Senate colloquy on S331 & related issues
Posted by: Jamal Mazrui
Date Mailed: Wednesday, June 16th 1999 09:13 AM
Date Mailed: Wednesday, June 16th 1999 09:13 AM
Congressional Record dated Monday, June 14, 1999
Senate Section
----------------------------------------
Remarks by KENNEDY, EDWARD (D-MA) and 2 others on S. 1186 and 3 other
measures
WORK INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT [CR page S-6929, 342 lines]
Attributed to KENNEDY, EDWARD (D-MA)
WORK INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as all of us understand, we are considering a
very important appropriations bill. The floor managers, Senator Domenici and
Senator Reid, have a responsibility to see that we meet the responsibilities
of the Senate and the appropriations procedures by making sure this
legislation is considered and that Members have an opportunity to address it
and move towards conclusion. I respect that, and I have great respect and
friendship for the two Members.
I rise today to raise an issue which is not related to the underlying
measure but is related to a very significant issue that is affecting many
individuals across this country, and that is the issue of whether we are
going to free members of our community, referred to as the disability
community, who are facing some physical or mental challenge, whether or not
we are going to free them from the kinds of governmental policies that
discourage them from employment but really, beyond employment, from living a
full and constructive and positive and independent existence, which I think
all of us want to be able to achieve.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know the bill. I am a cosponsor. I hope it
gets passed soon this year. I understand you are going to file a bill but not
call it up because meetings are taking place and we will want to pursue
those.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. I have talked to the majority leader
today, as well as our own leaders, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid, and
Senator Gramm of Texas, who had effectively put a hold on the legislation and
had indicated that request, that we file the legislation so it would conform
to the request of the floor managers. It would be at the desk.
It is at least my impression that, given the agenda that has been announced
by the majority leader, we would not conclude this legislation today and we
will be moving on to the Y2K, and what they call the Social Security lockbox,
later in the week, and we would have an opportunity and a good-faith effort
to see if there could be an agreement to consider this legislation
independently--which, as the Senator from New Mexico understands, is
desirable for a number of different reasons--but to do it with a precise time
for the scheduling. That, I believe, is the preferable way to do it. But we
didn't want to foreclose our opportunity, if we were unable to do so, to at
least be able to exercise some judgment and move ahead with the legislation.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am glad to yield to the Senator.
Mr. REID. The possibility is not remarkably good, but there is a
possibility that we can finish this before the Y2K vote tomorrow morning,
according to what happens with amendments coming in today.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to take this one step at a time, and I think
there is very little reason, given the expressions of the majority leader and
the Senator from Texas, why the Senate--not only the Senator from
Massachusetts, but Senator Roth, Senator Jeffords and Senator Moynihan, and
myself, who are the principal cosponsors, be given assurance that this would
be ready. We are quite available through the afternoon to be able to take
that. I want to say at this time that I would like to proceed in that way,
without indicating exactly what our course of action would be.
There is no reason why we should be denied further opportunity to consider
this legislation. I personally would be inclined to move ahead with a short
timeframe for consideration of the amendment. But I am hopeful, as I said,
that we may be able to work this out. So that is my intention. I am going to
file this, if I may, at the desk and conform to the request of the floor
managers.
Mr. President, I raise this issue, and it is a rather unusual process and
procedure. I know the Senate has its responsibilities, but there is also a
responsibility to the millions of Americans with disabilities. They have been
waiting for some period of time as well. The fact is that this legislation
has 78 cosponsors. I don't know of a piece of legislation that is before the
Senate that has that degree of support from Republican and Democrat alike,
and from over 300 organizations. We have a variety of different important
pieces of legislation, but for my money, this legislation was more important
to consider than Y2K or, with respect, the legislation that we have before us
even at the present time, because it has such overwhelming support. There is
no reason why we should not move ahead on this legislation. Millions of
Americans are waiting for us to take action. The overwhelming majority of the
Members of this body feels strong support for this, and that is a compelling
reason to move forward with the legislation.
Mr. President, we have seen this legislation pass out of the Finance
Committee 16-2, and one of the Members who had expressed opposition has
since indicated that the changes that have been made in the legislation sent
to the desk have effectively addressed those concerns. So here we have the
overwhelming, overwhelming, overwhelming sentiment of those on the Finance
Committee in favor of it. It is virtually unanimous in the House Commerce
Committee. We don't have pieces of legislation like this. We have had
differences on some pieces of legislation between Republicans and Democrats
but not on this one, because the legislation is so compelling. We ought to be
moving forward, and we ought to be moving forward now.
There are 175 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. The reason this
legislation has such incredible support is because the legislation, perhaps
more than any legislation I have seen in recent times, is really a reflection
of the grassroots efforts to address this problem. The overwhelming majority
of Americans who have some disability want to work and have the ability to
work. But because of the way that the support systems are set up in terms of
health insurance, they are prohibited from doing so because they will lose
the health benefits they so desperately need. They are effectively
disincentivized from going to work. This legislation understands that
particular dilemma and addresses it. It is one of the most important pieces
of legislation we are going to have in this Congress.
At the outset, I want to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, the
Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords. He has been an enormously important
leader in this body on issues involving the disabled. I welcome the
opportunity to work with him on this and other legislation. We have a number
of members on our committee who have taken special interest in the care of
the needy and disabled; Senator Harkin and Senator Frist come to mind, as do
others. We have had the overwhelming support of the members of our committee,
most of whom were very much involved 9 years ago in the passage of the
Americans with Disabilities Act to strike down the walls of discrimination
which had existed and exist even today in our society against those who have
some disability. We have made monumental progress in terms of knocking down
the walls of discrimination.
As I will show in a few moments, even though we have had some success in
knocking down the walls of discrimination, we still see that many of those
who have disabilities are unable to go back to work because of the loss of
any health insurance, and it has been because of that particular dilemma that
this legislation was developed. We will get into the sound reasons for doing
so, and the most compelling reason; and that is to let all Americans know
that if someone has a disability it does not mean that they are not able to
perform and live independently in so many instances, and be constructive,
positive, and contributing members of our society. We will go through why and
how this legislation does that.
I want to indicate at this time that the leadership of our colleagues--
Senator Roth on the Finance Committee and Senator Moynihan on the Finance
Committee--was essential in getting that legislation through. We worked very
closely together. The legislation itself is really a reflection of their
strong work and their strong commitment, as well as that of Senator Jeffords.
It seems to me this is the time to act. We will hopefully get some
agreement by the leadership to call this legislation up. The appropriate way
to have this legislation called up would be with our good colleagues and
friends, Senator Roth and Senator Jeffords, to offer this as independent
legislation. We will move forward and pass it at that time. That is what I am
hopeful we will be able to do. But quite frankly, we have been unable to get
those kinds of assurances.
I think the delay in bringing this legislation to the floor has gone on
long enough. We ought to be about the business of the substance of this
legislation. We know there can be those who are opposed to it, or are
concerned about it. But I believe we need a time for accounting. We need a
time for yeas and nays. That is what this business is ultimately about. It is
about choices. It is about priorities. It is about whether we are going to
take action.
We strongly believe we should take action, and we should take action now.
We have waited now some 2 1/2 weeks since we had the understanding that this
was going to be called up. Then it was temporarily shelved and put aside.
We have waited and waited for those who have been concerned about it to
express their concern. We have tried to work through some of their concern.
One of their concerns is about the offsets. We tried to work through that,
but it is time to take action. This is the vehicle by which we can at least
get action by the Senate of the United States. I believe we should move
ahead.
Former majority leader Bob Dole stated in eloquent testimony before the
Finance Committee that this issue is about people going to work--"it is about
dignity and opportunity and all of the things we talk about when we talk
about being Americans." Senator Dole has been a strong" supporter of this
legislation, and we welcome his support for this program.
We know a large portion of the 54 million disabled men and women in this
country want to work and are able to work. But they are denied the
opportunity to do so. The Nation is denied their talents and their
contributions to our community.
These are the results of a Lou Harris 1998 poll of the 54 million Americans
with disabilities:
Seventy-two percent of working-age people with disabilities who are not
working now say they want to work. There is a great desire for work by those
individuals, but still they are effectively denied in a practical way the
opportunity to do so.
Removing these barriers to work will help large numbers of disabled
Americans to achieve self-sufficiency. We are a better and stronger and
fairer country when we open the golden door of opportunity to all and enable
them to be equal partners in the American dream. For millions of Americans
with disabilities, this bill can make the American dream come true. When we
say "equal opportunity for all," it will be clear that we truly mean all.
How large are the gaps? This chart is the comparison between persons with
and without disabilities on "indicator" measures in 1998.
Employment: Working either full time or part time, persons with
disabilities, 29 percent. Persons with no disabilities, approximately 80
percent. The gap between those with disabilities and without disabilities who
work is some 50 percent.
If we look at the income for households, you will see that of those persons
with disabilities who are working, many of them are working in low-income
jobs--34 percent have incomes of $15,000 or less compared to only 12 percent
of those persons with no disabilities. Again we find the extraordinary
disparity.
It is long past time to banish the mind-set that the disabled are unable.
In fact, they have enormous talents and abilities, and America cannot afford
to waste an ounce of it.
For too long, Americans with disabilities have faced a series of unbearable
penalties if they take jobs or go to work. They are in danger of losing their
medical coverage, which can mean the difference between life and death. They
are in danger of losing their cash benefits, even if they earn only modest
amounts from work. No disabled American should face the harsh choice between
buying a decent meal and buying the medication they need.
The Work Incentives Improvement Act will begin to remove these unfair
barriers facing people with disabilities who are able to work and who want to
work.
It will continue to make health insurance available and affordable when a
disabled person goes to work or develops a significant disability while
working.
It will gradually phase out the loss of cash benefits as income rises--
instead of the unfair sudden cut-off that so many workers with disabilities
face today. We have the important demonstration program in here that will
effectively see the phasing out of the kind of income these individuals are
entitled to--the phasing out of 50 cents for every new dollar they make over
a period of time. They would be able to increase their income, and we would
see a diminution of the amounts actually being contributed by the States and
Federal Government as they continue in the employment.
This would, obviously, be an incentive for them to move ahead on the
economic ladder, rather than being the disincentive that it is now, which
would have a termination of benefits which they receive once they move above
$500, which effectively locks the disabled into part-time jobs and jobs that
pay very little.
It makes a good deal of common sense. It places work incentive planners in
communities rather than in bureaucracies, and helps workers with disabilities
learn how to access employment services and support the services by help and
assistance to the States and communities. The States and communities
themselves would have some flexibility in being able to raise some fees in
the administration of these programs. We provide a very modest amount for
that.
Finally, all Americans get a fiscally responsible bill. This is based on
the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates which incorporate CBO estimates
that S. 331 would cost $838 million over 5 years, to be offset by the bill's
revenue provisions totaling $906 million, for a net savings of $68 million
over the 5 years. This does not even begin to take into consideration two
very important factors; that is, what will actually be paid in, in terms of
taxes to the Federal Treasury, in terms of revenues that the taxpayers will
pay, and also the basic savings that will be there under the Social Security
trust fund.
This chart shows where we are. We have 7.5 million individuals that qualify
for Federal participation in some disability program--individuals who are
eligible for some kind of payment. One-half of 1 percent now are. If, out of
the 7.5 million, we are able to get 210,000 working, we would save the trust
fund $1 billion a year. That does not come through CBO or OMB because of the
way the Budget Act works. This is the extrapolation we have in terms of
working with the Social Security agency. It represents $1 billion saved with
210,000 working instead of the 70,000 that are working a year. Ours is $800
million over 5 years.
This makes a good deal of sense. We believe it is economically sound. These
are savings we will have. When we hear about costs of the bill, these are the
savings we will have. As I mentioned, it does not even take into
consideration what will actually be paid in, in terms of taxes for those
individuals, which will be certainly more than those figures.
We worked very assiduously with a lot of the different groups on this
program. When we think of citizens with disabilities, we tend to think of
men, women and children who are disabled from birth. However, fewer than 15
percent of all people with disabilities are born with their disabilities. A
bicycle accident or a serious fall or a serious illness can suddenly disable
the healthiest and most physically capable person. This is enormously
important. This legislation is not just for our fellow Americans that may be
born with some disability, but for all Americans.
In the long run, this legislation may be more important than any other
action we will take in this Congress. It offers a new and better life to
large numbers of our fellow citizens. Disability need no longer end the
American dream. That was the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act a
decade ago, and this legislation dramatically strengthens our fulfillment of
that promise.
I will not take the time this afternoon to go through a diary I have, "A
Day in the Life of People Who Want To Work." We have broken down by States
and included letters from individuals who have written about what this
particular legislation means in terms of their lives today, how their lives
would be changed, how their lives would be altered with this particular
legislation. It is enormously powerful and moving.
If necessary, if we have to convince our colleagues about this legislation,
I will take some time and go through some of the letters.
I will mention very briefly the human aspect of this legislation. This
legislation is for Alice in Oklahoma who is disabled because of multiple
sclerosis and receives SSDI benefits. She needs personal assistance to live
and work in her community. But to do so, she must use all of her savings and
half or all of her wages to pay for personal assistance and prescription
drugs. As a result, she is left in poverty.
This bill is for Tammy in Indiana who has cerebral palsy and uses a
wheelchair. She works part-time at Wal-Mart, but her hours are restricted
because if she works too much she will lose her health benefits. Her goal of
becoming a productive citizen is denied by the unfair danger of losing the
health care she needs.
This is for Jay in Minnesota on SSDI who wants to work. However, the job he
is qualified for offers no health care. If he accepts the job, he will join
the ranks of the uninsured.
This bill is for Abby in Massachusetts who is only 6 years old and has
mental retardation. Her parents are very concerned about her future and her
ability to work and still have health insurance. Already she has been denied
coverage by two insurance firms because of the diagnosis of mental
retardation. Without Medicaid, her parents would be bankrupted by her medical
bills today. If Abby eventually enters the workforce, she will have to live
in poverty or lose Medicaid coverage under current law. Under this bill, all
that would change. She and her parents will have a chance to dream of a
future that includes work and prosperity, rather than a future of government
handouts.
This bill is for many other citizens whose stories are told in this diary.
This diary alone should be enough to shock and shame the Senate into action.
Our goal in this legislation is to banish the stereotypes, to reform and
improve the existing disability programs so that they genuinely encourage and
support every disabled person's dream to work and live independently and be a
productive and contributing member of the community. That goal should be the
birthright of all Americans. With this legislation, we are taking a giant
step toward that goal.
A story from the debate on the Americans With Disabilities Act illustrates
the point. A postmaster in a town was told he must make his post office
accessible. The building had 20 steps leading to a revolving door at the
entrance. The postmaster questioned the need to make such costly changes. He
said, "I've been here for 35 years and in all that time I have yet to see a
single customer come in here in a wheelchair." As the Americans With
Disabilities Act shows, if you build the ramp, people will come and they will
find their field of dreams. This bill expands the field.
The road to economic prosperity and the right to a decent wage must be more
accessible to all Americans, no matter how many steps stand in the way. That
is our goal in this legislation. It is the right thing to do. It is the cost-
effective thing to do, and now is the time to do it. For too long, our fellow
disability citizens have felt left out and left behind. A new and brighter
day is on the horizon for them and today we finally will make it a reality.
I will describe a few other reasons for the importance of this legislation,
including the cost of this legislation and what is happening currently. I
will refer to the work in the Work Incentive Improvement Act and a report.
7.5 million disabled receive cash payments from SSI and SSDI. Disability
benefit spending totals $73 billion a year. That is what we are spending at
the present time under this program--$73 billion a year, making disability
programs the fourth largest entitlement expenditure in the Federal
Government. If only 1 percent, or 75,000, of the 7.5 million were to become
employed, Federal savings in disability programs would total $3.5 billion
over the worklife of the beneficiaries.
Do we hear that? If we get to 1 percent, we will be effectively saving $3.5
billion over the life of those beneficiaries. That is if we just get to 1
percent, let alone the goal of those of us who believe in independent living.
I will quote from the General Accounting Office:
The two largest Federal programs providing cash and medical assistance for
people with disabilities grew rapidly between 1985 and 1994, with the
enrollment of working age people increasing 59 percent from 4 million to 6.3
million.
The figures I just read are the most current figures--7.5.
. . . the inflation-adjusted cost of cash benefits growing by 66 percent.
Administered by SSA, DI and SSI paid over $50 billion in cash benefits to
people with disabilities in 1994.
So we are up now to $77 billion. In 1994 it was $50 billion. Now, this last
year, in a period of 4 years it is up to $77 billion. That is a $27 billion
increase. The flow line of these expenditures is going right up through the
roof without any further indication of effectively reducing their
unemployment, improving the ability of these individuals--who want to work
and who have the ability to work if they are able to continue with their
health insurance--to be contributing members of the community. It can have a
dramatic, significant impact in lowering the continued escalation in
expenditures under this fund.
For those individuals here who fail to understand what we are doing, what
is happening, I hope they will refer to an excellent GAO report.
I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the
Record.
----------------------------------------
Remarks by KENNEDY, EDWARD (D-MA) and 3 others
[CR page S-6935, 597 lines]
Mr. KENNEDY. In the GAO report is an analysis of this program. But they
also looked at U.S. private and social insurance programs to find out, are
there American companies that are trying to deal with this with employees,
and are there other States trying to do it?
Look at this. We can look at the percentages of working-age persons with
disabilities. We will see West Virginia is 12.6; then 11, in Louisiana; 10 in
Maine; Oklahoma, 10.2; Oregon, 10.
Now, take the percent working and the percent not working. The percent
working is 20 percent--24, 28, 23, 23. Maine has 37 percent working;
Oklahoma, 34; and Oregon has 42 percent working--42 percent working.
Then we look at the percent not working--57 percent. Some other States are
almost 80 percent.
Don't you think we ought to look at the States that have large numbers of
people with disabilities who are working and find out how they are getting
people to work? And find out what is not happening in States where they are
not getting them to work? That is what we did in this legislation. What we
are finding out is, in those States, in the private sector, they are
maintaining the insurance aspects of the health care and also providing the
financial incentives to be able to go to work. That is just in some of our
States.
We are hopeful we can move with these incentives to get to every State.
Some States are making dramatic improvements, and others are not. The lessons
are very clear, and we have included that in the legislation. If we look at
what is happening in other countries, in two countries we find the absolutely
extraordinary results they have from having similar incentives and
disincentives that we have tried to incorporate in this legislation and that
are referred to by the GAO as being very successful.
I would like to believe the importance of this is to make sure those
Americans with some disability are going to be included in the great American
dream, that we decided as a nation we not only are not going to discriminate
but we are going to encourage policies that will make it possible for those
with disabilities to be part of the American dream. What we are attempting is
to do it in ways that have demonstrated effectiveness.
The principal reasons they have been effective are along these lines. They
have been happening because we have seen new medical technology which has
been very helpful when carefully and effectively pursued. I think we all
understand the costs of medical technology. In this particular area, there
are some great opportunities for people, by the use of medical technology, to
get back to work. It is working, and it is effective; it is cost effective.
We are also finding, for one reason or another--I will not take the time
now--a number of those going on the disability rolls have been younger
individuals than we were considering probably 20 years ago.
Another interesting corollary is, most of those individuals have a higher
achievement in completion of high school and college, for reasons I will not
bother taking up the time of the Senate with at this time. We are talking
about younger individuals who are more adaptable for these training programs,
newer kinds of technology out there, and where that is accessible, more
effective training programs such as we passed last year with our one-stop
shopping and incentive programs, with financial incentives in the private
sector that are going to be effective programs getting people working. We
have brought all of these elements together. We followed the examples that
have been pointed out to us as effective and incorporated those in this
legislation.
We believe this will have a dramatic and positive impact, most importantly
on the ability of individuals to go to work and be useful and productive,
constructive members of our society and live happier lives in their own
personal situations and the members of their family, be more productive in
the general economy, in what they are able to add to the economy, without
these false disincentives out there, reducing the financial burden on the
trust funds which are paying out to the community, and ultimately seeing a
dramatic reduction in burden to the States' financial situation for funding
as well as to the Federal Government. This, we believe, is a win-win-win
situation all the way along the line.
I could take further time. I know there are others who want to speak to the
underlying measure. But we believe very deeply in this legislation, which has
been carefully thought through by individuals who will be most affected by
it. That has been enormously important. Very often we draft and shape
legislation in a way we think is best, but this is legislation that has
emerged from the grassroots level. We understand the difficulty of getting
everyone to agree to different proposals.
We have harmony among the community that represents 300 different
organizations. It is an extraordinary initiative, an extraordinary result
that is so powerful in terms of what we hope to achieve.
This is really a service to the country. We want the kind of America that
is going to say to those individuals who are faced with some physical or
mental challenges that we will make sure they will be able to participate to
the extent their abilities, their interest, their courage, and their
determination permit them. We want to eliminate or knock down those barriers
which one way or the other inhibit their ability to move forward.
We have been attempting to do that in a number of ways, but there is
nothing that is going to do more in opening up the dreams and the hopes of
these individuals and their families than this piece of legislation.
The Americans With Disabilities Act is important in trying to eliminate
discrimination against the disabled. The Work Incentives Improvement Act will
do the job in terms of eliminating the significant financial disincentives
out there that basically inhibit so many of our fellow citizens, who have the
ability and dedication and commitment and desire, from moving forward. That
is why this legislation is so important.
At another time, I will go through some of the other provisions of the
legislation.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that Connie Garner be given the
privilege of the floor during the consideration of the energy and water
appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. REID. In listening to the remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts, I
am struck by the fact that the people this legislation is attempting to help
are people who do not have voices here to represent their interests; is that
not generally the case?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. I like to believe there is a greater
understanding and awareness of the challenges that disabled Americans have
faced in more recent years than there had been for the first 200 years of our
country. Over the last 8 or 10 years, we have had some important changes in
attitude on these issues.
By and large, the Senator is correct that this has not been an issue that
has been in the forefront of legislative or executive action.
Mr. REID. I also say there have been some people of good will joining
together around the country attempting to advocate for the disabled, but the
people we deal with on a daily basis are usually people who come representing
institutions or entities and who are, in effect, well paid. They are people
who have vast amounts of money tied up in Federal programs.
The disabled people the Senator is attempting to help with this legislation
are people who have--the Senator is absolutely right--joined together in the
last decade recognizing the disabled need help. But these are volunteer
groups and people, as I said, of good will around the country trying to help
people who have no representation; is that basically true?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. It was not that long ago when we had
5.5 million children who were disabled who never went to schools in our
country. We have made some progress in opening up the schools of our country.
We debated the issue of trying to give help and assistance to local
communities. I am a strong supporter of it. I know the Senator from Nevada
is. I know there are others on both sides of the aisle who feel that way as
well.
We have made some progress on other issues. I cannot speak further without
recognizing the good work of the Senator from New Mexico in regard to mental
illness. For many years, those afflicted by the challenges of mental illness
were kept aside in our own communities, and in terms of debate and
discussion, there has been a general reluctance to talk about some of their
special needs.
The Senator is quite correct. The willingness to talk about these issues
has been in a more recent time. I can even speak of that with regard to my
own family with a sister who is mentally retarded and having seen the
evolution and the changes which have taken place in how people react and
respond to those who are mentally retarded.
We have come a long way, but the Senator is quite correct, by and large,
these individuals and the communities are hard pressed with the day-to-day
activities and do not have a great deal of time to come here, although I note
both Senator Reid and Senator Domenici would say that when they do come here
and when they do speak, there are a few more eloquent voices and compelling
voices for the cause of social justice.
Mr. REID. I want to say one additional thing while the Senator is on the
floor, and that is, the community of disabled persons around the country have
been very fortunate to have Senator Kennedy as a spokesperson on their
behalf. But I also want to mention something in which your family has been
involved. It certainly has shown to me, having been involved in a number of
Special Olympic programs in my own State, how the disabled enjoy life just as
much as anyone else. There is no example better than athletics. I commend and
applaud the Senator and his family for the great work they have done with the
Special Olympics program, which is now a worldwide program.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I appreciate that. As a matter of fact,
they are having the International Special Olympics on June 27 and 28 in North
Carolina this year. There will be more than 130 countries participating in
those games. That cause still goes on.
It is a great tribute not only to the athletes but to the parents, the
teachers, to the volunteers, and States all over the country that have been
supportive of that program. I know the Senator has been a supporter of the
program, and I think any of those individuals who watch those programs cannot
leave the field without feeling an extraordinary sense of inspiration. That
is, I believe, enormously moving.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is the Senator from Massachusetts finished?
Mr. KENNEDY. I am finished. I thank the Senator.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Kennedy, I commend him for what he is doing.
I remind the Senate that the last time I looked, this bill had 33 Republicans
on it and was led on the Senate side by the chairman of the Finance
Committee. He is one of the leaders, not just Senator Jeffords from the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
Frankly, what has happened is, though we pass laws with reference to
helping people who are disabled, either because of physical disabilities or
mental disabilities, a lot of our terribly mentally handicapped do
participate in disability programs. What they do not participate in very
well is the training programs for them. We are just getting that started.
But essentially we pass laws saying let's help them. Then we forget about
them for about 15 or 20 years, which is what happened here. We find that in
many respects the law has arbitrary finalization of benefit dates that hurt
instead of help. Instead of encouraging that a person who is disabled go to
work, if anybody is experienced with the old law, before we change it, what
the people will be telling them is: Be careful, because if you try to go to
work and get off, they take you off so quick and for such a tiny amount of
earnings that sometimes that job finishes because the disabled do not have
the propensity to have 6-year-long jobs; sometimes it is 6 months, 5 months.
In the case of the mentally ill, sometimes a schizophrenic works 1 month.
This program, unless we change it, does not work for them, because they get
taken off the benefit list too quickly. Then it is hard to get back on. So a
parent may say: Let's just not ask Jimmy to go to the Green Door and get
trained over here to get a job. They say: Let's just leave that alone and
talk to him about volunteering, not earning money. But I tell you, to the
extent we are encouraging that, we are doing a very bad thing for disabled
people.
You will find across the board, for the disabled people, young or old, the
most important thing going is for them to get a job. You cannot imagine how
important it is for them to get a paycheck. It is among the most intriguing
psychological things that happens to a disabled person--when they earn their
own money--that you have ever seen.
Why should we have laws that help them but at the same time discourage them
from getting a job because they may get kicked off the rolls too quickly, or
they cannot get on quickly enough after they get unemployed? Let's change
that and make it common sense.
I understand these laws are good laws, the ones we are changing. They put
America in the vanguard when we passed them. They are good. But in the
meantime, we are finding that nothing is as good as a job. These jobs do not
pay a lot but pay just enough to qualify people under the old law to get off
the rolls. So it is not as if it is rich people who are getting on and off
the rolls, people earning $100,000; it is people earning minimum wage. In
some instances, they even have youth jobs that are at less than minimum wage,
and all of a sudden they qualify--no more aid--and they are worse off than
they were before. That is what this is; the essence of it is to try to fix
those things. We ought to fix them.
It does not belong on this bill that Senator Reid and I are managing.
Senator Kennedy has not said it does. But, look, if you cannot resolve it, we
are going to do what has to happen here. I hope the Republican leadership
would get together--actually, they are in the forefront. I am assuming that
the chairman of the Finance Committee is not here today. He would probably be
here. He wants to make sure it is done right. He has to find offsets, does he
not? There are offsets.
This bill is going to be neutral budgetwise. We are going to pay for it. It
is not that we are going to add to the debt, or use up the surplus or use the
Social Security trust fund--none of those.
Frankly, I am very hopeful that our bill has served a purpose. There has
been a nice debate. There is nobody here who needs the Senate any more than
we do right now. Nobody is offering amendments. We are waiting. It is all
right with me if they do not. It is a fine discussion.
I thank the Senator. It is good to get an opportunity to comment.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will not take much time.
The Senator has it absolutely right. We built in the program the ability to
provide the medical and some income for people who have the disabilities and
said that if they make over $500, they lose the insurance and they lose the
additional kind of insurance, that they would be able to receive income, and
they are just dropped out.
Very few of the families can be assured they can get a job after a training
program where they would be able to offset their total medical expenses if
they are able to get health insurance. They probably are not able to get it
because they have a disability. The fact of the matter is, the insurance
companies, by and large, do not include them.
I have a son who lost his leg to cancer and is a very healthy young person,
but there is not a chance in the world he can get insurance. He has insurance
only as a part of a much larger group. That happens to individuals who have
any kind of disability. So they are out behind the 8-ball.
What we are saying is, continue their health care. OK, we can phase out or
eliminate their income. They would be willing to take a chance on that. They
will go out and try to pull their own weight. They are glad to do it. They
will do it, and they will do it very well.
They have a desire to do it and the ability to do it. We have provided
these incentives and training programs to enable them to be more creative to
do it. There are more examples in a number of the States about how to do it.
There are a number of examples in different countries on how to do it. We are
going to do it in ways that are financially responsible.
The Senator made an excellent statement. I thank him for his sponsorship,
as well as the Senator from Nevada.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, before Senator Kennedy leaves the floor, I
will just make a comment. He mentioned those disabled because of severe
mental illnesses: manic depression, schizophrenia, severe chronic depression.
I say to the Senator, I introduced the parity bill with Senator Wellstone
to try to get more insurance coverage resources applied to these serious
illnesses. I want to share with the Senator, since we are talking about
disabilities, a notion that came to me with reference to severely mentally
ill people.
I said, what would happen if the United States, by definition, had decided
we would not cover, under health insurance, illnesses of the heart because we
did not want to cover illnesses of the brain? The complicated vessels are the
heart and the brain. What if 30 years ago, as we produced the list of
coverable illnesses, we said no coverage for heart conditions. Guess what
would have happened. None of the breakthroughs in treating the heart would
have ever occurred because there would not have been enough resources going
into it for the researchers and the doctors to make the breakthroughs.
As a matter of fact, we would not have invented angioplasty and all those
other significant techniques. What would have happened in the meantime is
that hundreds of thousands of Americans would be dying earlier than they
should. That would be along with what I just said.
When we say insurance companies should not cover schizophrenics, who have a
brain disease, diagnosable and treatable, that we should not cover them, then
are we not saying the same thing about a very serious physical frailty that
hits between 5 and 15 million Americans during any given year, from the very
young to the very old, with the highest propensity between 17 and 25 years of
age for schizophrenia, manic depression, and the like?
It seems to me that sooner or later, if we are going to call something
"health insurance," it ought to cover those who are sick, wouldn't you think?
Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely.
Mr. DOMENICI. W"hy do we call health insurance "health insurance" and leave
out a big chunk of the American population? Because the definition chooses to
will away an illness. You define it so it does not exist, right? No. It
exists. Families go broke. Their kids are in jails instead of hospitals.
Because once they get one of these diseases, there is no way to help them,
because there are no systems, because there are not enough resources. The
resources come from the mass coverage by insurance. That is what puts
resources into illnesses and cures.
So I just want to assure you, we are going to proceed this year. We are
going to proceed with this parity bill. We are going to have a vote here. I
do not know which bill yet, but we are going to have a good debate. We are
asking the business community to get the price tag. We do not want to hear
any of this business that it is going to break us.
We want to know, based on history, what is it going to cost? Then we are
going to let the Senators and the public decide: Is that too much? What if it
isn't too much in the minds of most Americans and Senators? Then it seems to
me the marketplace will have to adjust to it.
Obviously, if I have a chance, I would like to talk about this. I would
like to do it on the floor of the Senate so a lot of other Americans hear
about it. I would like to do it when somebody is here to talk about the
significance of this.
This is important business, the disabled in this country, whether they are
disabled physically or disabled mentally. If we are going to have a real
society that is proud of being free--and we have put so much emphasis on
that--then we cannot leave out big chunks of the public with arbitrary laws
or a failure to have insurance companies take care of the responsibilities of
health coverage for disabled Americans.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. As the good Senator knows, we have such coverage for all
Members of the Senate. Federal employees have it, over 11 million have it,
and other groups have that as well. We find that it is suitable for Members
of Congress and for the administration, other Federal employees.
I underline that I do not think we have health insurance worth its name if
it doesn't meet the standard that the Senator from New Mexico has outlined
here. I think it is basic and fundamental. There may have been troubles with
the Clinton health insurance program, but the President has recently
announced that he will issue an executive order to provide mental health
parity.
I say to the good Senator, my friend--I have heard him speak eloquently, as
well as our friend Senator Wellstone, and others speak on this issue--I
pledge to him that I look forward to working with him. I think it is
enormously important. I commend the Senator for what was initiated previously
when we were dealing with this issue in related form on the Kassebaum-Kennedy
legislation a few years ago. We want to see that and other legislation
actually implemented. I commend him and look forward to working with him.
Finally, I would like to state my support for the efforts of my good friend
and colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, who has long been a champion of the
need for better and more comprehensive approaches to suicide prevention.
Suicide claims over 30,000 lives each year in this country; it is the eighth
leading cause of death overall and the third major cause of death amongst
teenagers from 15-19. It is an issue clearly associated with mental health
parity. If better access to mental health services were available for all
persons who have psychiatric conditions, the suicide rate would be
dramatically reduced. It is time to provide mental health parity and to
prevent these unnecessary family tragedies.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, even though this is the energy and water bill, I
am glad we are going to have this conversation this afternoon about mental
health.
An area I have worked on that is now receiving more attention is suicide.
Thirty-one thousand people each year in the United States kill themselves.
What if 31,000 people were killed in some other manner? We would focus a lot
of attention on it.
There are almost as many people killed in car wrecks every year. We have
airbags and we have speed limits. We do all kinds of things to prevent people
from being killed in automobile accidents. We have even done a much better
job in recent years trying to stop people from driving under the influence of
alcohol.
Suicide is a very difficult problem in America today. During the time we
have been on this bill--it is now 3:30 eastern time; we started at 1--about
12 people in the United States have killed themselves. So it is an issue I
hope we will spend more time on.
For the first time in the history of the country we are spending money to
find out why people commit suicide. We don't know why. An interesting fact is
that the 10 leading States in the United States for suicide are western
United States, States west of the Mississippi. We don't know why this is, but
it is now being studied by the Centers for Disease Control. We appropriated
money last year to try to focus on this.
Not only is this, of course, terrible for the person who dies, but what it
does to the victims, the people who are the survivors.
I am happy to hear the discussion this afternoon about mental health
generally. I want to talk about suicide specifically. It is an area that we
really have to focus some attention on and get Members of the Congress to
agree that we have to do something about this. It is an issue that is crying
for an answer. I hope that in the years to come we can do much more than we
have done in the past, which wouldn't take very much, but it is an area in
which we need to do much more. I hope we can do that.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator withhold?
Mr. REID. I will withhold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my good friend, the ranking member on this
subcommittee, we have a good, bipartisan bill. I hope we can make the point
that we worked together to make it bipartisan, because I think that is the
way we get a bill that we can get through here and can sustain.
Commenting on your last statement and your efforts with reference to
suicide, that is not unrelated to what I was discussing at all.
Mr. REID. That is right.
Mr. DOMENICI. I don't know the numbers, but I am going to guess that 60 to
70 percent of the suicides are probably found to be caused by a mental
illness, most of them by severe depression. Frankly, one of the reasons we
have so many suicides is because we have not created a culture among our
medical people and among those who help our medical people of properly
diagnosing such things as depression.
One of the reasons we don't have a culture that does the diagnosis right is
because it is not covered by insurance. As a consequence, there are not
enough resources put in at the grassroots where doctors are getting paid for
this and universities can do research on it, because it is worthwhile to the
doctors to become experts in this. We are doing a little more than we did in
the past but not enough from the standpoint of real mass involvement.
Young people in particular are the majority victims of the suicide numbers,
which is such a shame. Many of those 21,000 are kids; right?
Mr. REID. Thirty-one thousand.
Mr. DOMENICI. Teenagers, 31,000; they are not in the senior citizen
numbers. There is a small percentage, but the big percentage are in the
absolute throes of starting a great life. If we could do a better job with
diagnosing depression, we would have medication and therapy preventing many
of those 31,000.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, indeed.
Mr. REID. I think one of the reasons we have made more progress on suicide
and other mental health problems in recent years is because people who have
problems with depression, people who are survivors of suicides are willing to
talk about it. It wasn't many years ago----
Mr. DOMENICI. That is true.
Mr. REID.--For example, my father, who committed suicide, wouldn't have
been able to be buried in the cemetery. My father would have to have been
buried someplace else because suicide was considered sinful, wrong.
Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
Mr. REID. So I believe clearly that the Senator is absolutely right. The
Senator and I, as an example, are willing to talk about some of our
experiences with mental health problems. As a result of that, it is not
something people tend to hide as much as they used to. We recognize that
depression is a medical condition.
Mr. DOMENICI. You have it.
Mr. REID. It is no different than if you have pneumonia. Depression is like
pneumonia. We are learning how to cure depression. We learned some time ago
how to cure pneumonia. So the more that we talk about this, the more people
are willing to say: I think I am just depressed. I need some help. Is there
somebody who can help me.
The fact of the matter is, as the Senator said, we did some hearings on
depression and suicide. With suicide, they had really an interesting program
in the State of Washington where one city developed an outreach program with
mail carriers. When someone would go to deliver mail, especially in areas
where there were senior citizens--sometimes the only contact a senior would
have was with the mail carrier--the mail carrier was trained to recognize
symptoms of depression and, consequently, suicide and saved a lot of people.
I remember a hearing we had in the Aging Committee; a woman who wrote poems
came in. She showed us a poem she wrote when she was depressed and when she
wanted to kill herself and a poem she wrote afterwards. I can't remember the
poem--I am not like Senator Byrd--but I can remember parts of it where she
talked about the snow was like diamonds in her hair.
If we could do a better job of recognizing depression, talk about that one,
mental illness, depression, think of the money we would save. We would have a
much more productive society. The workforce would be more productive. The
gross national product would go up as a result of that.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam 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.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, having just returned from Minnesota, I want to speak on
the floor for a few short minutes, first of all, in support of the amendment
that my colleague, Senator Kennedy, introduced, which is really the Work
Incentives Improvement Act, S.331, which he has done so much work on, along
with Senator Jeffords.
My understanding is--it could be that my colleague, Senator Reid of Nevada,
spoke about this--Senator Kennedy came to the floor and said: "Listen, we
want some action on this bill." We do want action on this. We have 78
Senators who are cosponsors of the Work Incentives Improvement
Seventy-eight consponsors means, by definition, that this is a strong
bipartisan effort.
The reason for this bill, with all of its support, is really all about
dignity. For Senators who talk about self-sufficiency and self-reliance and
people being able to live lives with dignity, that is what this is about.
I am sure the Chair has experienced this, when you are back home and you
talk to people in the disabilities community over and over again, you hear
people telling you that they are ready to go to work if only they could be
sure they wouldn't lose their health insurance--insurance they literally need
to live. I don't know, but I think the unemployment rate among people with
disabilities is well above 50 percent; the poverty rate is also above 50
percent. The problem is, when people in the disabilities community work, they
lose the medical assistance they have now.
What this piece of legislation says is that we want people to be able to
live at home in as near a normal circumstance as possible, with dignity. That
is what the Work Incentives Improvement Act is all about.
I come to the floor to say to my colleague, Senator Kennedy, that if he
wants to force the issue on this bill that we have before us, the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill, I am all for that. If we can get some kind of a
commitment from Senators as to whether we can bring this piece of legislation
up freestanding, have an up-or-down vote--78 Senators are cosponsors--then I
am for that.
Those of us who feel strongly about this issue and have met with people
back home and heard their pleas really want to respond to the concerns and
circumstances of their lives. It is very moving to meet with people in the
disabilities community, to have people say to you: If you could do this, it
would help us so much.
We are running out of patience; we really are. For colleagues who are
blocking this and getting in the way of our being able to bring this to the
floor and having a vote on this, be it unanimous consent, or be it 78 to 22,
or 99 to 1 or whatever the case might be, so be it. I do not mind the 1; I
have been on the losing end of a couple 99 to 1 votes in the last two months.
If a Senator feels strongly about that, and it is his or her honest opinion
that this legislation shouldn't pass, fine. He or she has the right to speak
out, to try to persuade others and to vote his or her conscience. What I
don't like is the way in which this piece of legislation has been held up so
that it is not possible to debate it and vote on it at all. That, I think, is
unconscionable.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield.
Mr. REID. As the Senator was traveling here from Minnesota by air, Senator
Kennedy gave a very moving presentation about the necessity for this
legislation, which, when he finished, caused the two managers of this
legislation to talk about some of the work you and Senator Kennedy and
Senator Domenici and this Senator joined in, dealing with mental health
parity. It was a very good discussion, stimulated by Senator Kennedy's
presentation on this legislation, which is so badly needed.
Senator Kennedy has indicated that he filed this amendment on this
legislation in the hope of focusing attention on this issue. If we have so
much support--we have almost 80 Senators supporting this legislation--it
would seem that we should figure out a way to pay for it. That is the
problem. I think that will come to be, as Senator Kennedy has talked to the
majority leader and other people who recognize that they control the ebb and
flow of legislation on this floor. In short, I say to the Senator, I think
Senator Kennedy did the right thing in filing this amendment on this
legislation, or any other legislation. If it doesn't work out on this bill,
he might have to do it on the next bill, but I support the efforts of the
Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, again, I appreciate the comments of Senator
Reid of Nevada. I think all of us feel strongly about this and are prepared
to fight it out. We have waited long enough for the men and women, the young
people and the elderly people with disabilities who want to work and who will
lose health care coverage. We ought to pass this legislation, and the sooner
the better.
I will yield the floor in a moment. I wasn't here for the colloquy or the
suggestion about our mental health parity legislation. I am looking forward
to this journey with Senators Domenici, Reid, and Kennedy--and maybe I am
really being presumptuous, but I hope Senator Collins and others as well,
because I think the time has come for this idea. I think you can make a
pretty strong case there that there is entirely too much discrimination when
it comes to coverage for those struggling with mental illness. This cuts
across a broad section of the population.
I am extremely hopeful that we will be able to pass this legislation, which
would make a huge positive difference in the lives of so many people. I want
to say on the floor that I am also committed to trying to do more when it
comes to substance abuse treatment. We have the same problem there, where
people have pretty good coverage for physical illnesses, but for somebody
struggling with alcoholism, it is a detox center 2 or 3 days each time a
year, and that is it. You know, a lot of these diseases are brain diseases
with biochemical connections and neurological connections and people's health
insurance should cover the disease of addiction just like it covers heart
disease or diabetes.
Our policy is way behind; it is outdated and discriminatory. The tragedy of
it is that so many people in the recovery community can talk about the ways
in which, when they received treatment, they have been able to rebuild their
lives and contribute at their place of work, to their families, and to their
communities. This is nonsensical. So these will be separate pieces of
legislation on the Senate side. But I am very excited about this effort with
Senator Domenici, Senator Reid, Senator Kennedy, and others as well. I
believe we can pass this mental health parity legislation. I think what we
did in 1996 was a small step forward. Now I think we have to do something
that will really provide people with much more coverage.
Having said that, let me just make one other point. When we talk about this
whole issue of parity and trying to end discrimination in health insurance
coverage, one issue we still don't deal with is what happens if people have
no coverage at all. When we are saying you ought to treat these illnesses the
same way we treat physical illnesses, what we are not doing is dealing with
those that have no coverage whatsoever. I still think that a front-burner
issue in American politics is universal health care coverage and
comprehensive health care reform.
I have introduced legislation called the Healthy Americans Act. Sometime I
would like to bring it out on the floor and have an up-or-down vote on it. I
think we ought to be talking about universal coverage. The insurance industry
took it off the table a few years ago; I think we should put it back on the
table and I am going to work as hard as I can to do that.
But right now, I wanted to come to the floor and support Senator Kennedy's
effort. Hopefully, we will soon have an up-or-down vote on the Work
Incentives Improvement Act. I hope we don't have to keep bringing it out as
an amendment on other bills so it gets the attention it needs. This is a
piece of legislation that deserves an up-or-down vote now.
Finally, also in the spirit of amendments, I will keep bringing back the
welfare tracking amendment, because the more I look at the studies that are
coming out and the more I talk to people in the field, the more strongly I
feel that as policymakers we ought to at least have some evaluation of what
we have done. I think it is a terrible mistake not to do so. My amendment
lost by one vote last time. I will bring it back, and I hope to get a couple
more votes. It does nothing more than just say to Health and Human Services
let's get from the States data every year so we know what is happening to the
women and children, so we can have a sense of what kind of jobs they have, at
what wages, and whether there is child care for children. We need to do that.
It is a terrible mistake not to have that knowledge.
I want to mention to colleagues that I will be bringing this amendment out
within the next week--if not this week, next week--and I am hoping this time
to somehow get a majority vote for it. I think it is reasonable and we should
do it. I don't think we should turn away from this. It is important to know,
especially because in the next couple of years, by 2002, in every State in
the country, benefit reductions will have been fully felt. I think we ought
to know how we are doing before that happens.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to Senator Domenici, I look forward to this work on
the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act.
----====<<>>====----
----------------------------------------
Remarks on S. 331: WORK INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT
[CR page S-6941, 85 lines]
Attributed to Presiding Officer
WORK INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join a bipartisan chorus of
Senators who have requested we take up action on Senate bill S. 331, the Work
Incentives Improvement Act.
As my colleagues know, this legislation would remove a significant barrier
that individuals with disabilities face when they are trying to return to the
workforce. The significant barrier is continued access to health care if they
leave SSDI or SSI programs. Currently, individuals with disabilities who are
eligible for Social Security disability insurance, SSDI, or supplemental
security income, SSI, face the dilemma of losing their Medicare and Medicaid
health benefits simply because they return to work.
This is regrettable. According to surveys, about three-quarters of
individuals with disabilities in the United States who enroll in SSI or SSDI
want to work. Sadly, less than one-half of 1 percent are actually able to
make the transition because--this is a major reason--they are afraid once
they lose their health care they will be unable to support themselves.
Whatever they earn by working they lose by forfeiting their health care.
We can correct this situation by simply extending eligibility to Medicare
and Medicaid for these individuals. We can provide them a helping hand to
move from unemployment to contributing to our economy and to our society.
With the Americans With Disabilities Act, we passed legislation to combat
discrimination and remove physical barriers from the workplace. Now we have a
chance to lift a health care roadblock which is stopping many people from
moving from a place of unemployment to one in which they are fully
participating in our economy.
In my home State of Rhode Island, there are more than 40,000 individuals
with disabilities who are eligible for SSI or SSDI. These individuals could
benefit immediately from this work incentives bill. Across the country, there
are about 9.5 million people who are similarly situated who could benefit
from this legislation.
In addition to the simple argument about fairness and giving everyone the
chance to fully use their talents to benefit not only themselves but their
community, there is another compelling reason. We are all familiar with the
solvency crisis with respect to Social Security but what is less familiar is
that with respect to our disability insurance fund--which is part of Social
Security--there is also a crisis. Indeed, while the old age and survivors
portion of Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until the year
2036, the disability insurance portion becomes insolvent 16 years earlier, in
2020.
If we help disabled workers return to the workforce, we will, in effect,
also be reducing the cash payments out of this disability insurance fund
which will give it longer solvency, which will be a way to address a problem
that is lurking just over the horizon in the year 2020.
For economic reasons, as well as our commitment to the basic ideal of
allowing Americans to use all of their talents, this legislation makes a
great deal of sense.
Now, we have seen this legislation proposed under the able leadership of
Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy. This Work Incentives Improvement Act
was nearly adopted at the end of last Congress because of their effort. I was
a very proud cosponsor of that version. This year, Senators Roth and Moynihan
have also stepped up to take major leadership roles. Indeed, we have more
than 70 cosponsors. This is a piece of legislation that is bipartisan, with
strong support in both caucuses. Because of this support, because of the
efforts of the leadership of Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan, this bill
passed the Finance Committee on March 4, 1999, but we have been waiting for
several months to bring it to the floor, to get it passed, and to give
disabled Americans a chance at better employment.
In March, we were able to take another bill with bipartisan support, the
Ed-Flex bill, and work through the problems. The reason we were able to do
that was we decided to act, we decided not to let legislation be bottled up,
but to move it to this floor, and from this floor to the President for his
signature.
We have today with respect to this disability legislation twice the
inherent support in terms of numbers of Senators, and it also has grassroots
support with more than 100 groups endorsing this bill. This support runs the
gamut from advocacy groups for disabled Americans all the way to the
insurance industry. With this type of support, both within this Chamber and
across the country, we should be able to move this just as we moved the Ed-
Flex legislation a few months ago.
Also, I was pleased to note that in a May 28 edition of the Washington
Post, the majority leader indicated he was satisfied with the status of this
bill and ready to move to the floor. It is my hope we can adopt this
legislation, that we can bring it here, that we can debate it, and we can
move it forward. If we do so, we will be providing an opportunity for
disabled Americans all across this country to use their talents for their own
benefit and to contribute to the communities and to this Nation. That, I
think, is the essence of why we are here--for wise legislative policies that
allow Americans to use their talents to benefit themselves and this country.
I hope we adopt this very quickly. That means, of course, we schedule this
legislation; that we will, in fact, bring to the floor the Work Incentives
Improvement Act for a vote. If we do so, we will be doing the work we were
sent here to do by our constituents.
----------
End of Document
--
TNET Mail-To-News Gateway Version - 1.6
For information about this gateway email programs@tnet.com
