[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 27360-27364]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 27361]]

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 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

[[Page 27362]]

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 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

[[Page 27363]]

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. 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

[[Page 27364]]

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.

                          ____________________