[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 16 (Friday, February 10, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1055-S1057]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will talk for a few moments about the 
budget that has been submitted by this administration in the last few 
days and how it fails to address those needs.
  Effectively, in the budget the President has set up, we are going to 
see a very serious and significant decline in supporting some 
enormously needed programs that help to provide opportunities for so 
many of our people in this country, such as educational programs and 
health programs, all in order that we provide a tax break for 
individual Americans at the cost of $45 billion or $46 billion this 
year.
  That is what a budget is about: priorities. When I go back to 
Massachusetts, one of the first orders of business people are talking 
to me about is: What in the world did the Congress ever do in passing 
that prescription drug program?
  I take pride in the fact we passed in the Senate a very good 
prescription drug program with Senator Bob Graham from Florida. We 
received over 70 votes in the Senate. We built that program using the 
Medicare system, which is tried, tested, and depended upon by millions 
of Americans.
  Medicare was defeated in 1964 and accepted in 1965 in the Senate. 
Right after that, we accepted the Medicaid Program to look after the 
neediest people in our society--primarily children, women, and disabled 
individuals--to take care of the poorest of the poor.
  Those programs were implemented in 11 months--11 months. It has been 
over a year for this program to be implemented. And they did not have a 
computer in 1965 to implement it, but it worked on the principle of 
building the Medicare system similar to Social Security. American 
people had confidence in it, and it worked.
  Well, we went to conference with the House of Representatives, and 
that is when the influence of the insurance industry and the drug 
industry came to play. They basically hijacked what was going to be a 
Medicare prescription drug program for our senior citizens, in a way, 
and drafted that program to serve not the senior citizens--not the 
senior citizens--but to serve the special interests.
  I opposed that on the floor of the Senate. Our Republican friends 
forced that on through. And now it is chaos in my State of 
Massachusetts with that prescription drug program. Why, at least, 
didn't our Republican friends say: All right, let's have some real 
competition; let's put the private sector and Medicare--let them 
compete and let our senior citizens make the choice.
  Do you think they would do that? No. They would not bring a program 
back here that was built on the Medicare system. They would not permit 
the seniors in my State to be able to make a choice. But they will say: 
We trust Medicare. It provides for our doctors' bills. It provides for 
our hospitalization.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. In 1964 and 1965, when you passed that, you did not 
include prescription drugs because 97 percent of the private sector did 
not include prescription drugs. Why didn't we do the prescription drug 
program just like we did the Medicare Program? Simple, workable, 
understandable--finished.
  No, no, we can't do that. We have to do it a different way. We are 
going to have--instead of the Medicare system, which is tried and 
tested and people understand--we are going to give the seniors in 
Massachusetts 45 different programs with different copays, different 
formularies, different deductibles.
  There is mass confusion with that program. Not only is there mass 
confusion, but you have the extraordinary circumstance that when a 
senior says: OK. I like this formulary. I can afford this deductible. I 
can afford this copay. I think I will go into this because of the cost 
of prescription drugs--and they sign on to it. There is an enormously 
interesting fact; that is, the company they sign up with can change 
their formulary, can change the deductible and copay. Do you think the

[[Page S1056]]

senior can get out of that program without paying a penalty? Of course, 
they cannot. What kind of business is it? They feel, if the private 
sector can do it so well, why don't we have the competition?
  Why did we have to provide a 9-percent inflater cost for all the 
HMOs, when people who are in the HMOs are 18 percent healthier than 
they are in Medicare? Add that together, my friends, and it is 25 
percent more if you are in the HMO than if you are in the Medicare 
system. Why? Well, if that is the private sector, why isn't the private 
sector able to compete? Because this amounts to about a $40 billion 
subsidy. Do you hear me? A $40 billion subsidy, just like it is about a 
$170 billion subsidy for the drug industry.
  People wonder why the copayments are higher. Would people wonder why 
the doughnut is there? There it is, my friends. And with all the 
reforms we hear talked about, do you think we are going to get a chance 
to support a change in that program by adding a--build it on Medicare. 
Let's do that. Let's add that. Have a real even competition and see 
what happens out there.
  But many of my colleagues feel that way. We are going to press to try 
to do it. The point I am making is, I care deeply about these asbestos 
victims. It is enormously important we get it right. This bill does not 
do it. But we are in this Congress, on a Friday, at 10 minutes of 11, 
with an empty Chamber. Why aren't we dealing with the challenges and 
the problems of the people back home?
  I can tell you what they are concerned about. Why aren't we debating 
this Medicare today, this afternoon? Why are we so busy in what we are 
doing that we are not dealing with this issue? Why aren't we dealing 
with their home heating oil and the priorities? We have the President 
in his budget recommending, for this year, $500 million less for home 
heating oil than even last year, with record profits for the oil 
industry--unconscionable profits for the oil industry. Paid for by 
whom? Average Americans. Unconscionable.

  Why doesn't this President today, on this Friday, bring in the heads 
of the oil companies all over the country and say: You have drunk at 
that trough long enough. There are people up in New England and the 
upper Midwest and around this country who cannot afford it--who are on 
a fixed income--with the explosions in the cost. Because of the war in 
Iraq, oil costs $60 a barrel. They did not have anything to do with it. 
The oil companies are reaping profits because we have turmoil in the 
Middle East. And we are doing virtually nothing about that this 
afternoon, except facing a budget that is going to make it even more 
difficult.
  In my State, the average home owner uses three tankfuls a year--three 
tankfuls a year--of oil. And the neediest people in our State who 
qualify for this program are going to get, this year, about one 
tankful. And what is the prospect for next year with the home heating 
oil price that we have today? They are not even going to get a full 
tank for the next year, unless we are--well, Mr. President, I am going 
to seek recognition in my own right at the present time. My time has 
expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized in morning business 
for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are talking about priorities. We are 
giving examples of what has been happening in terms of the cost of 
LIHEAP and the fuel assistance programs. Shown on this chart are all 
the costs going right up through the roof. We have the challenges we 
have been facing out in the Middle East. Education.
  Why are people so concerned about a culture of corruption that has 
taken over in Washington? Why are they so concerned about lobbyists? 
Why are they so concerned about special interests? We have that debate. 
We are going to try to get action on this, which I will certainly 
support.
  What we have not talked about is what those lobbyists have been 
doing, what the impact has been on various programs that affect working 
families in the middle class. I will give you one of them. Higher 
education. The bill that came out of the Senate had $8 billion in 
student assistance. The bill that came out of the House had $3.8 
billion in student assistance and provided $12 billion in tax breaks 
for the wealthy people of this country. I call that a tax on middle 
class people, my friends, in order to give a tax break to the 
wealthiest individuals.
  Do you understand what I am saying? The lobbyists were able to make 
the student loan program work for the banks and the wealthy in this 
country at the expense of the middle-income families who are paying 
those debts now for their children to go on to education.
  In my State, 67 percent of the children who go to those schools and 
colleges in my State get student aid and assistance. That does not 
include what they earn at summer jobs and what their parents 
contribute. They need these programs. We have seen an explosion in 
student loans over the period of the last 5 or 7 years. Who has been 
working and who has been profiting? It has been the banks--the banks.
  Do you think this Senate would stand for a competition for who would 
provide the lowest rates for students so we could take the total 
student loan program and put it out for bid--for bid--similar to 
competition, free enterprise? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. There is 
that cozy relationship that exists now with Sally Mae and the loan 
industries that pay their executives hundreds of thousands of dollars, 
contribute millions and millions of dollars. And they are getting it 
their way.
  The American people ought to understand that the lobbying has direct 
results. President Bush, in his last campaign and his campaign 
previously, said: We are going to get the Pell grants up to $4,500--
$4,500. Do you think it is in that budget? Do you think it is even in 
his budget requesting $4,500? No. I have read the space. Do you think 
that is in there? No. That is not even in there.
  So if you are talking about what is bothering people, pick up today's 
newspapers. Here it is: ``Mining fines among smallest.'' Laws limit 
size and allow reduction. This is the difference between the mines' 
penalties and the fines that are paid for other consumer product safety 
violations of the FCC, SEC, EPA, even OSHA. The bottom is on mine 
safety. That might not have saved all the lives. That might not have 
even saved half of the lives of those miners who have been lost, but 
why aren't we debating what is on the minds of the people in West 
Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other States today? Why aren't we dealing 
with their business?
  Here we have on the front page of another newspaper: ``White House 
knew of Levee's Failure on Night of Storm.'' This is all about Katrina 
and what has been going on. Sure, we have had some hearings, but why 
aren't we talking about some of this that is on the minds of the 
people? Certainly, it is on the minds of the people of Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama. Why aren't we talking about that this 
afternoon? Why aren't we doing some of that business? And then, if you 
look in the Washington Post: ``Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on 
Iraq.''

       The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence 
     on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush 
     administration of ``cherry-picking'' intelligence. . . .

  And this goes all the way through, basically saying:

       ``Our official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was 
     flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the 
     war,'' . . .  Instead, he asserted, the administration ``went 
     to war without requesting--and evidently without being 
     influenced by--any strategic level intelligence assessments 
     on any aspect of Iraq.

  People want to know. American sons and daughters are dying over 
there. Why aren't we talking about this?
  My point is, this budget the President has put forward is not what 
the American people expect. It is not what they deserve, not what they 
are entitled to. Many of us are going to work every possible way. It is 
the allocation of resources. Money does not solve everything, but it is 
an indication of a nation's priorities--a nation's priorities as to 
lower heating oil costs, a nation's priorities in terms of lower drug 
costs, a nation's priorities in terms of education costs, a nation's 
priorities in having an increase in the minimum wage.
  These are the things that are of concern to people. I would hope we 
would

[[Page S1057]]

get back to the Nation's business and get back to it soon. Americans 
are entitled to it, and we have waited too long to be able to do it.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________