Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank our leader, Senator Reid, for both his support and encouragement, working with Senator Frist to bring us to this point. That was a real challenge. I thank him for his comments. If he will remain on the floor for just a moment? I am very hopeful that, as he outlined in his statement, we will have a bipartisan approach to an issue of enormous importance--the security of our borders. How are we going to treat the 12 million individuals who are here now, the overwhelming majority of whom want to play by the rules, work hard, be part of the American process and dream, like the tradition of so many other immigrant groups? We have tough enforcement issues. We have issues of fairness. And I thank the Senator for his comments. The Senator knows the history of this institution. To find the type of bipartisanship which we have had on this issue, we would have to go back, frankly, to almost the time of the civil rights laws. Maybe the action to end the war in Vietnam. We have not had that kind of bipartisanship in a major policy issue that I know of in any recent time. As the Senator from Nevada has pointed out, we are facing an issue of enormous importance with regard to our national security. This is a defining issue of who will eventually have that great opportunity of participating as an American citizen, really the greatest achievement, in personal terms, for so many people who earn that citizenship. We are back for a few moments to a time when the Senate of the United States, Republicans and Democrats, came together to take action on a controversial and difficult issue but one that was clearly in the national interest. I think the comments of the Senator remind us of that tradition. That is what this institution has done when it has been at its best. We did it with Medicare. We did it with civil rights. We did it on the issues of ending the war. We did it with the progress we have made on disability issues, knocking down the walls of disability and gender. On all of these issues, we came together. We had strong bipartisan majorities on them. That is not something we have seen very much of, I would say, in very recent times. We have that opportunity now. As I hear the Senator, he is calling on us to really try to make sure that this institution is going to act in its great traditions and make something worthy of remembering. I think that is what I hear from the Senator, and I thank him for that expression. As I was saying, I thank our leaders for bringing us to where we are. I am grateful for the opportunity of working with Senator McCain to bring forward this reform bill and for the work Senator Hagel, Senator Martinez, and so many others have brought us to this point. As we have talked about at other times, 2\1/2\ years ago I had legislation, and Senator McCain had legislation maybe 2\1/2\ years ago. We began to come together. About that time, Senator Hagel had legislation, somewhat different from that of Senator McCain and me. They are all working to try to come together in a common spirit to address this issue. What we now have is something that has come out of our Judiciary Committee with a 12-to-6 bipartisan vote. We have now before the Senate strong legislation that will deal with our national security concerns and also deal with the issue of earned--and we mean earned-- legalization and tough enforcement at the workplace. I think we have a good combination. I am very grateful to all those who have been a part of this process. So many have added so much to help get us where we are today. We recall that throughout our history courageous immigrants have provided the hard work, the strong family, and the love of country which defines the American spirit. They dug our canals, built our railroads, they advanced our science, fostered our innovation, and they fought in our wars. And 60,000 have served our colors with pride in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are the permanent resident aliens that are in the service in Iraq and Afghanistan--and other places around the world. They became part of the American dream. Immigrants have been the heart and muscle that has moved this country forward for 400 years and helped make America the envy of the world. Last month, we were reminded, in a personal way, of the contributions of immigrants by the moving stories related by Senator Domenici and Senator Martinez. Senator Domenici told how his parents came here from Italy with nothing. His father earned his citizenship through his service in the Army in the first World War. His mother was here for many years before gaining her legal status and once faced deportation but later became an American citizen. The Domenici's worked hard, learned English, built a successful grocery business and one of their children went on to become a distinguished and respected Senator. Senator Martinez of Florida told us about his family's flight from Cuba to begin a new life in America. A young Martinez was 15 years old when his family escaped from Cuba to seek a new life of freedom. And similar to millions before him, his family worked hard, learned English, and earned their success in Florida. Today, Mel Martinez was not only a Cabinet Secretary but was elected by the people of Florida to serve as their Senator. This is the immigrant story. We are a great people because that story has been repeated millions of times over many generations. As in the past, today's immigrants are tomorrow's Americans, regardless of where they came from or how they got here. They and their children and grandchildren will contribute anew to our national life. I have mentioned that from my office in the JFK Building in Boston, I can look out the window and see the pier where my great-grandparents landed from Ireland in 1848--and the stairs they walked up too. The immigrants called them the ``golden stairs'' because it offered the golden hope of opportunity for them. I can look out the window and see those same eight stairs where all of them walked up and entered Boston to begin their lives and begin earning their American citizenship. It is something that is not in our remote past. Every American knows how our immigration system is currently broken. It falls short of meeting our security needs and strengthening our economy, upholding our values--and what we have tried in the past no longer works today. We have heard already the issue--Well, we already had amnesty in 1986, and it didn't help us because we didn't have enforcement. But this bill is not amnesty. Amnesty was in 1986, when we said we forgive you--and we were also supposed to have effective enforcement by employers. They were to take those not provided with amnesty and to enforce the law. That was never done under Republican or Democratic administrations. But we are not talking about that now. We are talking about an entirely different situation. There was a time when oceans and borders protected us and enabled us to better control immigration. That is no longer the case today. In the past decade, we have spent more than $20 billion to triple our border patrols and build fences. But we have learned that border enforcement alone will not work. Building fences and putting more agents on the border is doomed to fail. It is a strategy that will make us weaker, not stronger, in dealing with immigration. Ten years ago we had 40,000 individuals coming across the border illegally. We have spent $20 billion, and we have tripled the number of border agents. We added $10 billion more in terms of border security, and now we have more than 400,000 individuals crossing illegally. You can estimate. Some will say it is 600,000 or 700,000. Border security enforcement in and of itself will not work. We need an immigration program for the 21st century that is worthy of our heritage as a nation of immigrants--one that is tough, smart and fair; one that sees to our security and reflects our humanity. I believe the compromise legislation before us meets that test. It is four parts. First, it mandates very tough enforcement. It doubles our Border Patrol; builds fences and barriers along the border, and requires state-of-the-art technology in fighting illegal immigration. It increases enforcement against employers who hire undocumented workers, and requires tamper-proof immigration documents so that employers can determine who can and cannot work in America. It fully implements a system for keeping track who comes to our country and when they leave. It establishes new penalties against digging tunnels under the border and for evading immigration officials. It sets up a massive new effort to shut down criminal syndicates that smuggle immigrants into the country. It expands the capacity of our immigration detention facilities and grants new authority to detain dangerous immigrants. It provides vast new authorities to identify and remove terrorists and criminals. In the area of border enforcement, those needs are self-evident. We are talking specifically about the border with 12,000 new Border Patrol agents, 2,000 more than were actually requested in the 9/11 Commission. It creates the high-technology ``virtual fence.'' This is key. Using newer kinds of technology for a ``virtual fence.'' I think it is vastly more effective than putting a chain fence along 1,800 miles of border. It expands the exit-entry security system at land borders and airports so we can know people coming in and when they leave. We can do that more effectively. It deals with records and vehicle barriers. It authorizes permanent highway check points near the border. It authorizes the additional ports of entry along the land borders and new criminal penalties for tunnels. This is a problem in southern California as Senator Feinstein pointed out. They have a new land and water surveillance plan at present time. It can be expanded and has been effective to secure Mexico's southern borders. Ours is the only plan that recognizes that, if you are going to be effective, you have to also deal with the countries in Central America and deal with the challenges that we are facing from individuals in South America coming across. We have to work with Mexico in an effective way to limit the number of people coming into Mexico, and also more effective in terms of the people coming into Central America--and to do that in ways that work, with the cooperation of those countries. We can do that. It also deals with the alien smuggling and requires the additional time for detention. That is one aspect of what we have at the border. Another one is interior, and we have worksites. Those are the three elements of enforcement. We deal with money laundering. We provide for fraud-proof immigration documents with biometrics. Unless you effectively deal with documents, you are never going to get a handle on the constant fraudulent production of documents. We are doing that with biometrics. That is going to be enormously effective. It is the technology. We have the new border fences and the other elements in terms of interior. This is the result of a good many hours we spent in the Judiciary Committee. The third aspect of enforcement is in the workforce. We have added 10,000 worksite inspectors. The fact is we have not had inspection of worksites, as I mentioned, under either Republican or Democratic administrations. They have been a joke. Therefore, employers have hired undocumented, and illegal workers, with all kinds of implications--driving wages down, work conditions down, exploitation of these individuals, all of that. That will be ultimately changed because we have effective enforcement. We have a process by which we are going to insist on valid documentation. These are the various kinds of provisions. They are all outlined in the legislation. I think they are enormously compelling. These are some of the new enforcement tools that our bill provides. These steps alone are not enough. Therefore, the second step in our bill acknowledges that the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are already here are not going away. But they also have something to offer to our communities and to our country. Common sense says we cannot and should not embark on a massive deportation program. That would disrupt communities and businesses and it would uproot families. What are you going to do when there are children who are citizens? Are we going to deport their parents because they are undocumented? There is a whole host of families like that. That would disrupt families. And cost money. Of course, the best estimate is some $240 billion, requiring a caravan of buses stretching from Alaska all the way through California. Instead, we should recognize the desire of these immigrants to contribute to America. Our bill provides a means for them to earn the privilege of American citizenship. It is not amnesty. Amnesty means forgiveness. Amnesty means going ahead of the line. No one goes to the head of the line. They go to the back of the line. They do not only go to the back of line for current applicants, but they go to the back of the line for everyone who is in line today. They go to the back of the line in terms of their ability to adjust their status. They have to pay the penalty. They have to learn English. They have to demonstrate that they have no criminal activities. And they have to demonstrate that they are working. The fastest they can be able to earn their citizenship is 11 years. They have to demonstrate that they are learning English. They are playing by the rules; they are in no trouble with the law; they pay the penalty at the beginning and another penalty at the end. They have that opportunity of going to the back of the line, and at the end of 11 years, they have the opportunity of becoming citizens. That is not what we will hear during the debate. It is so easy for those who are opposed to our program who will say that is amnesty; that is just amnesty. But it isn't. They pay a penalty and go to the back of the line. And they have to earn citizenship over a long period of time. They have to demonstrate that they are contributing something to America over 11 years. That is called earning the right to become a citizen. The alternative, with all due respect to all of those who are out here talking about deportation. They ought to get it straight. Which are they for? There is no in between. Members can say: We don't like the McCain-Kennedy approach, which is basically supported by the Hagel. We don't like that. That is the alternative. There isn't another one that I know of. We should recognize the desire that many of these immigrants want to contribute to America. And our bill provides the means for them to earn the privilege of American citizenship. They must pay taxes. There is a penalty for coming illegally. They have to learn English and obey our laws over several years. Third, our bill recognizes that we must provide legal challenges for future immigrants so that employers are not tempted to hire illegal immigrants in the future. That is all part of bringing the people out of the shadows. The reality is, immigrants will come and employers will hire them even if we erect miles and miles of new fences. It is far better for future immigrants to be here legally so they are out of the shadows and protected by our laws rather than used illegally to undermine American wages and American jobs. For that reason, our bill establishes a program to allow workers to come here legally, to work here temporarily with the prospect of earning their way to permanent status in the future. They have to demonstrate the prevailing wage that will be available to them, and they will then have the document that will give them the assurance of employment. They will be able to avoid that kind of exploitation. That is an important part of this proposal. That is our program. It has been embraced by employers, workers, Republicans, Democrats, civil rights groups, immigration experts, immigrant groups, and more. We are all waiting to hear what the President has to say about it in his national immigration address this evening. President Bush is to be commended for his courage and leadership in advancing the immigration debate in our Nation. As a former Governor of a border State, he understands the issue and appreciates what is at stake. He knows the many contributions of immigrants to our Nation. Tonight, we need President Bush to speak in a clear, strong voice in favor of this comprehensive, bipartisan, commonsense immigration plan. Each of its three elements is necessary to fix our broken system. None will work in isolation from the others. That is the key aspect. All three steps must be implemented at the same time if we are to restore the integrity of American immigration. All of them are based upon conforming with the law, both in terms of the border and those who might be guests. The President must state unequivocally that enforcement-only approaches are a failed strategy and ``enforcement-first'' may make a tidy bumper sticker slogan, but it is not a strategy for success. However, I urge the President not to distract the Nation from the urgent work of immigration reform. I know we will hear tonight from the President about the possibilities of deployment of the National Guard along the border. All are very much aware that our National Guard is stretched, and stretched thin; that our National Guard has important responsibilities in Western States to manage fires. Even up in my State, as of today, we have dramatic floods in the northeast communities in my State of Massachusetts. We are facing the hurricane season where the National Guard has played an absolutely key and indispensable role. We understand the way the administration is considering using the National Guard; not putting them on the front line of deployment but having them more in a support role. That would certainly make sense because our border guards have some 15 weeks of training in how to deal with these challenges. To be effective, that is necessary training. We will hear more about this issue this evening. It is important we have the full story from the administration about the utilization of the National Guard. There are important issues and questions that we will all have and we will look forward to the responses by the administration. I believe our national attention and our valuable tax dollars should be spent on the hiring and training of Border Patrol agents and immigration officers needed along the border. That is what we have in this proposal when we are talking about the expanded number of border agents as recommended not only by our Judiciary Committee but also by the 9/11 Commission. We believe this is the way to move. In a way, the reform debate is much larger and far reaching than the issue of immigration alone. It is about the kind of America we have been and the even stronger America we hope to become. It is about a land whose greatest strength is the way we treat our neighbors and care for our fellow citizens. It is about opening doors of opportunity to unleash the talents and strengths of everyone in the land, regardless of color or creed, so that we face the future with hope and determination. That is what this debate is all about. We see it in the faces of hundreds of thousands who have marched for opportunity in cities across our land. We see it with our employers who know that a skilled, diverse workforce is essential to our competitiveness in the global economy. We see it with our military leaders who are recruiting a diverse fighting force to think in new ways as we deal with our dangerous world. Just as in the past, this debate comes with controversy. This has always been the case throughout our immigrant history. Just as it was with the struggle for civil rights in the 1960s, who today would argue that Italian or Irish or Catholic or Jewish immigrants should be excluded? And just the same, who would argue that African Americans should be excluded from our schools, or that discrimination against the hiring of Latinos is acceptable in America today? Similarly, over the next several days, as the Senate debates immigration, there will be strongly felt discussion and hotly contested amendments. Many of these amendments, if adopted, would end the prospects for comprehensive reform. The outcome of these amendments will determine what vision of America we will pursue--one mired in fear that seeks to preserve the status quo, or one anchored in hope that looks with optimism to America's future. That is the issue behind this whole debate. I look forward to participating in the debate. Hopefully, we will have a positive outcome. I see my friend and colleague from West Virginia in the Senate. I know he is eager to speak. I had one other item that I will address very quickly if I could. It is timely. Then I will yield the floor. Medicare Mr. President, for seniors in Medicare today, it is judgment day, the day when the misjudgments, the failures, the basic errors of the competence in implementing the Republican Medicare law will bite into the savings of 8 million seniors across America. Today, the situation will get worse as seniors are hit with financial penalties if they are unable to wade through the complicated tangle of private insurance plans and the Part D Program. In Massachusetts, citizens have over 45 stand-alone drug coverage plans and a number of HMO plans to choose from, each with different drugs offered at different prices. Seniors have to work out which plan covers which drug at which price, with what copayment, what deductible, for dozens of separate plans. They struggle with long waits on the Medicare help line and inaccurate and frequently changing information about the program as even the administration struggles to understand and explain it. Today, my State, Massachusetts, is currently under a state of emergency due to major flooding in the State. I have requested for all of Massachusetts an extension of the Part D deadline in our State. Many seniors have been evacuated from their homes, others have no electricity, and many have no ability to get to the Post Office or to counselors to discuss enrollment due to the flooded roads. I urge the administration to extend the deadline for these seniors. The administration has said that their computer programs will enable seniors to decide which plans to choose, but not every senior is computer literate, and many do not have access to the Internet. The program is so confusing that even HHS Secretary Leavitt could not work out which drug program was right for his parents. Imagine how difficult the choice is for seniors who do not have the HHS Secretary to help them? If seniors have not worked through all of that confusion by today's arbitrary and punitive deadline, the Republican Medicare law hits them with a fine that grows month after month for as long as they do not sign up for the program. Every Member of the Senate and our staffs and the employees of every Federal agency can obtain health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. It is voluntary. Most people sign up for coverage, but some may decide not to because they are included in a spouse's policy or have some other coverage. Are Members of Congress who decide not to sign up for the Federal coverage hit with extra payments when they enroll at a later date? Of course not. But the GOP law says seniors who do not sign up by today's deadline in the Medicare Program will have to pay a penalty when they sign up later. Those payments will go up and up and up the longer the seniors decide not to enroll. The Republican majority is not rushing to impose fines on Members of Congress who do not sign up for health care by some arbitrary date, but that does not stop them from enacting a law that penalizes seniors who miss the Medicare deadline. Senator Bill Nelson has introduced important legislation to let seniors make their selection of a drug program without being coerced into a premature choice by today's deadline. The administration says enrolling in the drug benefit is entirely voluntary, but it is hardly voluntary if you have to pay a fine when you did not join by an arbitrary deadline. The proposal Senator Nelson has offered will waive the penalties that seniors would otherwise have to pay for not signing up for a drug plan in time. The fiasco of today's punitive deadline is all the more serious because enactment of a good Medicare drug program could and should have been a chance to make real progress in meeting the health care needs of American seniors. I was here when we passed the Medicare Program. We failed to pass it in 1964; we passed it in 1965. The Medicaid Program was passed 8 or 10 months later and both of them were implemented within 11 months--when we did not have computers, and it was done without a hitch. Now the administration has said 2 to 2\1/2\ years to implement this program, with all the computers in the world, and the seniors in my State are confused, troubled, and scared. The proposal Senator Nelson has offered is to try and relieve that anxiety, that fear, the sense of loss that so many of our seniors have. If I can get the attention of the Presiding Officer, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H 1841; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be placed in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this was an attempt to try, on this last day, to give one last opportunity for the Senate to address this issue in the form of the Nelson amendment. I regret very much we have an objection to it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am proud to have introduced the Protecting America's Miners Act. The need for this legislation is clear. This year began with the terrible tragedies at the Sago and Alma mines in West Virginia. Within days of the new year, 14 coal miners had died. In February, I went to West Virginia to meet with some of the families of the men who died. It was one of the most moving visits I have had in my career in the Senate. I left West Virginia with renewed commitment to passing legislation this year to improve safety and health conditions in our Nation's mines. The expert testimony at the HELP Committee hearing on mine safety in March only reinforced my commitment. I was also deeply moved earlier this month by the West Virginia hearings on the Sago mine disaster and Randal McCloy's letter to his fallen coworkers' families about the conditions in the mine after the explosion. We have lost 26 coal miners so far this year--more than died in all of last year. The victims of these disasters and of prior disasters, like the explosion at Jim Walters No. 5, deserve nothing less than our dedication to making sure that they did not die in vain. The best way we can honor those fallen miners is to act on what we have learned. This bill is an important step in fulfilling that commitment. There are many things we may still learn from these tragedies. But some lessons are already clear. We have not done enough to provide miners with oxygen and communications needed to survive an emergency. We must strengthen our safety enforcement so companies cannot treat safety violations as simply the cost of doing business. The average fine at the Sago mine was just $156 dollars--less than most parking tickets. And many safety and health standards are woefully outdated. To address these lessons, this bill requires warning systems to alert miners when the air in the mine is becoming dangerous, before a disaster occurs; the most up-to-date communications and tracking technology in mines as soon as possible so rescuers can locate and direct miners in an emergency; more oxygen stored in mines so miners can survive until they can evacuate or are rescued; rescue chambers so, as a last resort, if miners cannot evacuate, they can safely await rescue in the mine; and increased penalties for repeat violators and minimum penalties. In addition, some very specific problems at the Sago mine came to light during the hearings this month in West Virginia, such as ineffective equipment, lack of communications, and families' exclusion from the investigation process. To address this, the bill requires companies to check on the reliability of the oxygen stored for use in an emergency; independent investigations and public hearings on serious accidents; and an opportunity for victims' families to participate in accident investigations. This bill not only tries to learn from past disasters but also looks to the future. The bill includes a program to help MSHA replace its aging inspector workforce. These new safety standards will do no good if MSHA cannot properly staff its inspection teams to ensure that the new standards are being enforced. It also directs Federal research dollars where they are most urgently needed--to develop better breathing apparatus, communications technology, atmospheric warning systems, and mine rescue technology. We have a responsibility as Members of Congress to see that our mine safety laws make our mines the safest in the world. I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting America's Miners Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, budget reconciliation is a process adopted by Congress nearly three decades ago to facilitate the passage of legislation to reduce the deficit and to help bring the Federal budget into balance. But in recent years, under the Republican majority, that process has been repeatedly abused to enact more and more tax cuts for the wealthy that make the budget deficit even larger. Now, they are trying to do it again, in spite of the urgent problems facing the Nation, from the ongoing war in Iraq to the devastating hurricane damage along the gulf coast that has not yet been repaired. President Bush's policies have already added $3 trillion to the national debt in the last 5 years. Yet he is still proposing more of the same, more tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest among us. The audacity of the Bush administration and their congressional allies truly knows no limit. First, the Republican majority cuts spending on Medicaid and other important Government programs for people in need by nearly $40 billion. They claim we have to do it to reduce the deficit. Then they bring this outrageous tax bill to the floor, a bill that will cut taxes by far more than the savings in spending from the programs cuts. The net result will be a substantial increase in the budget deficit--exactly the opposite of what the reconciliation process is supposed to accomplish. Billions of dollars will go from programs that assist low-income families and senior citizens into the pockets of the already wealthy. It takes from those with the least and gives to those with the most. It is a breathtaking Republican scam on the Nation that can only further discredit this Congress in the eyes of the people. From day one, the Republican plan has been to use this reconciliation process to push through a cut in the tax rate on capital gains and dividend income. These are tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the richest Americans, with approximately half the tax benefits going to millionaires. Leading Republicans have repeatedly made it clear that their top priority was extending capital gains and dividend tax breaks, and that is exactly what they did in this conference report. No matter the cost and no matter what needs go unmet, the GOP is intent on delivering these tax breaks to their wealthy supporters. What is the real cost of these capital gains and dividend tax cuts? The Republicans claim the cost of these provisions is $20 billion; the real cost of extending the lower rates for another 2 years is $50 billion. This tax break is particularly unfair because over 75 percent of capital gains and dividend income goes to taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 a year. Over half of all capital gains and dividends--54 percent--go to taxpayers with incomes over $1 million a year. The average millionaire will save over $42,000 a year from these tax breaks on capital gains and dividend income. By contrast, the average family earning $50,000 a year will save $46 in taxes. As a result of this shameful Republican let-them-eat-cake proposal, millions of working families will pay a substantially higher tax rate on their wages than wealthy taxpayers pay on their investment income. What could be more unfair? Republicans are penalizing hard work, not rewarding it. They are giving a preference to unearned income over earned income. The Republicans cynically claim that capital gains and dividend income deserve special treatment because they will stimulate investment. The facts do not substantiate that claim. The stock market grew much more rapidly in the 1990s than since the rates on capital gains and dividend income were cut in 2003. The overall health of the economy has much more to do with financial stability than special tax breaks for the rich. More tax cuts that America cannot afford will hurt the economy, not help it. As if the capital gains and dividend tax breaks were not enough, the conferees created another new tax break for the wealthy that was not contained in either the Senate or the House bill. After 2010, the bill will allow high-income taxpayers to have retirement accounts where unlimited amounts of interest, dividends, and capital gains income that they receive would be totally tax free. This will have an enormous long-term cost, taking billions of dollars each year out of the Treasury. The Republican conferees also made sure that multinational corporations got their piece of the pie. More than $5 billion in tax breaks were added to the bill for companies doing business overseas, a further incentive for these corporations to invest abroad rather than in the United States. They also took care of the oil industry. The Senate bill would have eliminated several special tax loopholes that big oil uses to avoid paying taxes on its substantial profits, including questionable accounting gimmicks that will cost the Government over $4 billion in lost tax revenue. However, those loophole-closing provisions were removed in conference. The Republicans made sure that the oil companies will get to keep their tax loopholes. There are some very important tax provisions that we should be addressing in this bill, but the Republicans threw them overboard: The alternative minimum tax was never intended to apply to middle- class families, and they deserve tax relief. However, this bill's AMT relief is provided only through 2006, while capital gains and dividend tax breaks are extended through 2010. What about AMT relief for 2007? Shouldn't that be a higher priority than capital gains and dividend tax breaks for 2010? The research and development tax credit is critical to our international competitiveness and should be retained. However, the R&D credit was taken out of this bill to make more room for their tax breaks for the rich. The deduction for college tuition is vital to millions of middle- class families struggling to afford a college education for their children. But it obviously was not very important to the Republican conferees. They took it out of this bill. They also removed the savers credit, designed to help low- and moderate-income families build a nest egg for their future. Those families will just have to make do with less. The priorities of this Republican Congress are truly scandalous. The financial mismanagement of the Bush administration has weakened our economy and placed our children's financial wellbeing in peril. The national debt has risen to an all-time high of nearly $9 trillion. Under President Bush, our country has borrowed more from foreign governments and foreign financial institutions than in the prior 200 years combined. We are losing control of our Nation's future, and all the Republicans offer is more of the same. More and more tax breaks further enriching the already wealthy, while working families are left to struggle on their own in an increasingly harsh economy. If we are honest about reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy, we need to stop lavishing tax breaks on the rich and start investing in the health and well-being of all families. These families are being squeezed unmercifully between stagnant wages and ever- increasing costs for the basic necessities of life. The cost of health insurance is up 56 percent in the last 5 years. Gasoline is up 75 percent. College tuition is up 46 percent. Housing is up 57 percent. The list goes on and on, up and up--and paychecks are buying less each year. The dollars that go to pay for more tax breaks for the rich are dollars that could be used to help these families. Instead, this Republican budget plan turns a blind eye to their problems. The economic trends are very disturbing for any who are willing to look at them objectively. The gap between rich and poor has been widening in recent years. Thirty-seven million Americans now live in poverty, up 19 percent during the Bush administration. One in five American children lives in poverty. Thirteen million children go to bed hungry each night. Wages remain stagnant while inflation drags more and more families below the poverty line. Long-term unemployment is at historic highs. The Republican majority has abandoned our Nation's working families. They cut the programs that these families depend on, while granting the wealthy even more tax breaks. The American people deserve better; and in November they will insist on a new Congress that truly shares their values and cares about their needs.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe we have 10 minutes. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut and I will yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have 5 minutes. Will the Chair let me know when I have 30 seconds remaining, please. I want to pay tribute to my two colleagues who are in support of this, Senator Enzi and Senator Nelson. Senator Enzi and I, and Democrats on our committee and Republicans alike, have worked very long and hard on a whole range of different issues. We have made important progress. We are going to continue to do so, but we take exception on this issue. I commend the staff as well for all of their good work and help and assistance. Senator Nelson, who has been enormously concerned about the problems of small business, has talked about this issue with me and, I know, with other Members here on different occasions. He was such a strong voice when we were considering the Patients Bill of Rights legislation. I always enjoy working with him, although we have a different position on this issue. We are in the last few minutes of this debate and discussion. In these last few minutes, I want to join with those who have expressed a certain amount of frustration in being unable to address maybe a handful of different health care issues that I find are of concern to the people of my State. In traveling around the country, people are concerned about the prescription drug program. They are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs. They are concerned about the problems small business has. But we do not believe the proposed solution that has been advanced by Senators Enzi and Nelson is really the best way. We have had a brief debate over this proposal and over an alternative way that we think would be more comprehensive, more realistic, and more expansive than reaching the 1 percent or 2 percent of those who are uninsured and who, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will be covered under the Enzi proposal. The reasons the insurance commissioners have serious reservations, the reasons the Governors and the attorneys general have taken exception to this legislation, are very important and have been stated again and again; first is this bill's effective preemption of a number of the very important benefits that my State of Massachusetts and a great number of the States in this country have been willing to write into law, to provide protections for their citizens. These protections are in the area of cancer, in the area of cancer screening, in the area of mental health, in the area of diabetes, and well-baby care. State laws have effectively been preempted. The people of my State will no longer be assured of those kinds of protections, if this legislation passes. The second point, which has been raised again and again, is the question of raising premiums. In the legislation we refer to this as rating. In the initial Enzi proposal, it would have been possible to have a 25-fold variation in the cost of insurance premiums--from $100 to $2,500--based upon your age, your past health history, or that of your family. We know what would happen. When you allow such variation, you are denying people an effective health insurance program. That is what Blue Cross-Blue Shield says in Massachusetts, my own State. They basically say that younger people will be able to have insurance, but the older people and families who have had health care challenges will be knocked off, unable to afford it. What will happen? These people will go to the public health clinics, with the State having to pick up the cost. That is what Blue Cross-Blue Shield in my State says. This proposal is a shifting of the cost. In this very excellent letter, which I will ask to have printed in the Record, Blue Cross-Blue Shield in my State has been ranked among the top five plans in the Nation by U.S. News & World Report. In this letter, Blue Cross-Blue Shield warns us about preempting the State regulations of rating and benefit requirements. They say do not do this. It will have a bad effect on our seniors. It will increase the number of uninsured and transfer the costs back to the public. The taxpayers will pick it up. We believe Blue Cross-Blue Shield and the other organizations that have been identified are correct. This bill should not pass at this time. We are prepared to work with the Senators from Wyoming and Nebraska to try to deal with these health care challenges. I ask unanimous consent to have the aforementioned letter printed in the Record.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the principal cosponsor on his feet. If he might indulge me for a moment, I want to give assurance to the small businesses and families of this country, we are not going away. We are all very strongly committed to getting decent, quality health care for all Americans. Today, we avoided taking a step backward. But we have heard the very eloquent statement of the Senator, my friend from Wyoming, who said he believes we missed an important opportunity to step forward. What I hope Americans will understand is that we have worked very closely together. We are committed to working closely together. We are going to try to find common ground in this area. I again thank Senator Enzi for his leadership on health issues. I look forward to trying to find common ground on health care and other areas. I am grateful to him for all his courtesies.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Reid, Baucus, Bingaman, Harkin, Mikulski and Cantwell join me in introducing legislation to protect the pensions and health care of America's nuclear defense and energy workers who provide critical services to support our national defense and energy security. Our bill reverses a policy the Bush administration recently issued to eliminate secure pensions and good health care for workers under Department of Energy contracts. This policy is bad for workers and bad for business. By attacking their secure pensions and quality health care benefits, this administration is undermining our government's ability to protect our Nation and strengthen our economy. And it is broadcasting a message that American workers' secure retirement and good health care should be put on the chopping block. The Federal Government should be setting a good example with strong benefits for workers, instead of leading a race to the bottom. By refusing to cover the costs for secure pensions, this administration is forcing contractors to put their employees into defined contribution plans. Workers will bear the risks of uncertain stock markets and the risk of outliving their savings. And businesses, instead of being free to choose which type of retirement plan is best for their workers, will be forced into a one-size-fits-all model. The American Academy of Actuaries, the professionals who understand as well as anyone the benefit system in America, strongly objects to the Department's new policy, pointing out that it takes away contractors' ability to choose the type of benefit plans offered to workers and undermines retirement security. They urge that this policy be immediately rescinded. This is a particular concern given the timing of this announcement. Right now we have a pension bill in conference designed to strengthen the defined benefit pension system. At this critical time, the administration should be supporting the growth and expansion of the defined benefit pension system. But instead it is going the other way, by forcing businesses to abandon defined benefit pension plans. This says to me that this President is not committed to a secure retirement for Americans. First he tried to privatize Social Security; now he's trying to use our federal contracting system to do the same with our Nation's nuclear defense workers. The administration is also attacking employer-provided health care, by saying the government will not pay more than the average in the industry for health care costs under Department of Energy contracts. In other words, it will pay only the average or below. And the quality health care benefits Department of Energy contractors offer workers will have to be replaced by limited medical plans that unfairly penalize the least healthy workers. These high deductible plans don't work for people who need health care the most. Persons with chronic health conditions or who are hit with illness or injury will have to pay significantly more than they would with the comprehensive insurance that the administration's proposal eliminates. These individuals will never be able to find the funds to cover the care they need before meeting the high-deductible needed for their plan to cover them. Is this how we want to treat American workers? If the President's goal is to cut spending for health care, this is the wrong way to go about it. Workers with the kind of high-deductible health plan President Bush has mandated for Department of Energy contractors are more likely to avoid, skip or delay the care that prevents a medical crisis. This means workers will get care when they are sicker and may need costly hospital or emergency room care. Shifting costs to workers drives up costs instead of cutting them. Last week Senator Reid, Senators Baucus, Bingaman, Harkin, Mikulski, Cantwell, Murray and I sent a letter to the White House calling on the President to overturn this ill-conceived policy and call off his attack on the retirement security and health care of these skilled workers. We hope that the President will reconsider. But if he does not, we will be looking for every opportunity to address this issue through this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, for those Americans who believe the Senate was going to have a debate this week on health care policy--and they have been watching the activities in the Senate this morning--they must be mystified about how and whether we are going to have a debate at all. We will know the answer to that at 2 o'clock, when the majority leader will address the Senate. The best judgment now is, for all intents and purposes, that the debate on the issue of health care will be terminated through a parliamentary process that will be worked out, making it impossible to offer amendments to the underlying bill, which is the usual way of proceeding in the Senate. Instead of debate on health care, we will find that time will move on, there will be debate and discussion about some of the tax issues tomorrow and probably voting on cloture on the underlying Enzi legislation. Let me point out how disappointed I am in this result. We are aware the leader said we were going to have a Health Care Week in early May, and we would have a chance to debate issues which relate to health care. Health care is a matter of enormous importance to families all over this country--we all know that. As Members of this Senate, we cannot go to our home States without being exposed to different aspects of the health care crisis. Certainly this is true more so today, perhaps, than in recent times. We are very disappointed that the Senate will not have the opportunity to address some of the underlying issues on health care. We now have 46 million Americans who do not have health insurance. The total number of uninsured has been increasing by about a million a year over the period of the last 6 years. There is every indication that this increase in the number of uninsured is a phenomenon that is going to continue. We know that in terms of the coverage, an increasing number of Americans are only a paycheck away from losing their health care insurance. They are very concerned about losing coverage, especially with all of the changes we see in terms of the economy and the challenges we are facing in terms of good jobs, good benefits, and health care protection. For all of these reasons, Americans are concerned about losing health care insurance. We have increased the total health care spending over 6 years from $1.3 trillion to $1.9 trillion. We are spending $600 billion more on health care and yet 6 million people have lost coverage. The numbers related to health are spending and the uninsured are going in the wrong direction. We have a growing number of uninsured, yet we are paying more in taxes and for the costs of health care. This does not make a great deal of sense. We ought to get about the business of trying to deal with the problem of decreasing numbers of insured Americans and increasing health care spending. My State of Massachusetts has tried to get its arms around the problem of inadequate coverage of health are insurance, and I commend our leaders in Massachusetts for attempting to do that. We need to do that here in the Senate. Premiums have gone up 73 percent in the last 6 years. Wages have gone up approximately 13 percent. How do average working families possibly get ahead and afford the kind of health care they need when we see the costs of health care going right through the roof? It is not just the costs of health care creating problems for working families. We know that working families are paying more in terms of gasoline, and they are paying more in terms of higher education. This last winter, in many instances my constituents were paying a great deal more on fuel assistance because of the rising costs of fuel. While costs are rising, wages are not. All of these challenges are out there for Americans. Beyond this, we are in the age of the life sciences with new possibilities for breakthrough drugs in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. If we had a break in terms of Alzheimer's disease and we were able act on that breakthrough, we would empty one-third of the nursing home beds in my home State of Massachusetts. There are profound implications in terms of the quality of life Americans people could live. Our influence could not only improve the quality of life for people in the United States but it could also influence the quality of life of people around the world. Though unimaginable, we have made reductions and cuts in NIH research at a time when we have splendid opportunities for breakthroughs in health care. We thought we might have an opportunity to have a health care debate on stem cell research, an issue which led to legislation being passed in the House of Representatives. The legislation, which we believe a clear majority of this Senate favors, is now waiting on the calendar. I call it the legislation of hope--there are no guarantees about what stem cell research might be able to do in the future, but it will provide great hope for millions of families that have Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, and so many other illnesses. We should be able to do something that Senator Nelson from Florida has been talking about for weeks. Unless we take action, approximately 8 million American seniors will be paying more for prescription drugs if they do not file under the Medicare prescription Part D drug program in the next few days. We know most seniors are living on fixed incomes, and they will be paying hundreds of millions of dollars more if they do not file under Medicare Part D drug program. We have an opportunity to do something about this problem, but we are being blocked. We are blocked on stem cell research. We are blocked on doing something for our senior citizens in terms of penalties related to the Medicare Part D drug program. We are blocked from perhaps changing our law and permitting our Medicare system to bargain with the pharmaceutical companies to get lower priced prescription drugs for our seniors as we do in the VA system. All of our seniors understand that Medicare should be able to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs, but we are prohibited from doing that by law. There is virtual unanimity among the Democrats to change Medicare's ability to bargain for lower drug prices. Do we have an opportunity to do that? No, we cannot do that, either. We are prohibited from having that debate, having that discussion, having that vote which would mean so much to the quality of life of so many of our seniors, let alone the issues regarding the possibilities of reimportation of drugs, which has been an issue that many Members know can make a big difference in terms of availability of prescription drugs. However, we are not going to have that opportunity. Finally, we are not even going to have the opportunity to see the small business proposal which has been prepared by Senator Durbin and Senator Lincoln which I strongly support. Their proposal can make a difference for small businesses. It helps small businesses retain health insurance for their workers and will provide incentives for those small businesses, the engine of the American economy, to bring people back into health care coverage. We ought to have the debate about Senator Durbin and Senator Lincoln's small business health plan proposal. Let the Senate make a judgment, a decision, about whether they favor, on the one hand, the proposal by Senators Lincoln and Durbin or, on the other hand, Senator Enzi. Let's have the votes and call it as we see it. But we are virtually prohibited from having that vote in the Senate. Most Americans believed, when they elected their representatives, that they were going to come here, they were going to learn these issues, and they were going to tell their representatives what was on their minds. The Senators were going to learn the issues and then have a voice and a vote and try to move that process forward. Certainly that is what we all believe is our responsibility as elected officials. We thought we were going to have these debates and votes on health care this week, but we are not. I believe that this is a grave disappointment. It is an abdication of our leadership in the Senate on an issue which is of overwhelming importance--the quality of health care and the affordability of health care for the millions of American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as I understand, we are in a period of morning business.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will yield myself such time as I might use. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, we thought we would have a good opportunity to have a good, healthy debate on a range of different health policy issues. This was designated as Health Week. A number of our colleagues had some very important amendments--some that are extraordinarily timely--one by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, to address what is going to be effectively a new tax or fee on millions-- the best estimate is 8 million of our senior citizens--who are not enrolled in the Medicare Part D Program. That will cost seniors hundreds of millions of dollars if that is not the addressed. We have a good opportunity to address that in the Senate. We have the issues on stem cell research. That is enormously important legislation at the desk. The bill offers such extraordinary hope to millions who are affected by Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, other genetic diseases. The possibilities are unlimited. I call it the hope bill because it offers so much hope. We thought we might have an opportunity to move forward on that. There are a clear majority of Senate Members who are for a good stem cell research program. We have passed a good program in my own State of Massachusetts, Republicans and Democrats alike coming together, as we would on this legislation, but we are not going to be able to address that issue. The whole issue about whether we give the Medicare system the ability to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs that could benefit our seniors is something the VA does and it does very effectively. It saves millions and billions of dollars for our elderly people because of the ability to get a better price, which Medicare is prohibited from doing now. We believe we should at least have an opportunity to debate that issue and come to judgment on it. It can make a major difference. These are just several of the amendments out there. I was looking forward to offering an amendment to the Enzi legislation that permits States to opt out of the Enzi proposal, if they so desired. It sounded to me that we had a vote on that issue in our Committee on Human Resources, and it was defeated. It seems to me we should give the State the option. We have had at least a pretty good discussion of the underlying Enzi bill, which effectively means skyrocketing premiums for many if they are older or have had some illness in their families. I will get into that in greater detail. But we permit States to opt out. That was defeated. We ought to have an opportunity to vote on that in the Senate. All this can be done. I know the proponents of the amendments would be willing to agree to very reasonable time limitations on this. However, we effectively are being told that is not going to be possible. We are going to have a take-it-or-leave-it approach. That is not the wise way to proceed. I certainly hope we are not going to have to be required to take it. I will review some of the statements and comments made by some of those who have been in support of this legislation that need focus, attention, and some correction. Those who support the Enzi proposal are doing it enthusiastically, but I think it is worthwhile to put the facts out on the table. The facts are we have some 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance. The fact remains, as we have seen in the Congressional Budget Office, the Enzi proposal actually benefits some 600,000. That is 1 percent of the 45 million who are uninsured. In my State of Massachusetts, the Democratic leadership, with Sal DiMasi and President Travaglini coming together with Governor Romney, have the goal of covering 95 percent, minimum. Most believe we will get to 98 percent of all the people in our State. It is a valuable undertaking. We have a proposal with 45 million uninsured and we expect, according to the Congressional Budget Office, some 600,000 will be included. That is from the assessment on page 5 from CBO. In terms of the firms themselves, the CBO has pointed out one-quarter of all the small business firms will actually pay more for their health benefits. Those that support it have neglected that. A quarter of all the firms under the Enzi bill will have to pay more. That is not true with the Durbin-Lincoln proposal, and the Durbin- Lincoln proposal will cover millions--not 600,000--millions of small businesses. These are some of the facts from CBO. The premium decrease, according to CBO, would be 2 percent to 3 percent, a one-time savings of only $80 to $120 for the average individual and $215 to $325 for a family plan. The cost is lesser benefits. If you are going to eliminate your cancer screening, your well-baby care, your help and support in terms of diabetes, if you are going to eliminate the mental health benefits, sure, you can get some reduction in premium. That is what they do. But in State after State, including mine, we have those protections. That is the savings, one-time savings, according to the Congressional Budget Office. For those who want to have a good understanding of exactly what this bill does and what it does not do, I hope they will have a chance to review the CBO estimate and analysis because it is at odds with a great deal of what those who have been supporting the proposal have stated. Finally, the total savings on employer-sponsored coverage are two- tenths of a percent. On the other hand, let me mention an excellent analysis that has been done by Alex Feldvebel, the deputy commissioner in New Hampshire and an expert on this type of health insurance issue. These are his comments, talking about the market relief. That is what we call the ratings. What is the swing in a particular State? States can vary the ratings in terms of the market. In, Alaska 2.5 percent to 1; Arkansas 3.3 to 1; California, 1.2 to 1. If you are an older person, older worker, if your family has maybe had some illness, you can only vary the premiums 1.2 percent in the State of California. In my State, it is 3 percent, 3 to 1. There are a number of States, such as New York, where you cannot change it. You cannot vary it. Everyone is in the same boat, so to speak. Now, in the Enzi proposal, listen to this regarding the ratings, the permitted rate variation under this small group market rules is extreme. The total permitted variation between the highest rate group and the lowest rate group for the same health benefit is 25.4 to 1, or 2,540 percent. If the lowest rate is paying $100 per month, the highest rate would pay 2,500 per month. If you are young and healthy and just out of school, they give you the physical, and you are an A-1 specimen, you get it for $100. But if your family has had some illness or sickness and maybe your company has dropped its health insurance, if you have to purchase this, you can pay $2,500. Think what that will do. That is obviously going to be prohibitive, and more and more people will be left out. Here is how the variable comes out. Age, 500 percent. Gender, 25 percent, it should be saying, women, 25 percent. They are automatically, under these calculations in this bill, gender, will be paying a higher premium. This is the Enzi legislation. And the variance continues. If you are in a wellness program, you get a 5-percent benefit. If you come in with a whole group of very young people who are very healthy, you can get a 40-percent reduction, but if you are an older person with sickness, you are up to 500 percent. That is the variation. That is not acceptable. We all know what is going do happen. That is going to be the incentives. This legislation, on page 100, talks about the definition relating to the model ``small group'' and those who supported the legislation use the Model Small Group Rating Rules for the Small Employer Health Insurance Availability Model Act of 1993. It is interesting that the insurance commissioners have upgraded this review and study several times. Do you think we are dealing with the most recent publication? No. We are back to 1993. It is the insurance organization, the NAIC model, that basically has been rejected and repudiated by the State insurance commissioners. All you have to do is read from your own insurance commissioners, and they ask: Why in the world would the Senate use an old model, when we have much more recent information, much more updated information? The reason is, if you use this, the profits for the insurance industry are going to be much higher. We ought to understand that. The insurance commissioners themselves have effectively rejected this particular proposal. If we go to page 110, we will see ``Superseding of State Law.'' This part shall supersede any and all State laws . . . This does not just say small business. This is about all State laws. Here it is, the clinical trials, cancer screening, diabetes, effectively preempt all the State laws, to and after the date relating to rating and in the small group insurance market. It says to Massachusetts and to most of the States, if you have a benefit package, those are going to be preempted. That is what it says right there on page 110. Page 110 actually is where it permits the fluctuation of the rating system. It talks about ratings. And that gives you the flexibility that I have mentioned. And then the preemption of State benefits is actually on page 119. I would have thought, if we were serious about trying to do something for small business, we would have had the opportunity--Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. KENNEDY. My time has expired?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I was wondering if you would yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I haven't had an opportunity to see the amendment. I want to cooperate, but I would like to have reading of the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have no objection to waiving the reading.

Mr. KENNEDY. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, until I have a chance to see the amendment, I will have to object.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. President, I say with the greatest respect that it is kind of interesting that the majority leader presents a proposal to the Chamber on behalf of the human resources committee--and as we know, under the Senate rules, that is entirely appropriate--and then in the same breath he asks us to recommit the legislation back to the committee, after he has just spoken for the committee, which suggests that there is a parliamentary maneuver, which is now quite apparent to all of us, that we are not going to have the opportunity to even get a debate on small business assistance, because we have on this side of the aisle the Durbin legislation dealing with relief for small business which effectively we are precluded from having an opportunity to offer. If I understand the last sentence of the leader, he said we are going to have to dispose of this and go this route before we consider any other amendments. As I understand it from our Democratic leader, we could have reduced those to four or five different amendments that deal with the emergency penalties that some 8 million seniors are going to pay on the prescription drug program, the issue of the ability of Medicare to be able to negotiate lower prices, and the stem cell issue, which my friend has commented on, and Senator Harkin and Senator Feinstein, and I know the Senator from Tennessee understands the full potential of this. But effectively, as I understand it, this is Wednesday at 3 o'clock; we were here Wednesday morning. I have been effectively here since 10 o'clock in the morning, and we have Wednesday and Thursday and a full week where we can deal with these issues. It just is troubling to many of us, when we went through this whole argument a week or 10 days ago on the immigration issue, where we were listening to those on that side of the aisle say: Let's have some amendments. Now we hear from them that, no, we cannot. We want lots of amendments on that, but we refuse to have amendments on this. I daresay that the Senate rules permit debate on different amendments. We have a set of rules out there. You can have an amendment in the first or second degree, and you can have ultimate judgments and decisions. I just want to mention at this time that the action that has been taken now by the leader is effectively going to foreclose an opportunity at this time, when we are having our health care debate, to debate either stem cell research or relief for our senior citizens, who will be paying the penalty because of the requirements of the prescription drug program. We will be denied an opportunity to consider reimportation or negotiation for lower prices. Those are effectively issues that I think most Americans can understand. Certainly these are issues which Members of this body are familiar with and not new issues. We have not been able to get an opportunity. I certainly regret that is the case because I think, with all respect, as the CBO talks about, there are 48 million Americans without health insurance. According to CBO, this is going to help solve it for 600,000, where we have the option with the Durbin proposal to solve it for millions in small business. But we are denied that opportunity. It is difficult for me to follow that kind of rationale, but we are where we are. I regret that judgment and decision, but that is where we are.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senate is currently considering legislation proposed by Senator Enzi that would profoundly change health care coverage. The proposal has been modified from the version approved by our committee. It is important for the Senate to understand fully the impact that this legislation would have on millions of Americans. I have requested an analysis of this modified proposal from Professor Mila Kofman of the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute. I ask unanimous consent to have this analysis printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, wasn't the Senator's impression that the prescription drug program was going to be a voluntary program? And for millions of people--or for hundreds of thousands in my State--people felt it was going to be a voluntary program. They were absolutely confused. We have 45 different programs with a wide variance in copays and deductibles with individuals on a formulary one day and off a formulary another day. I would be interested as well if the Senator would comment on the General Accounting Office's report that I thought was rather devastating in terms of the ability of the CMS to be able to communicate to seniors about their options. As I understand what the Senator from Florida is saying, millions of Americans thought the prescription drug program was voluntary, so they did not think they really had to get involved in it. Then, they might have heard they better sign up. Now they are increasingly conscious about the penalty and, at the same time, we have a General Accounting Office report that said the ability for our seniors to understand the prescription drug program is a real mystery. How has that played out for the people in Florida whom you represent? How have the conclusions of that General Accounting Office report played out that said people would call up and they would get misinformation on the phone? There was confusion even among those who were supposed to be doing the briefings for seniors. The degree and the extent of confusion for seniors is because of the multiplicity of programs. I would be interested in what the Senator's experience in Florida has been.

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand the President is in his home State today. Given the track record of the administration and the mismanagement of the prescription drug program and the fact that there is genuine concern and confusion among seniors, what reason did the administration give you for not following your extremely reasonable, sound suggestion that could make a difference for seniors all over the country?