[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 149 (Thursday, October 28, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13333-S13337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FINISHING THE SENATE'S BUSINESS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, many people who are watching the business
of Capitol Hill are curious as to the current state of affairs. We are
obviously past our deadline of October 1 for a new fiscal year. We were
supposed to have passed all of the appropriations or spending bills by
that time. Very few Congresses ever achieve that, and this Congress did
not. But most Congresses reach a point in the late days of October
where we at least know the end game, we know how it is going to end,
and we are merely putting paperwork together.
Well, we are not quite there yet. In fact, we are in a situation
where there is great doubt about how this session will come to an end,
and it is a great irony that we would be questioning how it will end in
light of all the circumstances that we face. This is an extraordinarily
good time for America in terms of the state of our economy, its growth,
the creation of jobs, keeping inflation under control, and giving
businesses opportunities to start and expand. All of these things are
good signs. In fact, we are generating enough money now in terms of
revenues to the Federal Government that we have gone beyond the era of
deficits and have now started talking about the era of surpluses.
It was a little over 2 years ago that we were fixated in this Chamber
on passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. There were
some Members of the Senate who had literally given up hope that the
Senate could meet its own responsibility, and they insisted that a
constitutional amendment be passed to give the Federal courts the
authority to enforce the law and stop Congress from spending. That is
how desperate many of these Members of the Senate were in terms of the
deficit situation.
Well, things have changed dramatically; 2\1/2\ years later we now
seem to be at an impasse over a surplus, not over a deficit. That
amendment did not pass. It lost by one vote. I voted against it and
would do it again. Now we are talking about surpluses and what to do
with them.
The interesting thing about this debate, though, is we are not
focusing on individual appropriations bills but really keep returning
to a subject that has been around since 1935, because it was in 1935
that Franklin Roosevelt showed the vision and the political courage to
create Social Security. In creating the Social Security system, he
really said that we were going to do something dramatic to make sure
our parents and grandparents could live in dignity when they reached
retirement age. Some people, primarily from the other side of the
aisle, called it socialism. They said, no, we aren't going to go along
with ``New Deal'' politics creating these massive government programs.
This same Republican voice was
[[Page S13334]]
heard time and again for decades over the creation of Social Security;
that it was a bad idea; it was socialism; it was too much government.
Yet the program endured. Thank goodness it did because it changed the
lives of Americans for the better and gave us hope that in our senior
years, in our years of retirement, we could be independent and live in
dignity. Look at what we have today--so many healthy, vibrant seniors
leading great lives, knowing they have a safety net called Social
Security in which they have invested through all of their work
experience. It is not enough to lead a luxurious life by far, but it
certainly gives people that safety net, and they are glad they have it.
We are debating about what to do with Social Security as we end this
session. It is a principal source of retirement income for two-thirds
of the elderly. Listen to these statistics: In 1959, 40 years ago, the
poverty rate for senior citizens was 35 percent, one out of three. In
1998, it was 10.5 percent, the lowest on record. Last year, Social
Security benefits lifted roughly 15 million senior citizens out of
poverty.
That is what it means. It means people who would not be able to make
it can make it, at least barely make it, if they are relying on Social
Security. It is more than just a retirement program because one out of
five people who receive benefits under Social Security are either
disabled, mentally or physically, or they are the survivors of those
who paid into the system.
We on the Democratic side have for years advocated the protection of
Social Security. In that debate I mentioned earlier about a balanced
budget amendment, we offered an amendment on our side and said we did
not want the budget to be balanced by using the Social Security trust
fund. Well, we offered that amendment and only two Republican Senators
voted for it. When we tried to protect the Social Security trust fund
from being raided as part of that constitutional amendment, only two
Republican Senators would join us and we were not successful.
Now we have this whole question about whether or not we are currently
spending the Social Security trust fund. There have been ads run by
political parties saying this fund should be held sacred and it should
not be touched. Yet when we look at the record, the Congressional
Budget Office tells us, as of a month ago the Republican appropriations
bills already use $18 billion of the Social Security surplus. This
estimate assumed appropriations bills already enacted or those in
accordance with the then-current status in the House of
Representatives. Since September 29, the use of the Social Security
surplus has grown.
I think that is a challenge to some of the advertising being put on
television by the other side of the aisle. The facts do not back them
up. Republicans have talked about protecting Social Security, but,
frankly, they have not. They have used $18 billion of the Social
Security trust fund so far.
They do not want to talk about a program which a few months ago was
their pride and joy, the so-called Republican tax cut; a $792 billion
tax cut, the vast bulk of which went to the wealthiest people in this
country. That tax cut idea went over like a lead balloon. People across
America said: Why in the world do you want to talk about a tax cut when
we have a national debt we should be concerned about, when we have the
future of Social Security we should be concerned about, when we have
Medicare we are concerned about? Why do you want to talk about a tax
cut primarily for wealthy people?
If you remember the Republicans went out in August and said we are
going to take our case to the people. They came back after the August
recess and said: We are going to close the books on this case. The
people aren't interested. We will talk about it next year.
The American people were interested enough to take a look at and
reject this Republican tax cut, and it is a good thing they did for the
sake of Social Security. Estimates suggest that some $83 billion would
have had to come out of the Social Security trust fund to pay for the
Republican tax cut package for wealthy people. That was not going to
fly. The American people let the Republican leadership know that and
they dropped their tax cut plan from their agenda and came back and
said instead we are dedicated to protecting Social Security.
Let me tell you, the President has the right idea when it comes to
the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. He wants to make sure
we lock away that trust fund so it cannot be raided and so we can say
to future generations: Social Security is not only solvent to the year
2032 or 2034, but beyond. I think he is on the right track.
The President's Social Security lockbox ensures another generation
can receive benefits from this important program. It locks away
interest savings for Social Security. It transfers interest savings to
the Social Security trust fund. It extends the solvency of the Social
Security system to the year 2050.
One other point that bears mentioning, we must address the needs of
the future of Medicare. Time and again, the debate on this floor has
ignored the Medicare Program. Medicare is the health insurance program
for seniors and disabled that, frankly, needs attention at this moment
more than any other program. It will be insolvent by the year 2015. Yet
precious little is said or done in the debates on Capitol Hill to
address the needs of the Medicare system.
The Medicare trust fund will go bankrupt in 2015. To make matters
worse, the strains in the system will continue to increase as the baby
boom generation retires, with the number of Medicare-eligible seniors
expected to double to almost 80 million within a few decades. We have
proposed, on the Democrat side, to lock away part of our surplus that
we see coming in the years ahead to extend the life of Medicare for an
additional 12 years. Not only would this extend the solvency of the
system and the program, it would eliminate the need for future
excessive cuts in medical care. Medicare is the critical other half of
the equation that the Republicans continue to ignore.
Democrats are determined to make sure that, as Speaker Gingrich once
said, Medicare does not ``wither on the vine.'' We want to make sure
this system continues and survives.
I see my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, on the floor.
I will yield to him in morning business and close by saying, as we come
to the end of this congressional session, families across America have
the right and responsibility to hold this Congress accountable; to ask
us the hard questions. What have we done under our stewardship to make
life better in America during the course of this year?
Did we pass campaign finance reform to clean up the mess in our
campaign election system? I am afraid the answer is no, we did not. It
broke down on partisan lines. Even though we had 55 Republican and
Democratic Senators who were determined to pass it, 45 Republican
Senators opposed it and it died.
Did we pass Senator Kennedy's minimum wage increase so we go from
$5.15 an hour to a more livable wage for the 350,000 people in Illinois
who get up every morning and go to work for $5.15 an hour? The answer,
sadly, is no, we did not pass an increase in the minimum wage.
What did we do for the people who are concerned about their managed
care, their health insurance, when they want their doctors to make the
decisions and not the insurance company bureaucrats; when they don't
want to turn over a life-or-death decision to somebody at the end of a
telephone line who may have a high school diploma and no knowledge of
medicine? Did we do something to stand up for patients? Sadly, the
answer is no. The special interests, the insurance industry, prevailed
in this Chamber. They killed the good legislation we were trying to
pass. Sadly, that means the American people have lost out.
What have we done for education, to reduce class size? When I visit a
classroom in Wheaton, IL, with 16 kids in the first grade and the
teacher says: Senator, this Federal program works. I can give special
attention to these kids. If they are falling behind I can help them. If
they are gifted, I can give them something extra to do. Keep the class
size initiative on track.
What have we done? We are in a bitter fight now as to whether we will
even continue that program.
Sadly, as you look at all the issues, whether it is sensible gun
control in light of the violence in schools such as
[[Page S13335]]
Columbine, or whether you look at minimum wage or campaign finance
reform or the Patients' Bill of Rights, this Congress is going to go
home emptyhanded. We have failed the American people. They should hold
the leadership in this Congress accountable for coming here, drawing
their paychecks, punching the clock for their pensions, and going home
without addressing issues that American families care about.
So I hope in the closing days of this session we can salvage
something for the time we have spent in Washington. I hope as we start
the next session, the next round, the Republican leadership will
finally listen to the people across America who want us to act in their
interests, not for the special interests. Time and time again, families
have lost and special interests have won and that is not what this
Senate should be about.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10
a.m. is under the control of the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield all remaining time to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Illinois. I must say, he has summarized the situation as we are drawing
to the end of this part of the Congress very well. There is still some
time for this do nothing Congress to mend its ways--if there were a
disposition to make some progress, there is still some time to do so.
But I think it is important, as we come to the end of this session,
to take stock of what has been achieved and has not been achieved. My
friend from Illinois has done an excellent job summarizing those
issues. I would like to provide some additional comments on some of the
matters he raised.
First of all, as the Senator from Illinois and others have pointed
out in these last days, we are still failing to meet our
responsibilities to those 11 million Americans who earn the minimum
wage. In many instances these are the hardest-working laborers in our
economy, but they are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder--and
this, during the most extraordinary prosperity in the history of this
country. There has been an incredible accumulation of wealth that has
taken place over the period of the last 5, 6, 7 years. As a direct
result of the leadership of President Clinton and the Democratic
Members of Congress, and despite the opposition of nearly every single
Republican Member, we are in the midst of the greatest economic growth
in the history of the country. We have even found the will to raise our
own salaries some $4,600 a year. But the Republicans are now holding a
minimum wage increase hostage to $35 billion in new tax breaks for the
wealthiest Americans.
All we are asking is that we have at least the opportunity to bring
this matter before the Senate and permit a vote on it. It does not take
too much time--Members know this issue. But under the parliamentary
situation that we find ourselves in now, the leadership--the Republican
leadership--is denying us the opportunity to do so. This is the seventh
time that technique has been used this year. Do we think the purpose of
it is to open and broaden debate and discussion on matters before the
American people? No, it is to narrow and close down the opportunity for
debate and discussion.
So, when we look where we are as a country, from 1965 up to the year
2000, this line reflects what the purchasing power of the minimum wage
would be with constant dollars of 1998. Here we find back in 1965 all
the way up to the early 1980s, we actually found Republicans and
Democrats alike working together to make sure that working Americans
could earn a livable wage.
Then there was a period during the Reagan administration, starting in
1980 and going right through 1988, when we had a great deal of
resistance in getting any increase. We had one increase in the minimum
wage and another spike again in 1995.
But if we do not take action by the year 2001, the purchasing power
of the minimum wage will be at an all-time low. And still we are denied
an opportunity to bring this matter before the Senate.
Eighty-five percent of the American people favor increasing the
minimum wage, and the opposition refuses to even debate it. The two old
arguments they have used against increasing the minimum wage are that
it will cause a loss of jobs and that it will add to inflation. Those
tired old arguments have long since been discredited.
We know that when there has been an actual increase, again, in
October 1996 and October 1997, the employment levels have continued to
go up. There is absolutely no case that can be made that this will lose
jobs.
Our proposal is modest, a one dollar increase in two installments--50
cents next January, and 50 cents the following year--to provide a
lifeline to so many who are working so hard in our country. We know who
the workers earning the minimum wage are. They are assistant
schoolteachers who work in our children's classrooms. They are
assistants in nursing homes caring for our family members.
This is a women's issue because the overwhelming majority of
individuals who work at minimum wage are women.
This is a children's issue because eighty-five percent of the women
who are receiving minimum wage have children.
It is a civil rights issue because many of those involved in making
the minimum wage are men and women of color.
Most of all, it is a fairness issue. How can we justify raising our
own salaries $4,600 a year and refuse to provide a $1 increase over 2
years for men and women who go out every single day, 40 hours a week,
52 weeks a year?
This is absolutely unfair. Americans understand fairness, they
understand work, they understand fair play, and the Republican
leadership is denying the American workers fair play on this issue.
I want to mention another important issue which we hope to address in
the final days of the Senate, and that is the issue of the Patients'
Bill of Rights, a very simple piece of legislation that says doctors--
not accountants--ought to be making decisions in matters affecting the
health of our families.
The protections contained in the Norwood-Dingell managed care reform
bill which passed in the House of Representatives three weeks ago by an
overwhelming bipartisan majority of 275-151, have been recommended by
the broad-based and nonpartisan Presidents' Commission. They are
included in the model standards of the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners. These protections are already available under
Medicare. They are used as voluntary standards by the managed care
companies' own trade associations. They are the rights that ethical
insurance companies honor as a matter of course, and that every family
believes it has purchased when it pays its premiums.
These protections listed on this chart are the ones we tried to
guarantee to the consumers of America. That essentially is the
Democratic proposal we debated in the Senate. These circles indicate
what the Senate finally did on these protections. My colleagues can see
they are zero in most of the cases, and small coloring in other cases,
which means they took a partial fix on some of these protections. And
my colleagues can see what the bipartisan Republican and Democratic
proposal did in the House of Representatives.
We are prepared to bring that House bill before the Senate and debate
it for a few hours, pass it, and provide protections for the American
people. We do not need a conference. The President will sign it. Why
don't we move ahead on this? This has bipartisan support. This has
already been debated and it had the overwhelming support of 68
Republican Members in the House of Representatives.
Why are we not protecting the American people? Why are we being
denied the opportunity to provide protections? If there is some
question as to whether we really are providing protections, look at
what is happening across the country every single day. Every single day
the Congress delays the Patients' Bill of Rights means more patients
are suffering.
Each day that Congress delays means that more patients will suffer
and die. According to a survey by the University of California at
Berkeley, every day we delay means that 35,000 patients
[[Page S13336]]
will find their access to needed care delayed. Thirty-one thousand will
be forced to change doctors. Eighteen thousand will be forced to forego
medications ordered by their doctor. Fifty-nine thousand will endure
unnecessary pain and suffering as the result of adverse actions by
their health plan. And 11,000 will suffer permanent disability.
The health professionals who deal with managed care companies every
day know that prompt action is critical. According to a survey of
physicians by the Harvard University School of Public Health, every
week at least 18,000 patients' medical condition worsens because they
are denied an overnight stay in a hospital. At least twenty-three
thousand patients are harmed every week because of the denial of
specialty care. Each week, at least seventy-nine thousand patients are
harmed because of denial of needed prescription drugs. The list goes on
and on.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like the Senator from Massachusetts to help those
following the debate to understand who lines up on the different sides
of this debate.
The Senator has been here through many of these legislative battles.
He knows there are forces at work that want to pass a bipartisan
Patients' Bill of Rights to help families, and there are forces
against. Will the Senator, for the record, tell us how those forces
line up?
Mr. KENNEDY. That is an excellent question. As the Senator from
Illinois understands, these protections did not just come out of thin
air. They were recommended. Recommended by whom? Virtually every
medical society in the country supports our program. During this
debate, we challenged the other side to produce one medical society
that supported their program. We still have not heard it.
Every medical society supports our program. Every nursing society
supports our program. Every consumer group supports our program. Every
patient organization supports our program. Every one of the consumer
groups that have been trying to protect children understands the
importance of getting specialists for children; not just a
pediatrician, but a pediatrician oncologist to deal with cancer in
children and specialists in these areas. We guarantee these. This
Republican program does not.
We have the legislative power of this body to pass something which
the President will sign to provide the patient protections we are
talking about. All the majority leader has to do is call up that
legislation. Just call it up. Let us debate it, and let us act.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. If every medical organization--doctors, nurses,
specialists--has come down in favor of this bipartisan approach, who is
on the other side of this? What is the force that is stopping us from
passing this legislation?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator again has asked the important question. It
is the insurance industry. You have on the one hand, as suggested by
the two questions the Senator asked, all of the health professionals,
all of the men and women who have devoted their lives to taking care of
patients in this country, the doctors, the nurses, all of the various
professional societies, all the consumer groups, all the children's
organizations that care about this, all the elderly groups. And on the
other side you have the insurance industry that is opposed to it. The
basic reason for that is that it cuts into their bottom line--even
though they have guaranteed the kinds of protections we are talking
about.
What we are trying to do is make sure the patients are going to get
the kind of coverage and the kind of attention for which they had
signed up. What happens in so many of these instances is the HMO, the
policyholder, just will not give what their patients are guaranteed in
these areas. And with all the other complexities in terms of denying
the patients the opportunity to sue the HMO, we are denied an
opportunity for remedy as well.
There is rarely a public policy question that is as important as this
one. We know what can be done. We have good legislation, that is almost
at the door of the Senate, that could be called up. I am sure the
Senator from Illinois would agree with me, and we could get that done
today. Certainly we could do that, and the minimum wage as well.
I see my time has just about expired, but I want to try to go
through, briefly, some of these other areas where we have failed to
take action. These are the kind of issues about which people talk to
us. This is the kind of issue about which families are concerned--the
minimum wage, a Patients' Bill of Rights. When I was in Methuen this
past Monday, I must have had four different senior citizens come up to
me and say: What's happening on that prescription drug proposal that
the President is supporting--that so many of us are supporting? Try to
get that up and get a debate, get that reported out of the Finance
Committee and reported out here on the Senate floor. Please do
something about prescription drugs.
But we aren't able to get anything done on that. We aren't able to
get anything done on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We have a Republican
leader who said that ``House-Senate conferences on other legislation
have a higher priority'' than consideration of the Patients' Bill of
Rights. So this thing is just being kicked on over to next year. That
may be satisfactory to some of the insurance companies. That may be
satisfactory to some of the Republican leadership. But it is not
satisfactory to the families in this country.
In the final few moments, I want to once again mention the areas of
education which we would have hopefully had some opportunity to address
with greater time.
In recent years, too many in Congress have paid lip-service to
education--and then failed to act to meet the most basic needs of the
Nation's schools. This Congress faces a major test in the coming days,
as we seek to guarantee that education receives the funds it deserves
for the coming fiscal year. If we want a better and stronger America
tomorrow, we must invest more in education today.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. The debate then on the President's proposal for 100,000
teachers to reduce classroom size, so that teachers can give more
attention to the students, really is kind of a parallel to the 100,000
COPS Program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to continue
for 3 minutes and it not be charged against the Republican side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. If I might, then, say to the Senator from Massachusetts,
the President's program for 100,000 cops has given the money directly
to the police departments and the communities to put more cops on the
beat. We have seen the crime rate coming down in America, partially
because of this. Now we have the same debate about the money going
directly to the schools so they can reduce class size. And there is
resistance, again, from the Republican side of the aisle.
Have we not learned any lesson from the 100,000 cops, that if the
money goes directly to the problem, we can get results?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has given an excellent example about
programs that have been successful. And we know these programs are
working, as the Senator has pointed out.
Communities do not understand why, just a year ago, we joined hands
to help them reduce class size--yet we are on the verge of abandoning
our commitment now.
Research has documented what parents and teachers have always known--
smaller classes improve student achievement. In small classes, students
receive more individual attention and instruction. Students with
learning disabilities have those disabilities identified earlier, and
their needs can be met without placing them in costly special
education. In small classes, teachers are better able to maintain
discipline. Parents and teachers can work together more effectively to
support children's education.
Project STAR studied 7,000 students in 80 schools in Tennessee.
Students in small classes performed better than students in large
classes in each grade from kindergarten through third grade.
[[Page S13337]]
Follow-up studies show that students from small classes enrolled in
more college-bound courses, had higher grade-point averages, had fewer
discipline problems, and were less likely to drop out of school.
Because of the Class Size Reduction Act, 1.7 million children are
benefiting from smaller classes this year. 29,000 teachers have been
hired. 1,247 are teaching in the first grade, reducing class sizes from
23 to 17. 6,670 are teaching in the second grade, reducing class size
from 23 to 18. 6,960 are teaching in the third grade, reducing class
size from 24 to 18. 2,900 are in other grades, K-12, 290 special
education teachers have been hired.
The program is well under way. Abandoning our commitment to help
communities reduce class sizes would break a specific promise made by
Congress only 1 year ago. It would also be a violation of our
responsibility to support a strong Federal-State-local partnership in
education. Congress cannot abdicate this responsibility.
We must also ensure that teachers get the training they need to come
to school ready to teach. Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants are an
important step in addressing the critical national need for high-
quality teachers. It received strong bipartisan support in the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and Congress should fund
it at the full authorization level of $300 million for next year.
Children need and deserve a good education in order to succeed in
life. But they cannot obtain that education if school roofs are falling
down around them, if sewage is backing up because of faulty plumbing--
asbestos in flaking off the walls and ceilings--schools lack computers
and modern technology--and if classrooms are overcrowded.
We need to invest more to help States and communities rebuild
crumbling schools, modernize decrepit buildings, and expand facilities
to accommodate reduced class sizes. Sending children to dilapidated,
overcrowded schools sends an unacceptable message to these children. It
tells them they don't matter. No CEO would tolerate a leaky ceiling in
the board room, and no teacher should have to tolerate it in the
classroom. We need to do all we can to ensure that children are
learning in safe, modern school buildings.
Nearly one third of all public schools are more than 50 years old.
Fourteen million children in a third of the Nation's schools are
learning in substandard buildings. The problem of ailing school
buildings is not the problem of the inner city alone. It exists in
almost every community, urban, rural, or suburban.
In addition to modernizing and renovating dilapidated schools,
communities need to build new schools in order to keep pace with rising
enrollments and to reduce class sizes. Elementary and secondary school
enrollment has reached an all-time high again this year of 53 million
students, and will continue to grow.
The Department of Education estimates that 2,400 new public schools
will be needed by 2003, just to accommodate rising enrollments. The
General Accounting Office estimates that it will cost communities $112
billion to repair and modernize the Nation's schools. Congress should
lend a helping hand, and do all we can to help schools and communities
across the country meet this challenge.
Finally, in June with the support of over 250 groups representing the
disability community, health care providers, and the business
community, the Senate passed landmark legislation 99-0 to open the
workplace doors for disabled people in communities across this country.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed this legislation by a
vote of 412-9. Once this measure is enacted into law, large numbers of
people with disabilities will have the opportunity to fulfill their
hopes and dreams of living independent and productive lives.
But despite the overwhelming bipartisan support for the Work
Incentives Improvement Act, the House of Representatives has yet to
appoint conferees to move enactment of this bill forward.
A decade ago, when we enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act, we
promised our disabled fellow citizens a new and better life, in which
disability would no longer end the American dream. Too often, for too
many Americans, that promise has been unfulfilled. The Work Incentives
Improvement Act will dramatically strengthen the fulfillment of that
promise.
We know that millions of disabled men and women in this country want
to work and are able to work. But the Republican Leadership in the
House continues to deny these citizens the opportunity to work be
refusing to appoint conferees and move this bill forward. Every day
this legislation is delayed is another day the nation is denied the
talents and the contributions of disabled Americans.
Current laws are an anachronism. Modern medicine and modern
technology are making it easier than ever before for disabled persons
to have productive lives and careers. Yet current laws are often a
greater obstacle to that goal than the disability itself. It's
ridiculous that we punish disable persons who dare to take a job by
penalizing them financially, by taking away their health insurance
lifeline, and by placing these unfair obstacles in their path.
Eliminating these barriers to work will help disabled Americans to
achieve self-sufficiency. We are a better and stronger and fairer
country when we open the door of opportunity to all Americans, and
enable them to be equal partners in the American dream. For millions of
Americans with disabilities, this bill is a declaration of independence
that can make the American dream come true.
For far too long, disabled Americans have been left out and left
behind. It is time for Congress to stop stalling this legislation, and
take the long overdue action to correct the injustices they are
unfairly suffering.
The issues I have discussed today--a fair wage, health care,
education, employment for the disabled, freedom from hate crimes--touch
the lives of every American. If this Congress wants to make a
difference for our constituents--to improve their lives and to ease
their burdens--these are major issues we must address.
I thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Maine for her
indulgence.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume from the time reserved for Senator Thomas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________