord the same courtesy and support to our amendment as well, and we will have a happy afternoon here together. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. Generally speaking, Mr. President, the proponents should go last.

Mr. KENNEDY. If we could have 2 minutes and maybe save ourselves time. I ask unanimous consent to inquire of the manager, would we have the assurance of the chairman that he would bite for the higher amount? Is that what I understand the Senator is saying?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes. This sense of the Senate is very, very simple and, I believe, extraordinarily compelling. I find it difficult to understand why it would not be accepted. I think the best way to really explain it is to go through the amendment itself, because it is so simple and so compelling. All we are saying is that it is a sense of the Senate that we should pass a patient's bill of rights. It says that Congress finds that patients lack reliable information about health plans and the quality of care that health plans provide. We have had demonstrated this through a number of different hearings in the Labor Committee and in other Committees. Secondly, it says that experts agree that the quality of health care can be substantially improved, resulting in less illness and less premature death. We have heard this statement or similar statements from the business community, from the provider community, in hearings before the Presidential Commission and the Labor Committee, and in many peer-reviewed journal articles written by experts in the field of quality measurement and improvement. No one can argue with this finding. Third, this amendment finds that some managed care plans have created obstacles for patients who need to see specialists on an ongoing basis and that some have required women to get permission from their primary care physician before seeing a gynecologist. These were central findings, again, of the President's Commission on the Quality of Health Care and, again, these rights are overwhelmingly supported by the American people and by the doctors and other professionals who care for them. Fourth, this amendment finds that a majority of consumers believe that health plans compromise their quality of care to save money. One study shows an astonishing 80 percent of the American people have reached that conclusion. All you have to do is see the movie ``As Good As It Gets,'' and see Helen Hunt's extraordinary performance. Attend any movie theater in this country if you have any questions on this particular issue, and they will be resolved. Fifth, this amendment finds that the Federal preemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 prevents States from enforcing protections for 125 million workers and their families receiving health insurance through the employer-based group health plans. This factual statement has been repeatedly confirmed by the U.S. Department of Labor and by the courts. In fact, Federal judges have pleaded with Congress to fix ERISA. State insurance commissioners see these problems on a daily basis, but their hands are tied with respect to these plans. There is no reason at all to maintain this special exclusion for one group of health plans. Those who make medical decisions that result in death or injury must be held accountable for those decisions. Sixth, Mr. President, the Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry has unanimously recommended a patient's bill of rights to protect patients against abuses by health plans and health insurers. Let me repeat this--the President's Commission, which included representation from health plans, corporations, consumers, providers and others, unanimously recommended that each patient be accorded the protections reported in their Bill of Rights. Regardless of whether they receive their health insurance through an employer or on their own. So, this sense of the Senate says that the assumption underlying this resolution provides for enactment of legislation to establish a patient's bill of rights for participants in health plans. Then, Mr. President, we point out very briefly exactly what those protections ought to be, and if there are Members in the Senate who want to differ with these, I welcome the opportunity to debate those or discuss them. This amendment says that our legislation should include the following provisions. First, a guarantee of access to covered services, including emergency care, specialty care, gynecological care for women, and prescription drugs. Does anyone really dispute that we ought to be able to ensure patients have access to the coverage and health care that they have paid for? Second, provisions to ensure the special needs of women are met, including protecting women from being forced to endure drive-through mastectomies. There are more than half a dozen Members of the Senate who have various pieces of legislation to address that particular need. This sense of the Senate refers to those efforts. Third, provisions to ensure the special needs of children are met, including access to pediatric specialists and centers of pediatric excellence. Mr. President, this is an extremely important and significant need. All you have to do is listen to parents and pediatricians. Senator Reed is a leader in this particular issue. We know the kinds of challenges that exist, particularly for newborn babies. It used to be that 90 percent of the kinds of health difficulties that newborns faced were excluded from any coverage of health insurance. Some insurance forms say any particular needs of a child that occur within the first 10 days of life ``will be outside the coverage of this insurance policy.'' The fact of the matter is that 90 percent of the difficulties occur during that period of time. But so many mothers do not know that. We are still facing very, very important needs in terms of protecting children in this country. Four, provisions to ensure that special needs of individuals with disabilities and the chronically ill are met, including the possibility of standing referrals to specialists or the ability to have specialists act as the primary care provider. Forcing a patient who has a legitimate need to see a specialist to jump through extra hoops before every appointment is counter-productive and more expensive in the long run. Persons with disabilities and chronic illnesses face these kinds of challenges every single day. They can cite chapter and verse about the various exclusions and barriers they face--not just physical barriers, but barriers put up by their health insurance. They have special needs and they need special protections. Five, a procedure to hold health plans accountable for decisions and a procedure to provide for appeal of a health care decision to an independent impartial reviewer. This is to make sure that when these accountants in many of the insurance companies say ``no'' to a patient--say that they are not entitled to that particular health care service--there is an appeal procedure that can bring about a timely and independent decision. I won't take the time now, nor do I have the time, to point out the number of individuals who have lost their lives or been permanently disabled because the plan's accountant or an insurance executive turned thumbs down on a procedure recommended by the treating physician. Six, measures to protect the integrity of the physician-patient relationship, including a ban on gag clauses and on improper incentive arrangements. We have had testimony time and again that says that doctors cannot tell the patients about all of their options because the plan denies them the chance to do so. That is absolutely, completely wrong. We have other instances where doctors have moved ahead and prescribed expensive treatment, only to effectively be dropped from the panels of various HMO's. We want to protect the physicians in these circumstances. We want to permit the physicians to be able to do what they should be able to do, and that is to be able to practice medicine to the best of their abilities. Finally, measures to provide greater information about health plans to patients and improve quality care. Mr. President, that is the sum and substance of this amendment. I really question how anyone can take issue with the findings and how anyone can take issue with the kinds of protections that we believe ought to be accepted by the Senate and included in a patients' bill of rights. This particular measure has the strong support of the American Medical Association, and of the AFL-CIO. It has the support of the National Breast Cancer Coalition; it has the support of Families USA; it has the support of the mental health community, including the National Alliance for Mental Illness, the National Mental Health Association and the American Psychological Association; it has the support of the Consumers Union and countless other consumer and patient groups representing hundreds of thousands of people. So I hope that we can have this measure accepted as a sense of the Senate on this budget, and then we will go about the business of debating on the floor of the U.S. Senate the actual legislation that incorporates these provisions. If some Senators have better ideas and they want to adjust or change something, we will have the opportunity to do so. But let's go on record at this time, on this occasion, to say that we want to make sure that the patients in this country are going to be guaranteed the kind of protections that we would want for every member of our families, and that we are going to put health care needs first, rather than the bottom line of the health insurance industry. Let's say that we are going to permit our doctors, not industry accountants, to practice medicine. Mr. President, I withhold the rest of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do we have?

Mr. KENNEDY. On the other side?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Feingold in his amendment to create a disability reserve fund to allow people with disabilities to become employed and remain independent. The amendment would ensure that the budget resolution incorporates the flexibility to allow offsets for the bipartisan Work Incentive Improvement Act of 1998. This bill allows people with disabilities to become employed and remain independent, by providing more affordable and accessible health care. Despite the extraordinary growth and prosperity the country is enjoying today, persons with disabilities continue to struggle to live independently and become fully contributing members of their communities. Of the 54 million disabled people in this country, many have the capacity to work and want to become productive citizens, but they are unable to do so because they are afraid of losing their health care. Today, 7.5 million disabled Americans depend on public assistance. The cost to the taxpayer is $73 billion annually and will continue to increase at 6% a year. If we can support just one percent of the these 7.5 million individuals to become successfully employed, savings in cash assistance would total $3.5 billion over the work lives of these individuals. Senator Feingold's amendment creates a narrowly targeted reserve fund, which allows savings or revenues from various sources to be used to offset the costs associated with this proposal. The reserve fund is limited in the total spending it permits for this specific purpose, and is permissive--it allows the Senate leadership to use savings from unrelated areas to be dedicated to support disabled people to become employed. Work is a central part of the American dream, and it is time for this Congress to support our disabled citizens in achieving that dream. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. I am absolutely appalled at the response of our friends and colleagues on the other side. First of all, the President's panel unanimously said that these rights ought to be available to every American consumer, No. 1. Now, what good does it do to have a right if you don't have a remedy? That is like saying we are for the Bill of Rights but we don't want to put it in the Constitution. Come on, Senators. You have to have a better answer than that. It doesn't hold up. No. 2, this is not our legislation; this is a sense-of-the-Senate. I listened to my friend from Pennsylvania. He is talking about a slogan, not a program. What does he object to in here? Do you object to drive- by mastectomies? Do you object to making sure that women are going to have gynecological and obstetrical care? If you do, let's say it. Do you object to being able to get the best information and not have your doctor gagged? This is what is in this amendment. This is what is important, not just some gray areas. So let's respond to what is in this sense-of-the- Senate. We have outlined it. It incorporates what the President's commission unanimously recommended should be available to every single consumer. That is all we are saying--no specific legislation but extending it to every consumer. And if you think it is bureaucratic to say we are not going to permit health care plans to deny you at the emergency room when you have chest pains and are short of breath and may be having a heart attack, then go and defend that position. Ask any consumer in this country. Ask any woman in this country. Ask any disabled person in this country. They are entitled to the best that their particular policy has guaranteed. Finally, Mr. President, I am not going to yield to anyone about defending HMOs. I introduced the legislation and passed it in 1974. I supported it. We passed it five times here, and I led the fight for it. All I want to do is to make sure that all of the HMOs are going to live up to what the best of the HMOs are living up to today. The best of the HMOs today support this. They support our resolution. We just want to make sure that every HMO is going to provide that kind of protection for the consumers they have enlisted and whose premiums they are accepting and using to pay very substantial salaries to their executives. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. How much remains on the other side?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues will vote in support of this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It says that we should not pass legislation that makes health insurance unaffordable for working families; we should not divert limited health resources from serving patients; we should not impose political considerations on clinical decisions. I am all for that. Let's all support that. But this does not address the issues raised when we talk about protecting basic rights of patients. The amendment I have offered gives the Senate the chance to go on record as saying it is time for Congress to decide that profits should not take priority over patients. My amendment and this amendment are not in conflict. The broad principles in my amendment are supported by the American Medical Association, the disability groups, the advocates for mental health, consumer groups, the women groups, and the labor movement. Let us all vote in favor of the Nickles amendment and then vote equally, and return the favor, for my amendment as well.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this year, the Senate lost one of our ablest, most respected, and most beloved former colleagues, Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff of Connecticut. Senator Ribicoff served his constituents and his country with extraordinary distinction over a career that spanned more than four decades. His interests ranged far and wide, and his achievements were legion in both domestic and foreign policy. He led the effort to establish the Departments of Education and Energy. He was a consistent and eloquent advocate for civil rights, and an opponent of bigotry in all its forms. He was a brilliant leader in advancing the cause of peace in the Middle East. In these and many other ways, he was a giant for the people of Connecticut and the nation. For my family, Senator Ribicoff was far more than the distinguished leader of a neighboring state. He was a loyal friend and trusted adviser, and one of President Kennedy's closest and most loyal friends. My brother had immense respect for him. They had served together in the House of Representatives in the 1940's and early 1950's. After Congressman Ribicoff went on to become Governor of Connecticut, and my brother was elected to the Senate, they continued their close ties. At the Democratic Convention in 1956, Abe encouraged Jack to run for Vice President. Four years later, Abe was one of my brother's strongest supporters in his 1960 campaign for the White House. When Jack became President in 1961, he chose Governor Ribicoff to join his Cabinet as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and he did an outstanding job. But in many ways, he was a legislator at heart. He was elected to the Senate in 1962, the same year I was elected, and we served together for 18 beautiful years until he retired in 1980. In a sense, I inherited Abe from Jack, and our friendship was all the stronger because of that. At Senator Ribicoff's funeral, our colleague Senator Dodd and U.S. Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman delivered eloquent eulogies that captured the essence of Abe's remarkable public life. I ask unanimous consent that these moving tributes be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this year, Michael E. McAdams, a respected consultant and friend to many of us here in Washington, D.C., passed away. Mr. McAdams--affectionately known as ``Goose'' by his many friends and associates--was a passionate, intelligent, effective advisor and consultant. During his extraordinary career, he worked closely with me, with our colleagues Senator Dodd, Senator Biden, and Senator Pell as well as with Speaker Tip O'Neill and many others, and we admired and respected him very much. In addition, Goose worked abroad with the National Democratic Institute. To citizens of South Africa, Botswana, Czechoslovakia, and many other countries, he brought his vast knowledge of the institutions of democracy, and his fervent belief that democracy is the best hope for freedom and political stability. At his funeral, the eulogies by Senator Dodd and by Goose's friend Joseph Hassett recalled Goose's extraordinary life in very moving terms. I ask unanimous consent that these eloquent tributes be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week, the conferees on the Agricultural Research bill made a down payment toward restoring food stamps for the needy legal immigrants. The conference report on the bill includes $818 million for this program. It is far less than the $2 billion proposed in the President's budget, and it covers a much smaller group of immigrants. The conferees' proposal is a bipartisan effort. Both Republicans and Democrats urged them to take this step as soon as possible. Yet, the Republican leadership in the Senate is ignoring the urgent need. The Republican budget does not include a single penny to restore food stamps to immigrant children, refugees, Hmong veterans, or elderly and disabled legal immigrants, and the Republican leadership has declined to allow the Senate to pass the Agricultural Research bill. The food stamp cut-off has hurt immigrant families, and it has also hurt state and local governments, who must fill the gap. As a result, governors and state legislatures have joined Congress to restore these food stamp benefits. As Governor Bush of Texas said, ``Food stamps are a federal program and the federal responsibility, but the federal government is shirking its responsibility. The rules have changed unfairly and retroactively for those least able to help themselves.'' Today, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a resolution urging Congress to restore adequate federal funding to the food stamp program so needy immigrants in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can receive desperately needed food aid. I ask unanimous consent that this resolution be placed in the Record following my remarks. It is time for the Senate to act on the Agricultural Research bill. It is unconscionable that these benefits can continue to be denied.